Veeshan wrote: » So i have a small concern of how we keep smaller nodes relevant aka village and town nodes. I feel most players are gonna live out of the metropolis or city nodes due to having more access to things such as crafting benches and AH and things like that alot of people will neglect smaller nodes which we kinda saw in New world where people only realy upgraded the 2 middle towns where all the other kinda got neglected because there was nothing there for them realy. I feel ashes has the potential to go the same way.
Atama wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » So i have a small concern of how we keep smaller nodes relevant aka village and town nodes. I feel most players are gonna live out of the metropolis or city nodes due to having more access to things such as crafting benches and AH and things like that alot of people will neglect smaller nodes which we kinda saw in New world where people only realy upgraded the 2 middle towns where all the other kinda got neglected because there was nothing there for them realy. I feel ashes has the potential to go the same way. Did you know that nodes have a citizenship cap? People are going to become citizens of smaller nodes if they want to be a citizen at all. Otherwise, the whole node system won't work. They need to have citizens in smaller nodes who will work to make their nodes better, and the only way to improve your node over an adjacent higher-level node is for that other node to be brought down. That will fuel the conflict between nodes. Otherwise, every player will just stay in the biggest nodes with the most benefits and the smaller nodes will be ghost towns, and the whole node system will be stagnant. Your concern has not only been addressed, but the entire way the node system works will require your concern to not be happening in the game.
Azherae wrote: » Atama wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » So i have a small concern of how we keep smaller nodes relevant aka village and town nodes. I feel most players are gonna live out of the metropolis or city nodes due to having more access to things such as crafting benches and AH and things like that alot of people will neglect smaller nodes which we kinda saw in New world where people only realy upgraded the 2 middle towns where all the other kinda got neglected because there was nothing there for them realy. I feel ashes has the potential to go the same way. Did you know that nodes have a citizenship cap? People are going to become citizens of smaller nodes if they want to be a citizen at all. Otherwise, the whole node system won't work. They need to have citizens in smaller nodes who will work to make their nodes better, and the only way to improve your node over an adjacent higher-level node is for that other node to be brought down. That will fuel the conflict between nodes. Otherwise, every player will just stay in the biggest nodes with the most benefits and the smaller nodes will be ghost towns, and the whole node system will be stagnant. Your concern has not only been addressed, but the entire way the node system works will require your concern to not be happening in the game. Why does anyone want to be a citizen of a node exactly, though? Because all I see is this stuff. While I'm sure some of it is relatively important to above-average players, I don't see anything here that would cause the average or more casual player to live outside the biggest node they can find. Which one of these do I not understand?
Veeshan wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Atama wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » So i have a small concern of how we keep smaller nodes relevant aka village and town nodes. I feel most players are gonna live out of the metropolis or city nodes due to having more access to things such as crafting benches and AH and things like that alot of people will neglect smaller nodes which we kinda saw in New world where people only realy upgraded the 2 middle towns where all the other kinda got neglected because there was nothing there for them realy. I feel ashes has the potential to go the same way. Did you know that nodes have a citizenship cap? People are going to become citizens of smaller nodes if they want to be a citizen at all. Otherwise, the whole node system won't work. They need to have citizens in smaller nodes who will work to make their nodes better, and the only way to improve your node over an adjacent higher-level node is for that other node to be brought down. That will fuel the conflict between nodes. Otherwise, every player will just stay in the biggest nodes with the most benefits and the smaller nodes will be ghost towns, and the whole node system will be stagnant. Your concern has not only been addressed, but the entire way the node system works will require your concern to not be happening in the game. Why does anyone want to be a citizen of a node exactly, though? Because all I see is this stuff. While I'm sure some of it is relatively important to above-average players, I don't see anything here that would cause the average or more casual player to live outside the biggest node they can find. Which one of these do I not understand? I dont see why i would want to be in a smaller node when it has half the building i could possible need where a high level node would probaly have most if not all building needed. If anything casual would want to be in largest node they can get so they dont have to fluff around with running to one town to smelt then running to another town to craft and so on or running to the capital of the region to use the trading post then running back again (Assuming not in commercial metropolis
Atama wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Atama wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » So i have a small concern of how we keep smaller nodes relevant aka village and town nodes. I feel most players are gonna live out of the metropolis or city nodes due to having more access to things such as crafting benches and AH and things like that alot of people will neglect smaller nodes which we kinda saw in New world where people only realy upgraded the 2 middle towns where all the other kinda got neglected because there was nothing there for them realy. I feel ashes has the potential to go the same way. Did you know that nodes have a citizenship cap? People are going to become citizens of smaller nodes if they want to be a citizen at all. Otherwise, the whole node system won't work. They need to have citizens in smaller nodes who will work to make their nodes better, and the only way to improve your node over an adjacent higher-level node is for that other node to be brought down. That will fuel the conflict between nodes. Otherwise, every player will just stay in the biggest nodes with the most benefits and the smaller nodes will be ghost towns, and the whole node system will be stagnant. Your concern has not only been addressed, but the entire way the node system works will require your concern to not be happening in the game. Why does anyone want to be a citizen of a node exactly, though? Because all I see is this stuff. While I'm sure some of it is relatively important to above-average players, I don't see anything here that would cause the average or more casual player to live outside the biggest node they can find. Which one of these do I not understand? Looking at that list, anyone that isn't a citizen is probably gimped. Understanding the psychology of the average player, who often will go to great lengths for minor upgrades, I expect it's going to be rare for a player to decide to ignore citizenship. It looks like it will lock you out from advancing crafting at the high levels, from being able to fully enhance your gear, or increase your stats. It's not just about titles and cosmetic fluff. You are not going to be as strong as a citizen. I expect that citizenship is going to be a given as an advancement path for all but the most casual of players. Steven has been very explicit that he considers node citizenship to be the most important kind of allegiance that a player can have in the game, even more important than guild membership. Their systems are designed with that philosophy in mind. If Ashes is to be successful, they're going to need to make citizenship attractive. The node-vs-node conflict is the engine of change in this game, and they're going to need people to care about nodes for that to matter. If citizenship is just something that a minority of players care about, then nodes will probably stagnate.
