Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
How often will a node be sieged? (Warning: Includes math)
tautau
Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
Quick answer: Not as often as you expect.
We know sieges will happen monthly. We know that there will be 5 castles and 103 node locations. We know that servers are planned for either 8,000 or 10,000 concurrent users.
Let's start with concurrent users on a healthy server. Sieges are planned to handle 250 attackers and 250 defenders (500 players) and might grow to 500 vs 500, but let's start with the 250 v 250. IF we say 10,000 users are on the server and 80% participate in the sieges (though both numbers may well be lower), then 8,000 players will be sieging. Is it reasonable to assume that the castle sieges will be the biggest draw? Then five castle sieges drawing up to 500 players each could absorb 2,500 of the sieging players, leaving 5,500 for nodes, which is still a lot. On a higher population server with developed cities, can we then assume that the next siege targets will probably be the five metropolis or largest cities? Those five sieges could draw 500 players each, which is another 2,500 players leaving maybe 2,000 players to fight other node sieges.
If the node is fully developed, there are 103 nodes. Less the five metro/large city nodes being sieged above, that is 98 more nodes split between 2000 sieging players...about 20 players per node to attack and defend! Do you agree we are unlikely to see sieges of 10 vs 10 often? So, of those 98 other nodes, how many will be sieged? Choose your own number, I'll go with one in ten.
Where does this leave us? All five castles sieged, great fun. The five largest nodes sieged, great fun. Ten or a dozen other nodes sieged, great fun. 90 of the 103 nodes not sieged in any given month, which means each node (with the exception of the largest ones) will likely be sieged only once or twice a year. Good diplomacy, competent mayors, healthy guilds, and other factors could decrease that more. Consider further that there is no guarantee a siege will succeed, shall we say that half will, half won't? Therefore, if you have an apartment or freehold in a moderate sized and well governed node, you can hope to go a couple of years without ever losing your housing.
Yes, those calculations required quite a few assumptions on my part. If siege participation is less than 80% or if server population is less than 10,000 concurrent users, then the chances of a node being sieged are even lower. But if sieges end up tending to be smaller than 250 vs 250 players, then the odds of a node being sieged is higher, but the number of attackers lower which might make the static defenses comparatively more effective, decreasing the odds of a losing siege. If the sieges end up being 500 vs 500 (how fun!), the castle sieges will probably pull more players to them leaving less for node sieges, making node sieges even rarer.
******************
The above example was based on the assumption of a high population, fully developed server with all nodes siegable. That will not always be the case. What if we have a server which averages 5,000 concurrent users, a low population server. If we still get 80% siege participation, that is 4,000 participants in the sieges. Again, is it fair to assume that the five castles will be the biggest draw, on average, for the battles? If each castle has a 250 vs 250 siege, that would be 5 x 500 or 2,500 players, leaving just 1,500 to do all the node sieges.
But on a server like that, there will be less developed nodes to siege. How many will there be? My speculation becomes less sure here. Maybe there are four largest nodes, perhaps cities rather than metropolis. Each of those four cities has three vassal towns and each town has three vassal villages, which would be 12 towns and 36 villages. If we assume that the four largest nodes are the prime ones to attack, since that is where the rich loot resides, then those four sieges cannot each be 250 vs 250 (requiring 2,000 players) since only 1,500 players remain. So, the castle nodes fights will likely be less than 250 vs 250 as will the node siege fights. But the point here is that it could turn out to be rare that many of the 12 towns or 36 villages will be sieged in any given month! Again, it could be one in ten, or less, each month. We end up with the same situation on lower population servers than we did on full servers, only castles and large nodes may expect frequent sieges, the small towns and villages may see a siege every six months or less. They will win perhaps half of those, so again a healthy smaller node will seldom suffer defeat.
The larger nodes will be sieged and defeated more often, allowing the smaller nodes to grow and replace them, which is exactly what the game design intends.
Yes, I have made quite a few assumptions and I welcome improvements and other methodologies.
We know sieges will happen monthly. We know that there will be 5 castles and 103 node locations. We know that servers are planned for either 8,000 or 10,000 concurrent users.
Let's start with concurrent users on a healthy server. Sieges are planned to handle 250 attackers and 250 defenders (500 players) and might grow to 500 vs 500, but let's start with the 250 v 250. IF we say 10,000 users are on the server and 80% participate in the sieges (though both numbers may well be lower), then 8,000 players will be sieging. Is it reasonable to assume that the castle sieges will be the biggest draw? Then five castle sieges drawing up to 500 players each could absorb 2,500 of the sieging players, leaving 5,500 for nodes, which is still a lot. On a higher population server with developed cities, can we then assume that the next siege targets will probably be the five metropolis or largest cities? Those five sieges could draw 500 players each, which is another 2,500 players leaving maybe 2,000 players to fight other node sieges.
If the node is fully developed, there are 103 nodes. Less the five metro/large city nodes being sieged above, that is 98 more nodes split between 2000 sieging players...about 20 players per node to attack and defend! Do you agree we are unlikely to see sieges of 10 vs 10 often? So, of those 98 other nodes, how many will be sieged? Choose your own number, I'll go with one in ten.
