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.
Comments
No, why doesn't the desert produce more meat when they've mined out all the stone so the scorpions don't spawn, causing more desert hares to spawn.
You're not usually disingenuous on purpose, so I'm not sure if you're trying to mock the argument or not.
Disingenuous? I'm thinking that these systems have to be intertwined in a very specific way in order to be 1-to-1 tradeoffs, but you seem to believe the rules change from environment to environment? You do realize that your suggestion means that killing desert hares or scorpions would have to increase the stone land management, do you realize how weird and immersion breaking that will feel if you're trying to be a citizen of a desert node?
Thank you.
Data recorded.
You can take my disagreement personally if that's your desire, I just want to discuss the game design behind land management
While I find your answer extremely frustrating and conversation-ending, it is not a personal thing.
You have now given data that clarifies how you view the immersive options for this system, and what you think of it related to that way.
Any Intrepid Dev who receives this information, either now or because it is in my archives, can make decisions based on your feedback and responses with more certainty. They don't have to go 'well maybe they don't understand, they'll see when it's implemented' with the perspective that it would 'be okay with you for that sort of rotation to happen' if they did it.
For your reference, on the code side of a system SIMILAR to this that I have built, it IS adaptive. Easily. Nothing more than a configuration file. So yes, I would expect the system would change the rules by biome, like everything else.
I will point out to anyone who thinks this is complex that MineCraft modders can do this. I expect at least as much from Intrepid as from 'MineCraft modder working more or less solo', so any points I make are from that. If counterarguments rely on 'it being too complicated', I can't speak to them, because I am 'arguing from faith'.
"Why doesn't the desert gather more wood when they've mined out all the stone?" is a rhetorical question, it wasn't supposed to be disingenuous or to annoy you, I'm sorry that it has.
I understand it is possible to change ratios and which tradeoff is which according to environment, but that was never mentioned in the stream and is just a further assumption on your part, as well as that all tradeoffs in land management are 1-to-1. Let's also think from a player's perspective not a developer's. You're changing all of these tradeoffs from environment to environment and expecting gatherers to be able to keep track of this in order to min-max their gameplay on a collective level. It's too much to keep track of and rather than go through the trouble, gatherers will just gather according to what's best for their selfish interest.
If you think it's reasonable for there to be no good method for a node to try and defeat the tragedy of the commons and manage the land management score of trees, rocks, or whatever is their best money-maker resource, then I think that's a terrible game design decision. "Just attract hunters to your node" isn't something I see feasible for a mayor, especially when other mayor's will have as many or more tools at their disposal to do the same.
There are multiple assumptions in this post, but I feel like it will be unproductive to actually try to address or discuss them between us. I will instead try to verify that we disagree on all points so that we can leave it there.
"It is an assumption on my part." - Yes. Whenever a system is offered, if I want to discuss it, I make an assumption, as you are doing, yours is just based on the absence of evidence and mine is faith-based.
"I'm expecting gatherers to be able to keep track of this in order to min-max their gameplay." - I expect some to do this, some to not, and some inbetween, and I would expect that to be okay, I would enjoy this design type.
"It's too much to keep track of.' - Just a basic disagreement by capability here, mostly.
"If you think it's reasonable for there to be no good method for a node to try and defeat the Tragedy of the Commons" - Disagree that it's a tragedy, disagree that the method available is unreasonable.
"This isn't something I see feasible for a mayor'" - This is just politics? I don't see how this is infeasible. Perhaps I play too many games where it is much easier and I'm just assuming again.
That should cover it, I think.
This is another of those issues I have with Ashes.
Assuming it would be a guild unlikely correct. The guild is where most coordination and organization will take place.
The thing is, as a guild, we will likely be from 4 or more different nodes. You cant talk to "our mayor", because even if we had one, we wouldn't listen (nodes are an artificial construct from the game, guilds are groups of friends).
As such, you cant talk to a mayor to stop us, you cant declare a node war to stop us. You only really have two options. The first is ask a guild to declare a guild war against us, but that in itself is problematic. Declaring us enemies of the state is the second option, but that is essentially an empty deterrent.
But that aside, if we assume the "attack" is coming from a small guild, time is our most valuable resource. If we are in that area because we want wood, the mob spawning means it is most economical to move elsewhere. If we want to spawn the mob as a distraction, its job done when it spawns. If we want to lower the gathering output of the node, we need to decimate more than just one forest - at which point spawning many mobs and leaving them all up is the best option.
Unless gathering up the last of those resources means none spawn back for a week (which I would consider very bad game design), I still dont see a practical reason to carry on past spawning the mob, if we assume.it is actually quite strong.
