Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
I just want to be clear, I want a land management system. I think a land management system can work, and solve a problem you, I, and every other gatherer has experienced with nodes being camped by other players. That's partially solved by having dynamic resource spawns, but it's helped even further with a land management system.
My point isn't to scrap the land management system, it's to say that there is an inherent problem with the tragedy of the commons. If your node and players export small game meat, then you don't want that resource to be overhunted. It doesn't matter that by overhunting small game meat you're now getting an abundance of herbs, you still lose. There will still be times that a node mayor puts out a policy telling people not to gather a certain resource in order to recover the land management value, and doing something like making people flag purple for ignoring that notice will be more than enough to make them move to another node.
We're also looking at this without adding another layer to the discussion, that this game is taking a page out of Star Wars Galaxies when it comes to "quality" values on resources. Very rare resources with high quality don't spawn in the same areas. Just because top-tier mythril spawned a vein in your mine this week doesn't mean it will be there next week. Master gatherers chasing those resources will be moving constantly across the map in order to find those rare veins in the mines around Verra in order to make their fortune. There's already a good incentive to move around the map.
I think I understand you now, then.
I would only argue that the 'Tragedy' of the Commons is only defined as a 'Tragedy' in the situation where it is a guaranteed loss both to the Nodes, and in a game setting does not achieve the devs' intended gameplay loop (or in the obvious case where the gameplay loop it creates is inherently bad).
So to me, there is no 'Tragedy' if the outcomes are simply tweaked toward what is intended.
I don't see why the Node doesn't switch to 'we produce both at different times', in your example case.
Similarly, I see it as a GOAL of Steven to make it so that the node that 'constantly exports rabbit meat' should ALSO attempt to attract 'herb gatherers' and 'fox hunters' to balance out those effects, and that would be the 'management' in question.
As I've said a few times - this may or may not be the case.
If we assume this is the case, however, what is the point of the whole system? It wont have any effect on gatherers in a given node at all.
Now, you may respond by saying "it's a system for triggering events and such". To that I say (again), why use gathering to trigger events that have nothing to do with gathering?
If you want to trigger an event that sees a PvE attack on a node, the trigger for that should be PvE, not gathering.
An argument with you on this topic is kind of circular. I point out an issue with it, you come up with a way they could get around it, I point out an issue with your idea, you come up with a way they could get around that, I point out that this idea has that same first issue, and so you point out your first idea again.
The whole thing is bad design from a top level. You cant come up with details to make bad design suddenly good.
The effect is the change in resource locations and type of resources, for example instead of lily's always being a rare resource occasionally when the nearby vegetation is over farmed they become a common one.
The point is to provide change? It adds a dynamic layer to the world that encourages someone with the time to understand it and take advantage of it. As someone else pointed out having trees spawn every twenty minutes even if their spawn is randomized its going to feel pretty static and can much easier result in a guild abusing it, have 20 stone nodes spawn here and 20 trees spawn across the river instead? That is a lot more dynamic and provides a lot more playability around something as mundane as gathering.
Gathering is a PVE activity, enemies (like bandits) will have drops that will most definitely need to be farmed just like any other mmo, and is a bear not going to fight back, thats PVE no? Also how is a river flooding due to "erosion" not a gathering related event? And if the event is tailored to gathering what is your claim based on then?
Even if it wasn't and it created a completely separate event that had resulted from gathering, why is that wrong, like you point out a boss spawning due to over gathering, why is it a bad idea for a boss to spawn that increases growth of the land, or alternatively decreases it but increases growth of a separate resource? Again this system won't be designed as a net negative anytime something happens, for example this random boss spawns removing the ability for standard resources to grow until killed, but while alive it encourages the growth of a higher tier stone flower that will provide armor better stats when made?
No the problem isn't in the circular nature of my arguments, its you pointing out different problems that are all centered around the same perceived issue, creating a loop.
Cool, so why have it as a system that can be used in warfare?
If the point of the system is to add some variety to gathering, limit the scope of the system to just that and nothing else.
It should move resource spawns, not remove resource spawns, not slow down resource spawns.
@Voxtrium don't feed the wildlife, they might make a nest in your attic.
Why limit it though? I have already shown you how it can be used in a way to not effect the general player negatively the vast majority of the time, in fact id wager the general player would love to see landscape changes and dynamic events happen as the result of this kind of thing?
but DarkTides is correct, I am done with this argument
You have shown ways different systems could avoid different aspects of the negative effects, but you haven't shown one system that would negate most of them (I havent even mentioned all of the negative effects on players that I can see, only the major ones).
The reason you limit the scope of a system like this is so that you can then put in other systems. If you want an event where player action spawns a PvE attack on a node, you make a system for that - you dont shoehorn a gathering system to also perform that function.
If you take a system that is designed to give gathering some variability, and you make one of the potential outcomes an attack on a node, then that attack on the node is the outcome that people are going to work for. The system is no longer about gathering variability, and is now simply an attack vector.
So again, what was the point of the system? If it is gathering variability yet players use it as an attack vector, how can you claim it is anything other than bad design?