Where does this leave us? All five castles sieged, great fun. The five largest nodes sieged, great fun. Ten or a dozen other nodes sieged, great fun. 90 of the 103 nodes not sieged in any given month, which means each node (with the exception of the largest ones) will likely be sieged only once or twice a year. Good diplomacy, competent mayors, healthy guilds, and other factors could decrease that more. Consider further that there is no guarantee a siege will succeed, shall we say that half will, half won't? Therefore, if you have an apartment or freehold in a moderate sized and well governed node, you can hope to go a couple of years without ever losing your housing.
Yes, those calculations required quite a few assumptions on my part. If siege participation is less than 80% or if server population is less than 10,000 concurrent users, then the chances of a node being sieged are even lower. But if sieges end up tending to be smaller than 250 vs 250 players, then the odds of a node being sieged is higher, but the number of attackers lower which might make the static defenses comparatively more effective, decreasing the odds of a losing siege. If the sieges end up being 500 vs 500 (how fun!), the castle sieges will probably pull more players to them leaving less for node sieges, making node sieges even rarer.
******************
The above example was based on the assumption of a high population, fully developed server with all nodes siegable. That will not always be the case. What if we have a server which averages 5,000 concurrent users, a low population server. If we still get 80% siege participation, that is 4,000 participants in the sieges. Again, is it fair to assume that the five castles will be the biggest draw, on average, for the battles? If each castle has a 250 vs 250 siege, that would be 5 x 500 or 2,500 players, leaving just 1,500 to do all the node sieges.
But on a server like that, there will be less developed nodes to siege. How many will there be? My speculation becomes less sure here. Maybe there are four largest nodes, perhaps cities rather than metropolis. Each of those four cities has three vassal towns and each town has three vassal villages, which would be 12 towns and 36 villages. If we assume that the four largest nodes are the prime ones to attack, since that is where the rich loot resides, then those four sieges cannot each be 250 vs 250 (requiring 2,000 players) since only 1,500 players remain. So, the castle nodes fights will likely be less than 250 vs 250 as will the node siege fights. But the point here is that it could turn out to be rare that many of the 12 towns or 36 villages will be sieged in any given month! Again, it could be one in ten, or less, each month. We end up with the same situation on lower population servers than we did on full servers, only castles and large nodes may expect frequent sieges, the small towns and villages may see a siege every six months or less. They will win perhaps half of those, so again a healthy smaller node will seldom suffer defeat.
The larger nodes will be sieged and defeated more often, allowing the smaller nodes to grow and replace them, which is exactly what the game design intends.
Yes, I have made quite a few assumptions and I welcome improvements and other methodologies.
0
Comments
I don't need to do any math to expect cooldowns mean people will be able to participate in a siege somewhere on the server a few times per month.
Larger Nodes have longer cooldowns.
While we know sieges will happen during prime time, if they can happen any day or most days, then my calculations are wrong. Allowing sieges to be staggered on different days would certainly make sense for server load issues, player participation, and other reasons, so I expect that is how it will be.
Good catch Noaani and Dygz, thanks. TT
The systems as proposed will make doing sieges everyday or weekly difficult but not impossible on a server wide scale. We don't know the true cost of resources to acquire the scroll necessary to kick off a siege.
I do however agree with the over all premise. I don't think they will be as common as some people hope/fear. Sure some people just want to watch the world burn but I think the majority of the people will prefer the Ikea nesting route. They will build and hunker down vs roaming hoards constantly trying to change the map. I could be wrong.
After that if a Node is sieged it either wins or loses.
If it loses, that's it no more node.
If it wins, it gets 20-50 days grace (protection) from being sieged again. It is 10 times the declaration period:
2 days for Stage 3 through 5 days for Stage 6.
My estimate, is once the game goes live and guilds & nodes have reached sufficient size, there will be some frequent sieges for the experience and entered into with little consideration for the consequences.
However as the lands establish then the sieging will become more strategic and political with agreements to not siege or trade of domains settled behind closed doors financially, by alliances, war or by trade outside.
Once there is a measure of benefit to keep or obtain is better quantified, which can only happen over time and evolution of the game, then the frequency will level out... and that also goes for capability to make action to defend or attack.
I hope they do allow concurrent sieges as then the choice of who to defend/attack also becomes more political and strategic.
L2 early game we sieged as a matter of course for fun, later there were deals done to trade castle ownership Early game we did not know just how much money a guild could make from ownership so cared little, end game we wanted the castles for additional wealth building.. But there were guilds so strong that sieging was pointless for the best castles and so the minor ones that they cared not so much about were frequently contested and changing handed by agreement and sly tactics. I hope to see some repetition of similar
and
"Declaring a node siege
Node sieges are declared directly by any player[10] who completes the prerequisites for the siege initiation.[11] Sieges are started via a siege scroll, which is acquired through a quest that scales in difficulty with respect to the level of the node. A substantial investment is required to attain the siege scroll.[12][2][13]"
These are certainly subject to interpretation, but if successfully sieging a node takes time and resources similar to that of creating the node, it seems like it will be a major undertaking requiring a lot of players time and energy. We know a single player cannot raise a node to village, much less to town or city. It seems doubtful that a single guild can do it, either.