Azherae wrote: » Atama wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Atama wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » So i have a small concern of how we keep smaller nodes relevant aka village and town nodes. I feel most players are gonna live out of the metropolis or city nodes due to having more access to things such as crafting benches and AH and things like that alot of people will neglect smaller nodes which we kinda saw in New world where people only realy upgraded the 2 middle towns where all the other kinda got neglected because there was nothing there for them realy. I feel ashes has the potential to go the same way. Did you know that nodes have a citizenship cap? People are going to become citizens of smaller nodes if they want to be a citizen at all. Otherwise, the whole node system won't work. They need to have citizens in smaller nodes who will work to make their nodes better, and the only way to improve your node over an adjacent higher-level node is for that other node to be brought down. That will fuel the conflict between nodes. Otherwise, every player will just stay in the biggest nodes with the most benefits and the smaller nodes will be ghost towns, and the whole node system will be stagnant. Your concern has not only been addressed, but the entire way the node system works will require your concern to not be happening in the game. Why does anyone want to be a citizen of a node exactly, though? Because all I see is this stuff. While I'm sure some of it is relatively important to above-average players, I don't see anything here that would cause the average or more casual player to live outside the biggest node they can find. Which one of these do I not understand? Looking at that list, anyone that isn't a citizen is probably gimped. Understanding the psychology of the average player, who often will go to great lengths for minor upgrades, I expect it's going to be rare for a player to decide to ignore citizenship. It looks like it will lock you out from advancing crafting at the high levels, from being able to fully enhance your gear, or increase your stats. It's not just about titles and cosmetic fluff. You are not going to be as strong as a citizen. I expect that citizenship is going to be a given as an advancement path for all but the most casual of players. Steven has been very explicit that he considers node citizenship to be the most important kind of allegiance that a player can have in the game, even more important than guild membership. Their systems are designed with that philosophy in mind. If Ashes is to be successful, they're going to need to make citizenship attractive. The node-vs-node conflict is the engine of change in this game, and they're going to need people to care about nodes for that to matter. If citizenship is just something that a minority of players care about, then nodes will probably stagnate. Well, seems we have similar thoughts on 'what may happen one way or the other', but widely differing expectations on what it will do and how important it will actually be. I don't expect it to be possible for more than 70% of players to be Citizens of nodes, and therefore I also don't expect 'not being a Citizen' to have a very large effect on a player's ability to participate in content that isn't based around core Node stuff. Intrepid could make it so that 'there are significant downsides in general play for not being a Citizen', but then would face the 'discomfort' of all the players who can't achieve Citizenship because of how Nodes are built.