If the point of the system is indeed the potential attack, why drag gatherers in to it at all?
That is all dependent on how meaningful things are in the game.
Citizens will give a shit, if their node is being razed and it's now affecting everyone in the node, just because of these gatherers. Progression of node leveling up, dungeon disappearing, spawns reduce, market inflation/deflation, less activity, less tax, less commerence... eventually it comes down to, do you continue to stay as a citizen, fight, or move out? Before moving out, might as well fight.
-We don't know yet how players will react, we could have a node reacting in a way and another node reacting in a completely different way
Also large guilds will have a big influence in how people perceive things, in AoC we will probably have propaganda wars just like there is in EVE
the thought of destroying our own or a different node entire forest, just to spawn a world boss is a bad idea.
that will just incentives to raze everything. There should be a balance.
I also believe, this "world boss", protector of the forest, treant should then atleast be INSANELY difficult OR
Just very hard still but NO LOOT.
This "World boss" or Diety, protector is summoned because ACTIONS has CONSEQUENCE and this is the punishment for razing an area.
It's not a boss that AGGRO on anything, only on gatherers still trying to chop down trees. It's a visual entity that represent a global cooldown, to allow the land to re-grow before it desummons. You can attempt to continue razing the node, but it will then aggro unto you.
So this world boss that is summoned, on a enemy node is an ally of that enemy node, allowing it to re-grow. If killed, there is no loot, just accomplishment you killed a protector of the land.
the concept of - wait, world boss with phat loot and we can spawn it anytime we like will be abused.
As a concept, this is better. The boss isnt attacking the node so it isnt a vector for attack of said node.
It is still a viable way to restrict the ability of a rival node to harvest (and spawning many of these could easily prevent an entire region from harvesting a specific material), but that isnt an inherently bad thing.
The reason this works is because it is using chopping down trees as a system to add content that literally only affects people that chop down trees. It is self contained, and maintains a reasonable scope.
The only thing I would change is that I'd add a *small* reward for killing it if you are not responsible for it spawning (a number of potential ways to determin this exist). That way, it isnt only lumberjacks thatvhave to deal with this mob - if it is left so that it only impacts wood cutters, cant attack the node, doesnt attack nearby players and has no reward at all for killing it, then the only people with incentive to kill it are those wanting to chop down that forest. While this would be ok for an easy mob, if it is actually difficult this will become problematic.
Yes, it could.
As far as I can tell, the entire concept of the land management system is to be a toy for the few leaders in a given node.
Cool
Then I guess all the more reason to
a) have a solid mechanic in place,
b) default extremes of the mechanics outside player control so catastrophic failure cannot occur
c) elect the right leader of your node or reap the consequences! > let the players experience the impact of their choices, if that is possible
The protector / guardian shouldnt be solo-able or killed by a 8 man party imho.
Should still require a raid or at the least 15-20 people.
No small Reward, since the reward is able to continue fucking over the enemy node by safely harvesting everything again or whatever is left.
Because of that, I feel it should be a raid level boss. Very difficult, because the reward is very damaging to the Node it's in and to those players. Eco-warfare. This was their final line of defense before players now must intervene and engage in pvp before allowing more destruction on their node.
The second the system has something that can attack the node directly, it ceases to be about harvesting and as such should not start with harvesting.
If you want to create a game system that results in a mob attacking a node, you make it so that a rival needs to kill 5 specific mobs that spawn within that target nodes ZoI, pick up a specific body part and move it to a specific location that spawns the mob that then attacks the node. Make it so these body parts only last an hour, and you have something that is PvE based, resulting in a PvE event that is a direct attack on a rival, can't be triggered accidently, is able to be prevented if the target are clued in to what is happening, doesn't involve people that just want to play the game without getting involved in all of that bullshit, and is just all around better.
Then, with that system in place, you could put in a system where if the wood in a forest is over harvested, it spawns a tree ent guardian that only attacks players that try to cut down trees. Or a golem that only attacks players mining rock or stone. These mobs need not attack the nearby node or anything, because that is taken care of with the PvE system. This system - these mobs - are purely about harvesting. They are spawned via harvesting, they only attack harvesters.
Yes, this harvesting event could be used as a part of an attack on a node, but it is an attack on harvesting, by harvesters that only affects harvesters.
To me, this whole thing is just better.
I dont see where I advocated the guardian to attack any players or other nodes. It only aggros on anyone who is trying to harvest in that node that has hit critical land management danger.
65% of the resources has been destroyed. Protector spawns in now protecting the remaining 35%. This puts an end to individual bad faith players from other nodes attacking my node and over-harvesting.
If the enemy node wants to engage in eco-warfare, this is there to prevent that. HOWEVER they CAN engage on this guardian. Its gonna be a tough fight, no loot, require raid to do so. If they manage, they can continue on the eco-warfare and raze the remaining 35% of the resources remaining in that node, without worrying about another guardian coming in.
