Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Nodes, governorship, friction, corruption and changing borders
AllYourBase
Member
I have a few questions and thoughts in regards to nodes, wondering whether they have already been discussed. If not, here's an opportunity to discuss some features more in dept. OBS: What's written here is only suggestions that may be entertained as food for thought and these thoughts are not supposed to be taken as "everything or nothing" but discussed separately or in relation to each other.
One thing on my mind is the macro aspect of the game. From what I have researched, nodes progress per the players activity in that node. But who can most accurately determine the future of the node? Is it the player with the most contributions? Is it the guild harbouring the players with the most contributions who decide? Is it powerful/royal npcs swayed by gold or even players themselves usurping the throne and deciding alone? These may all even differ at the start of the game.
As discussed before, there are many different views regarding what path a specific node should take, meaning it would only be natural for frictions to arise. Nodes should be able to fall apart and split into smaller ones, especially so early, allowing influential players or guilds to even create their own node if they want within an already existing node's territory. These nodes then evolve differently (adding governorship into this). Some nodes are ruled democratically through votes where everyone in that player may present their opinion, some by a single guild, some by a multitude of guilds, some by a single player, some by npcs (swayed by money?). The governorship of a node is decided during the creation of the node and may be changed later. The "weaker" styles of government will eventually die out as the other nodes in the primary node (de-jure) may wage wars to absorb the nodes that have broken off back into their, attempting a reconquista for the lost territories. Over time (say a year or so), nodes that have broken off may no longer be considered de-jure territory, making the other nodes lose their claims on the territory if not recaptured within that time. These nodes, however, should still be able to be fought over (just like other nodes outside the starting borders) but perhaps with stricter conditions since the natural claim is no longer there, making it a fullscale conquista instead.
Controlling a specific node, the "rulers" (let's say the guild controlling it) should then be able to divide it into sub-nodes if they so like. Think of it like a node (kingdom) divided into duchies that are divided into counties that are divided into baronies etc. The primary node is still the "kingdom" (or whatever the highest tier is for that node) but the sub-nodes within it (duchies, counties...) may be ruled by other guilds that operate somewhat independently while still being a part of the primary node, i.e being called to node wars as defending the node is their obligation. Their obligations are determined by node contracts and may be broken, possibly sparking internal rebellion (internal node wars) with consequences for the losing part.
Forging alliances with other nodes should also be possible. If Guild X controls a node and guild Y controls another, they might sign a contract preventing wars between the two nodes or even obligating the two to help each other in a) defensive wars b) offensive wars or c) both (depending on the agreement). Breaking the contract yields in X penalty.
Within these nodes, corrupted players creating a node may make it a bandit stronghold, recruiting brigades and other such players/npcs to their domain. These rogue nodes, however, may make for an easy target for outside aggression, perhaps because of lowered requirements to attack them. This would clearly be a rogue node's weak point while some interesting perks would be to give them access to brigade recruitment, higher loot drops, black-marked trades, etc. Another more civilized node may scheme to offer said rogue-node protection from outside aggression while in return gaining parts or even full benefit from the rogue node's perks as a bandit stronghold, creating for an interesting relationship between corrupt nodes and other nodes scheming to protect them while also being "secretly" corrupt.
These are just some loose thoughts on my mind. Why do I bring them out? Because while the game is great on the MMORPG-side, what truly enables it to shine and stand out in the dynamic world is the complex macro-level / grand strategy relations that allow the game to operate on a political and diplomatic level never seen before.
One thing on my mind is the macro aspect of the game. From what I have researched, nodes progress per the players activity in that node. But who can most accurately determine the future of the node? Is it the player with the most contributions? Is it the guild harbouring the players with the most contributions who decide? Is it powerful/royal npcs swayed by gold or even players themselves usurping the throne and deciding alone? These may all even differ at the start of the game.