It appears to me that this would make node sieges more rare, especially sieges of larger nodes.
Successful sieges of large nodes may well be quite rare.
I would wager we will see nodes being sieges most days, on most servers.
The attackers may not have a chance to win (and may be in concert with the node leadership in order to trigger the immunity), but if you are a random player wandering the world looking for sieges to participate in, you will find them often.
You can only be a citizen of one node per account. Your alts can’t be citizens of other nodes to declare war on the node. Not unless you’re willing to buy extra accounts and if so, sheesh. What an incredible waste of money.
You don't need to be a citizen to join in a siege though. All it takes is one person to declare it, and the rest fill up the gaps.
I expect this to happen.
It is hard to say how often, but I expect it to happen.
It does involve some risk, but less risk than not doing it.
The thing that dictates how often it will happen is how much a siege declaration costs. There is no need to be concerned with how much a siege as a whole costs, because there won't be a siege as such
Getting the siege scroll is a massive undertaking in and of itself. It will require a lot of work at the behest of the citizens of that node if they want to pull that trick.
Secondly, and more importantly, anyone can sign up as attackers. Nodes trying to do this are essentially handing their enemies an open invite, for free, to come and destroy the node. There is absolutely nothing stopping 1000 players from an enemy kingdom or competing metropolis showing up.
However, if that is a substantial investment from the perspective of an individual player (scrolls are obtained by individual players), then it isn't much at all from the perspective of a node.
We'll just have to see how this ends up being in game, but I do expect it to happen.
Here’s the issue then. An announcement server-wide goes out that a siege is beginning. Anyone can join the attack and the person who declared the siege can’t prevent them. You can set up a fake siege to try to get immunity for your node, get a ton of opportunists to join, and now you have a real siege. And if too many people join, your nose is destroyed. Would you risk destruction for a temporary immunity? That doesn’t seem worth it.
That’s as sensible as a person getting sick from a deadly illness on purpose in the hopes of getting immunity to it in the future.
You’re better off just forming alliances with other nodes and stocking up enough resources to be able to afford to defend your node if sieged.
That doesn't stop all the other alliances from also coming to actually try to destroy the node. There is no upper limit.
I suppose you could try and get so many players that the entire server crashes. If that becomes a thing I hope the devs make some countermeasures though.
They can't. Citizens of allied nodes can't register to attack. (They aren't automatically registered as defenders the way that citizens of the sieged node and citizens of vassal nodes are, but they can't participate in the attack either.)
This is the part that is the risk, and is also the reason why I think Intrepid will leave this in as being possible.
However, a few hundred random people turning up to a siege with no organization or leadership is likely not going to go all that well.
They may find leadership and get organized, of course, but that is the risk. You will still need to be prepared to defend your node if you do this, you are just likely defending it from a smaller, less organized force.
I’ll repeat what I said before; if you are concerned about your node being sieged, rather than go through a risky, expensive, and convoluted attempt to game the system for a temporary immunity, just save up enough resources that if a real siege occurs you can afford to build defenses. That’s the best way to do it.
Node sieges don't have the same limit as castle sieges. How they are going to handle that we don't know yet.
And yeah, they can try to cheat the system, but an organized enemy alliance could prepare in the days before the siege and show bright and early in numbers and with all the siege stuff they can put together. They won't be locked out at 250 players or anything like that, as far as we currently know. There is no sign-up as the attacker.
But that "massive" undertaking depend on the stage of the node. So a siege on a small backwater place initiated by an organization with a large number of people may not be as massive an undertaking as we think.
Big guy smashing small flies may make sieges more common and far less fun than we think. Squash them early and squash them often for dominance.
Yes, getting the resources to squash a village should be a fairly easy task for a metropolis sized opponent, no doubt. Unless the king of the region rallies the troops and defends that village. Or if the parent town and their parent city and their parent metropolis does the same, because they all benefit from that village in the end, and are weakened by the enemy taking out the lower tier vassals.
Diplomacy and politics could be huge in this game
Nodes don't declare sieges. Guilds do:
https://www.ashes101.com/nodesieges.php
How can you stop people from declaring on their own node?
Simple, Guilds do not control who can join a Node Siege. Unlike a Siege Declaration Flag which can only be dropped by the Guild leader, and then that Guild Leader has to authorize people to participate in the siege; the moment you drop a declaration flag on a Node it becomes open season for anyone to register as an attacker and try to siege the Node.
However, there are node wars, but they are a different thing:
https://www.ashes101.com/nodewars.php
- Caravan PvP to disrupt the node's business
- gathering resources from the other node's immediate vicinity (but don't kill their mobs)
- sabotaging node development tasks
- charm offensive on the opposing node citizens to get them to jump ship
- getting "your guy" into the opposing node's mayoral selection process to waste resources for a month.
Can anyone think of more?
Remember the friendly node competition rules: no gouging unless it's to the eyes, no elbows unless it's to the throat, no knees unless it's to the groin....