Wild Speculation: Gatherer Pvp

So I was just sitting here relaxing, slamming down some chicken for dinner and listening to Narc's latest video: "Ashes of Creations Most IMPORTANT Reveal is FINALLY Coming!!". Suddenly though I had a thought spark after Steven mentioned that you need to be careful how you harvest an area. Land management will be important and if done poorly an area will suffer and degrade.

Do you see where I am going with this? For those that do not, what I am speculating might happen is players will migrate into enemy territory specifically to harvest and degrade their lands resources. With a coordinated "offensive" you could potentially cause heavy damage to the stability of an enemy node.
This could birth a whole meta around establishing who is from where when it comes to gathering, and might even cause players to attack and drive off "unknown" gatherers from their nodes. Now I am not sure if gathering will provide exp to the node its done in but even then if the drawbacks to the degradation of the land is greater than the exp gain it would be worth using tactically.

Lol at the end of the day, it's just speculation but It would certainly be interesting if this was how it will work.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ludullu

This is exactly why I'm expecting to see node citizenship in player nameplates, which will in turn lead to default "factions" where if you PK a dude from a different node people from your node might not hunt you down.

Also, Intrepid said that any action that gives XP of any sort will level up nodes, so I'd imagine that gathering does that too. But, while you're leveling up their node for them, you'll be taking away their resources and potentially removing some spawns of those resources for whatever period of time Intrepid deems necessary.

This would definitely lead to more soft friction between players and has a huge potential for scheming and machinations. And if what I said in the first paragraph works out as I think it will, we'll have ourselves protected gatherers that will be pushed to fight for their resources on their nodes and an optional "pvp" action of going to another node to aggressively gather stuff there.

Abarat

YES. That is the whole point. when you go into dangerous areas (pvp) you gain significant value/reward.

Land management is a way to direct traffic. Steven is a player... he will force us together as best he can.

ITS THE WHOLE POINT.

I am fairly massively excited about this.

CROW3

I think you’ll see the wholesale slaughter of that node’s gatherers first, whether by the competing node’s PvP gatherers or strong PvPers.

Just player nature.

Veeshan

Also devalues harvesting close to metrapolis due to amoutn of people around those area the resource will be heavuly harvested which also means people will go out further to harvest then caravan them back in to sell/use

Arya_Yeshe

What? Over harvesting will degrade the area?
This is truly amazing!

I won't have to gank people now, this is really good.
Now I can just play wars and sieges and sea stuff.

Dolyem

It would give even more reason to not do PVE servers so I like it.

Strevi

I made a post related to this topic some time ago.
I don't like the fact that players who try to harvest resources on the teritory of another node are protected by the corruption system.
Also own citizens might harvest more and cause the land degradation. Some might even be bots.
This game mechanic while highlights the gatherer's greed and is an incentive to kill them, the killing comes too late, after the act of harvesting occurred.

Ideally players should have the possibility to vote for a node policy and enforce who should have the rights to harvest. Don't just come and say "Be greatful that I help your node get xp. Give me the resources."

Arya_Yeshe

Strevi wrote: »

I made a post related to this topic some time ago.
I don't like the fact that players who try to harvest resources on the teritory of another node are protected by the corruption system.
Also own citizens might harvest more and cause the land degradation. Some might even be bots.
This game mechanic while highlights the gatherer's greed and is an incentive to kill them, the killing comes too late, after the act of harvesting occurred.

Ideally players should have the possibility to vote for a node policy and enforce who should have the rights to harvest. Don't just come and say "Be greatful that I help your node get xp. Give me the resources."

Yeah, Corruption kinda prevents people from defending resources, but if they farm in your node they will upgrade your node if you are not a vassal.

But if a pack of people come from somewhere else, it's probably from the master node and you will be probably a vassal and then your node is level capped....!!

So you will have to do guild wars and kill at least the gatheres who are at war with you.

My idea was that the citizens could vote for changing the node's deity, let's say that in AoC there's a Baal demon who can be worshiped and you could give your corruption as an offering to him once a week or so... people from another node who are in your node. Stuff like that... for now what we have is that military nodes will be able to wash corruption faster.