As discussed before, there are many different views regarding what path a specific node should take, meaning it would only be natural for frictions to arise. Nodes should be able to fall apart and split into smaller ones, especially so early, allowing influential players or guilds to even create their own node if they want within an already existing node's territory. These nodes then evolve differently (adding governorship into this). Some nodes are ruled democratically through votes where everyone in that player may present their opinion, some by a single guild, some by a multitude of guilds, some by a single player, some by npcs (swayed by money?). The governorship of a node is decided during the creation of the node and may be changed later. The "weaker" styles of government will eventually die out as the other nodes in the primary node (de-jure) may wage wars to absorb the nodes that have broken off back into their, attempting a reconquista for the lost territories. Over time (say a year or so), nodes that have broken off may no longer be considered de-jure territory, making the other nodes lose their claims on the territory if not recaptured within that time. These nodes, however, should still be able to be fought over (just like other nodes outside the starting borders) but perhaps with stricter conditions since the natural claim is no longer there, making it a fullscale conquista instead.
Controlling a specific node, the "rulers" (let's say the guild controlling it) should then be able to divide it into sub-nodes if they so like. Think of it like a node (kingdom) divided into duchies that are divided into counties that are divided into baronies etc. The primary node is still the "kingdom" (or whatever the highest tier is for that node) but the sub-nodes within it (duchies, counties...) may be ruled by other guilds that operate somewhat independently while still being a part of the primary node, i.e being called to node wars as defending the node is their obligation. Their obligations are determined by node contracts and may be broken, possibly sparking internal rebellion (internal node wars) with consequences for the losing part.
Forging alliances with other nodes should also be possible. If Guild X controls a node and guild Y controls another, they might sign a contract preventing wars between the two nodes or even obligating the two to help each other in a) defensive wars b) offensive wars or c) both (depending on the agreement). Breaking the contract yields in X penalty.
Within these nodes, corrupted players creating a node may make it a bandit stronghold, recruiting brigades and other such players/npcs to their domain. These rogue nodes, however, may make for an easy target for outside aggression, perhaps because of lowered requirements to attack them. This would clearly be a rogue node's weak point while some interesting perks would be to give them access to brigade recruitment, higher loot drops, black-marked trades, etc. Another more civilized node may scheme to offer said rogue-node protection from outside aggression while in return gaining parts or even full benefit from the rogue node's perks as a bandit stronghold, creating for an interesting relationship between corrupt nodes and other nodes scheming to protect them while also being "secretly" corrupt.
These are just some loose thoughts on my mind. Why do I bring them out? Because while the game is great on the MMORPG-side, what truly enables it to shine and stand out in the dynamic world is the complex macro-level / grand strategy relations that allow the game to operate on a political and diplomatic level never seen before.
0
Comments
Nodes can have trade agreements and, iirc, become allies.
Corruption isn't meant to be a gameplay style. It's a penalty for those who murder pacifistic people.
Even Economic nodes COULD be turned into 'Democratic' Nodes if you could trust your politician to not run off with the coin you give them to make sure they win the election.
The sub-nodes are not specifically required, because you can think of it in the other way. It is highly likely that two adjacent nodes will have many of the same players developing them at first, and one just becomes a Vassal of the other. So Node A also 'controls' the surrounding nodes as long as all players involved are okay with that, and then if problems arise, and this coalition breaks up, then the 'sub-nodes' would actually be regular ones with the chance to change the actual landscape directly.
We also have some indication that there may be ways for a collection of 'bandits' to form together and place Freeholds somewhat close together in the Zone of Influence of a Node, which MAY be a way to 'create a bandit camp' of players, but this is subject to a lot of currently untested things.
For a Religious Node, it will be the player character with the highest Religious influence in the region.
In a Military Node, it will be the player character with the most Arena wins.
In a Scientific Node it will be the person voted by the majority of citizens.
Scientific Nodes are the most democratic.
Nope. Verra is signficantly more feudal than that.
Nodes can form alliances. I would expect breaking contracts to include penalties.