Now it's up to the node community to fight back. Node War and get all your resources back
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Events
Events that are taken care of successfully have positive consequences.[7]
Events that reach a fail condition have negative consequences,[13][7], such as:
Natural disasters.[14]
Node attacks from NPC mobs, such as dragons, or hordes of zombies.[1][15][13]
Certain mobs may target specific buildings for storyline reasons.[1][15]
These attacks may weaken node defences against any future player attacks against the node.[15]
Local events that have not been addressed successfully may start to expand regionally or even globally.[16]
Some of the events that spawn have consequences that lead to node attacks; and enemies have a particular type of hate list on certain buildings that a node may have access to when they attack during an event; and that hate list might relate to- or that building choice might relate to something that is indicative of the storyline for that particular event; or it could be something that is more pivotal to the defense of the city. If the city doesn't respond to these types of things that might weaken them for potential player attacks afterwards.[15] – Steven Sharif
https://pt.ashesofcreation.wiki/The_Ancients
A good 10 minute mass on Sundays with the temple full of players could bring a boost for a week, if barely no one shows up to the mass then the boost will be flimsy
like the concept but would go a different route.
People would pay their respect and worship certain deities for certain things. man I used to know a lot about greek mytho but I am running blanks right now.
Anyways a religion node mayor can choose a deity. A small shrine is created. Depending on the deity, a buff or other things can happen.
In this instance, a deity of agriculture was choosen, so a shrine will appear in townsquare - once it's quota is met (whatever that may be) - respawn rate is increased.
off topic - branching on that idea:
religion node has a few deities to choose from. Only 1 Deity can be active.
God of Agriculture - the timer for gatherable objects is reduce
God of Prosperity - pve buff - 5% bonus of return on gathering or loots or whatever
God of Fortune - pve/pvp buff a small increase in coin drop in PvE or hidden chests or
reduce the amount you lose when dying (pve or pvp) or you gain an additional small amount of loot in pve/pvp (If applied to PvP, say you are carrying 100 lumber, you drop 10% normally, the player with this buff gets your 10 + 5 more from thin air)
God of War - I think we can seperate God of Fortune is PvE and War = PvP functionality.
can be god of luck, 2% increase chance of finding rare mats (either from gatherables or mobs or both)
But I like bringing community and player oriented stuff, if people come together for a big worship for a node one week boost then i'm in for that too... it could influence in many stuff
I just made a breakdown topic about it, since the religion system in AoC seem quite big
I want to see people playing MMOs together again doing stuff, not just comming together for grinding dungeons
Could have players of a particular religion pray, as you say, but keeping in line with events, gathering and land management, you might be able to pray for rain, but if you've decimated the landscape of foliage, the rain may have nothing to soak it up, causing flooding instead....perhaps this could be used as an offensive capability as well, from a neighbouring node, if you notice your adjacent node is lacking foliage and you dont like them very much, the rain could be generated over a wider region.
Cool, misunderstandings happen.
What I don't get with the above suggestion is why - if you were teting to wage war on a node - you would bother killing the mob.
If your idea is to stop the rival node being able to harvest materials, once that mob is spawned, mission accomplished.
This is especially true if the mo is actually hard. Assuming you are using this as one prong of an attack, all that rival nodes competent players would be needed elsewhere - assuming your side is competently managed.
So, with no one available to kill it, why carry on?
Other than that, this does seem to be about what I was thinking - now that the misunderstanding has been cleared up.
correct - however if YOU wish to continue, YOU and your raid are gonna need to kill it.
If YOU successfully kill it, the final line of defense for ME (assuming mayor), would to wage war.
obviously I would have already spoke to the guilds in my node, to the people, instructed our gatherers to start collecting / harvesting on their nodes asap as retailiation and/or to other nodes (at risk of pissing them off too) then declare war and hopefully have equal footing.
To the other node, maybe we discussed, we arent going to trigger the guardian and/or stop at the guardian, suggest/request help - because I am only doing this due their action. politics at this point....
See, I would assume that a guild coming along to harvest all the trees is already someone I am at war with.
In my experience, guilds dont usually coordinate harvesting like that. If enough people from my guild are heading over to your node to start harvesting, we are already at war. The only question is whether you know that or not.
I dont see a point in spawning this monster in another node if you are not already openly hostile. Perhaps you see something here that I dont, I just dont see it.
I think they key thing though, is that we are both talking about a system that is contained within harvesting - or indeed within wood cutting. Wood cutters are the perpetrators, the abusee, and realistically, are the people that will eventually rectify the situation. This system doesnt then go on to directly affect others,but could potentially indirectly affect others.
but it may not be a guild action, can just be node citizenship that consist of multiple guilds tho.
Assume it is a guild, but your guild is small, annoying us but small and we are dealing with another threat or choosing not to waste our resources with you guys. Perhaps I try to talk to your mayor, ask them to reign ya in. Maybe make a threat to that node of War, if you guys dont back down. Maybe we already fought, we won but ya are just being annoying now - hence my node threat, maybe your own people tell you to back off. There is so many things at play, directions to go. Lots of scenarios.
Why doesn't the desert gather more wood when they've mined out all the stone?