Arya_Yeshe

Sathrago wrote: »

So I was just sitting here relaxing, slamming down some chicken for dinner and listening to Narc's latest video: "Ashes of Creations Most IMPORTANT Reveal is FINALLY Coming!!". Suddenly though I had a thought spark after Steven mentioned that you need to be careful how you harvest an area. Land management will be important and if done poorly an area will suffer and degrade.

Do you see where I am going with this? For those that do not, what I am speculating might happen is players will migrate into enemy territory specifically to harvest and degrade their lands resources. With a coordinated "offensive" you could potentially cause heavy damage to the stability of an enemy node.
This could birth a whole meta around establishing who is from where when it comes to gathering, and might even cause players to attack and drive off "unknown" gatherers from their nodes. Now I am not sure if gathering will provide exp to the node its done in but even then if the drawbacks to the degradation of the land is greater than the exp gain it would be worth using tactically.

Lol at the end of the day, it's just speculation but It would certainly be interesting if this was how it will work.

Economical sabotage by harvesting could be a thing, I would do it, this kinda happens in EVE Online, but in EVE people mine the anomalies and mine all the ice and ore belts before the other corporations. Also in EVE, wormholers do some ninja mining and sneak into other people's wormholes and huff all their gas clouds as fast as possible and then run away. Gas and ice aren't always available, so people ninja mine the good stuff in your system. On highsec areas you can't do nothing except for suicide ganking them and then you die to the npcs... it is a thing!

In AoC you could do guild wars if you see that a specific guild from the other node is doing that, I know it's not enough, but it's a viable option on the table.

If you are in a master node then the generated xp caused by those trespassers will help you level your node, but if you are in a vassal node then these trespassers will just degrade your node's resources.

This is why CAREBEARS ruin all the games, they over farm stuff and force the companies to bend the knee to their relentless carebearing and demand safety everywhere so they can just farm stuff while being safe.

Dolyem

Strevi wrote: »

I made a post related to this topic some time ago.
I don't like the fact that players who try to harvest resources on the teritory of another node are protected by the corruption system.
Also own citizens might harvest more and cause the land degradation. Some might even be bots.
This game mechanic while highlights the gatherer's greed and is an incentive to kill them, the killing comes too late, after the act of harvesting occurred.

Ideally players should have the possibility to vote for a node policy and enforce who should have the rights to harvest. Don't just come and say "Be greatful that I help your node get xp. Give me the resources."

I mean, the corruption system kind of makes it better because they'll likely opt to not fight back which means they'll drop more of their resources that they were taking from your node. Could even work with your nodes bounty hunters by telling them who you are killing and likely be ignored as a potential kill for being corrupted if you're doing it to the benefit of the node. This is why I think a kill log for guilds and even for bounty tracking would be awesome. So and so is corrupted for killing Joe schmoe from.another node in your home ZOI? Cool, give him a pass for helping out the node.

Ludullu

Dolyem wrote: »

This is why I think a kill log for guilds and even for bounty tracking would be awesome. So and so is corrupted for killing Joe schmoe from.another node in your home ZOI? Cool, give him a pass for helping out the node.

I was just thinking about a linkable list of deaths and kills that you can always reference and link in chat. Someone PKed you? Link his name (which then shows a nameplate) to prove that you were killed by this person. You PKed someone from another node? Prove it by linking it to he people hunting you (if they're from your own node).

Though I haven't thought through the idea fully so I dunno what kind of exploits this kind of system could create.

Dolyem

NiKr wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

This is why I think a kill log for guilds and even for bounty tracking would be awesome. So and so is corrupted for killing Joe schmoe from.another node in your home ZOI? Cool, give him a pass for helping out the node.

I was just thinking about a linkable list of deaths and kills that you can always reference and link in chat. Someone PKed you? Link his name (which then shows a nameplate) to prove that you were killed by this person. You PKed someone from another node? Prove it by linking it to he people hunting you (if they're from your own node).

Though I haven't thought through the idea fully so I dunno what kind of exploits this kind of system could create.

Honestly I can't think of any exploits at the moment. It's just information for clarity.