bloodprophet wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Atama wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Atama wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » So i have a small concern of how we keep smaller nodes relevant aka village and town nodes. I feel most players are gonna live out of the metropolis or city nodes due to having more access to things such as crafting benches and AH and things like that alot of people will neglect smaller nodes which we kinda saw in New world where people only realy upgraded the 2 middle towns where all the other kinda got neglected because there was nothing there for them realy. I feel ashes has the potential to go the same way. Did you know that nodes have a citizenship cap? People are going to become citizens of smaller nodes if they want to be a citizen at all. Otherwise, the whole node system won't work. They need to have citizens in smaller nodes who will work to make their nodes better, and the only way to improve your node over an adjacent higher-level node is for that other node to be brought down. That will fuel the conflict between nodes. Otherwise, every player will just stay in the biggest nodes with the most benefits and the smaller nodes will be ghost towns, and the whole node system will be stagnant. Your concern has not only been addressed, but the entire way the node system works will require your concern to not be happening in the game. Why does anyone want to be a citizen of a node exactly, though? Because all I see is this stuff. While I'm sure some of it is relatively important to above-average players, I don't see anything here that would cause the average or more casual player to live outside the biggest node they can find. Which one of these do I not understand? Looking at that list, anyone that isn't a citizen is probably gimped. Understanding the psychology of the average player, who often will go to great lengths for minor upgrades, I expect it's going to be rare for a player to decide to ignore citizenship. It looks like it will lock you out from advancing crafting at the high levels, from being able to fully enhance your gear, or increase your stats. It's not just about titles and cosmetic fluff. You are not going to be as strong as a citizen. I expect that citizenship is going to be a given as an advancement path for all but the most casual of players. Steven has been very explicit that he considers node citizenship to be the most important kind of allegiance that a player can have in the game, even more important than guild membership. Their systems are designed with that philosophy in mind. If Ashes is to be successful, they're going to need to make citizenship attractive. The node-vs-node conflict is the engine of change in this game, and they're going to need people to care about nodes for that to matter. If citizenship is just something that a minority of players care about, then nodes will probably stagnate. Well, seems we have similar thoughts on 'what may happen one way or the other', but widely differing expectations on what it will do and how important it will actually be. I don't expect it to be possible for more than 70% of players to be Citizens of nodes, and therefore I also don't expect 'not being a Citizen' to have a very large effect on a player's ability to participate in content that isn't based around core Node stuff. Intrepid could make it so that 'there are significant downsides in general play for not being a Citizen', but then would face the 'discomfort' of all the players who can't achieve Citizenship because of how Nodes are built. And that is when we get siege's. I think having access to housing and storage will be a driving factor towards citizenship as well. Some players will not want to be part of a large city same as in the real world. Maybe some will want to place a freehold into a specific environment type or at/near an important crossroads. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Azherae wrote: » bloodprophet wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Atama wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Atama wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » So i have a small concern of how we keep smaller nodes relevant aka village and town nodes. I feel most players are gonna live out of the metropolis or city nodes due to having more access to things such as crafting benches and AH and things like that alot of people will neglect smaller nodes which we kinda saw in New world where people only realy upgraded the 2 middle towns where all the other kinda got neglected because there was nothing there for them realy. I feel ashes has the potential to go the same way. Did you know that nodes have a citizenship cap? People are going to become citizens of smaller nodes if they want to be a citizen at all. Otherwise, the whole node system won't work. They need to have citizens in smaller nodes who will work to make their nodes better, and the only way to improve your node over an adjacent higher-level node is for that other node to be brought down. That will fuel the conflict between nodes. Otherwise, every player will just stay in the biggest nodes with the most benefits and the smaller nodes will be ghost towns, and the whole node system will be stagnant. Your concern has not only been addressed, but the entire way the node system works will require your concern to not be happening in the game. Why does anyone want to be a citizen of a node exactly, though? Because all I see is this stuff. While I'm sure some of it is relatively important to above-average players, I don't see anything here that would cause the average or more casual player to live outside the biggest node they can find. Which one of these do I not understand? Looking at that list, anyone that isn't a citizen is probably gimped. Understanding the psychology of the average player, who often will go to great lengths for minor upgrades, I expect it's going to be rare for a player to decide to ignore citizenship. It looks like it will lock you out from advancing crafting at the high levels, from being able to fully enhance your gear, or increase your stats. It's not just about titles and cosmetic fluff. You are not going to be as strong as a citizen. I expect that citizenship is going to be a given as an advancement path for all but the most casual of players. Steven has been very explicit that he considers node citizenship to be the most important kind of allegiance that a player can have in the game, even more important than guild membership. Their systems are designed with that philosophy in mind. If Ashes is to be successful, they're going to need to make citizenship attractive. The node-vs-node conflict is the engine of change in this game, and they're going to need people to care about nodes for that to matter. If citizenship is just something that a minority of players care about, then nodes will probably stagnate. Well, seems we have similar thoughts on 'what may happen one way or the other', but widely differing expectations on what it will do and how important it will actually be. I don't expect it to be possible for more than 70% of players to be Citizens of nodes, and therefore I also don't expect 'not being a Citizen' to have a very large effect on a player's ability to participate in content that isn't based around core Node stuff. Intrepid could make it so that 'there are significant downsides in general play for not being a Citizen', but then would face the 'discomfort' of all the players who can't achieve Citizenship because of how Nodes are built. And that is when we get siege's. I think having access to housing and storage will be a driving factor towards citizenship as well. Some players will not want to be part of a large city same as in the real world. Maybe some will want to place a freehold into a specific environment type or at/near an important crossroads. Will be interesting to see how it plays out. I agree somewhat, but even so, that's adding even more 'irritation' of a specific type, to the game. If the benefits to being a Citizen are large enough that a bunch of non-citizens try to convince their Node to go to war so that it can get bigger to house them, but then the enemy node is destroyed, instantly making all of those players 'Homeless', i.e. not Citizens... Then you have a large set of players who went from 'having access to important buffs and so on' to, not only 'not having them', but 'scrambling to find a new place to become a Citizen of in order to regain them. I feel like the psychology part of this would be a negative, when compared to simply 'not making Citizenship overly required for progression outside of Node progression'.
Azherae wrote: » I don't expect it to be possible for more than 70% of players to be Citizens of nodes
Caww wrote: » 50,000 eventual players per server will let all nodes have relevance, if they can achieve that kind of subscription rate.