Strevi

Dolyem wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

I made a post related to this topic some time ago.
I don't like the fact that players who try to harvest resources on the teritory of another node are protected by the corruption system.
Also own citizens might harvest more and cause the land degradation. Some might even be bots.
This game mechanic while highlights the gatherer's greed and is an incentive to kill them, the killing comes too late, after the act of harvesting occurred.

Ideally players should have the possibility to vote for a node policy and enforce who should have the rights to harvest. Don't just come and say "Be greatful that I help your node get xp. Give me the resources."

I mean, the corruption system kind of makes it better because they'll likely opt to not fight back which means they'll drop more of their resources that they were taking from your node. Could even work with your nodes bounty hunters by telling them who you are killing and likely be ignored as a potential kill for being corrupted if you're doing it to the benefit of the node. This is why I think a kill log for guilds and even for bounty tracking would be awesome. So and so is corrupted for killing Joe schmoe from.another node in your home ZOI? Cool, give him a pass for helping out the node.

If you kill them, you might not recover 100% of resources. You get corruption. And the land degradation was done.
Would be easier if own citizens would harvest them. But that is the point. If we can somehow convince own citizens to avoid over harvest resources, the foreign ones still do that.
Then own citizens will do that too because there is no reason to wait.

Voxtrium

I think it will be tough balancing out people overgrinding resources because they play the game for 1 hour a week and don't have a choice vs people who grind 8 hours a day 7 days a week. Still if they make the penalties harsh enough for over farming it could work.

Strevi

I'd say harvesting allowance should be obtained by paying first a fee.
That could encourage the gatherers to bring the resources to the local node too.
Different kind of permits could exist, for common abundant resources would be cheaper while the ones for rare resources would be more expensive.
The mayor would set these rates, separately for own citizens, allies and neutrals.
Then neutrals could still try to harvest and be smugglers, gaining more resources with the risk of being attacked and looted.
Having this permits would allow the game to know how to apply corruption too, to be more harsh or more lenient.
Nodes could even reward bringing resources from foreign nodes while those nodes would have policies to prevent that.

Ludullu

Voxtrium wrote: »

vs people who grind 8 hours a day 7 days a week

Dolyem

Strevi wrote: »

I'd say harvesting allowance should be obtained by paying first a fee.
That could encourage the gatherers to bring the resources to the local node too.
Different kind of permits could exist, for common abundant resources would be cheaper while the ones for rare resources would be more expensive.
The mayor would set these rates, separately for own citizens, allies and neutrals.
Then neutrals could still try to harvest and be smugglers, gaining more resources with the risk of being attacked and looted.
Having this permits would allow the game to know how to apply corruption too, to be more harsh or more lenient.
Nodes could even reward bringing resources from foreign nodes while those nodes would have policies to prevent that.

Permits? Going with a hard no on that one.

Strevi

Dolyem wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

I'd say harvesting allowance should be obtained by paying first a fee.
That could encourage the gatherers to bring the resources to the local node too.
Different kind of permits could exist, for common abundant resources would be cheaper while the ones for rare resources would be more expensive.
The mayor would set these rates, separately for own citizens, allies and neutrals.
Then neutrals could still try to harvest and be smugglers, gaining more resources with the risk of being attacked and looted.
Having this permits would allow the game to know how to apply corruption too, to be more harsh or more lenient.
Nodes could even reward bringing resources from foreign nodes while those nodes would have policies to prevent that.

Permits? Going with a hard no on that one.

Why not? You do not trust politicians?

Electronn

I'm pretty sure I recall Steven saying something about the environment also responding in ways other than just general degradation of the land. I recall thinking that over-harvesting in some cases would result in events, bosses and/or other mob attacks. Not totally sure.

This definitely would further lend itself to the dynamic mentioned by the op, where foreign nodes, guilds and players try to spark a pve attack on your node via over-harvesting. Maybe this could even be a tactic used leading up to a node siege.

Sounds fun.

Voxtrium

I could see over harvesting lend its way to the corruption of the land spreading quicker and thus resulting in the players having to clear the corruption before they can have the resources spawn again.

Child Item