We're both assuming different systems, but really they're just different visions rather than one being "faith-based" that the devs will do it right, and the other that they'll fail. In my imagined land management system there are tradeoffs that aren't 1 to 1, and land value scores for all gatherables can both be all high in some nodes, or all low in others. Because they're not 1 to 1 tradeoffs in my imagined system, they avoid what I consider major pitfalls. One of those pitfalls is caused by absences of specific resources in different environments.
I don't believe you're looking at these issues from a microeconomics perspective, which was the same problem the developers of Ultima Online suffered from with their own ecology.
I'm a hunter, I make more money hunting in places other than your node. Why should I come hunt predators your node just to raise the spawn rates of your small prey? "Politics" isn't going to help me get more money to buy better gear, is the mayor going to collect funds to give me money? Remember, mayors can't take money out of their node, they need to use taxes towards node development.
Very well then. As noted, I just wanted to make sure that we were as clear as possible.
If you perceive that other economic actors have no loyalty to Nodes, then in MY mind you are questioning 'Why is there a Node system at all?' And that's valid. Perhaps 'just dynamism'.
Perhaps you're not the sort of person for whom potential story takes precedence over maximum profit. And so on. I wouldn't expect Intrepid to build the game to try to appeal to nor control the sort of player who cannot be swayed by these things.
And therefore, it is entirely possible that as you imply, the whole thing will fail because no one will actually care about that sort of thing anyway. So it goes.
just because a forest area is de-wooded, more bears and bunnies appear shouldnt mean a desert will react the same with rock/hares.
Different biomes has different rules.
Solution 1) All the bunnies within the grassland node are getting farmed and killed for their meat and pelts. The elks are able to roam free and grow more populated. Suddenly, Elky the lord of all Elks spawns and decides to rampage the land. Mismanagement of a sector leads to raid/dungeon events for players to respond to. They messed with the bunnies, and now they have to deal with an Elk mafia, giving time for the bunnies to bounce back.
Solution 2) Give land management tools to the mayor/city council. Enemy node is stealing your materials? Give a mission for the node to steal all the crops of the enemy node for an increased crop recovery speed to the node. The elk mafia is starting to get out of hand and Elky has destroyed an entire town? Put a bounty on the elk and bring him down. Maybe the mayor of a religious node can ask players to gather mats for a ritual to help the land recover, while a scientific mayor can order research into making the animal population speed can recover. Make the ruling party of a node responsible for land management, and the life-skill players will hold them accountable, or else the leaders lose power or lose the players to other nodes.
Permanent Change - Rallying Calls @31:20 AKA Events in AOC.
A possibility to cutting down too much forest - angry goblins!
Yeah, but keep in mind what happened to EQN...
So, basically, you are saying that a game that had a system similar to this one that Ashes are looking at implementingwas cancelled because the game wasnt considered fun.
I wonder why they didnt consider it fun...
Tell us Noaani.
Are you sure I need to?
I'm going to paraphrase parts of this thread down to just a few lines.
DarkTides; let's talk about this land management system Intrpeid mentioned.
Me; ok, it doesnt seem like it will be fun for most players.
DarkTides; EQN had a system similar to what we are talking about.
Me; EQN was cancelled for not being fun.
DarkTides; why wasnt EQN fun?
Not only am I quite sure you are not actually looking for an answer to your question, I'm fully aware you wouldn't even read said answer if I posted it. I feel I have answered your question in aggregate anyway.
Oh you definitely have to.
Nope, not gettin it, please up the explanation.
PoV: Me and the boys comin for your last tree.
I mean, if you don't get it, you haven't paid attention at all to this thread.
It is blatantly obvious to anyone that you are just acting like a child here.
Hey, great idea of a PvX game that we are definitely not calling a PvP game - lets make it so people need to PvP over literally picking up dirty rocks they find on the ground!
I am utilizing Noaani level discussion.
Just confirming, what system am I referring to in EQNext that you say is present in AOC?
if you were, a basic quote of your own post wouldn't answer your question. It is you that is saying it is the same as the system from Ashes, not me.
Not the same level at all. Not even close.
Just to stop you from continuing being a dick, EQN had a system that would at times prevent players from logging on to the game to perform a basic function that players EXPECT to be able to just *do* at a time that is convenient to them.
This is essentially the same thing as the system being discussed in this thread, even if the details are slightly (note; slightly) different.
This system was one of the things in EQN that was deemed to be unfun (it is actually the only specific thing I have been able to get anyone that worked on EQN to specifically label as unfun).
If it is in Ashes, it will be unfun.
"I mean" Noanni, you are my idol.
Considering your interpretation of pretty much everything that anyone posts, I'm going to have to ask for evidence that Rallying Calls were deemed unfun, and secondly, that they are exactly the same thing. Then elaborate why they were unfun, if they even were.
a server where people have no regard for the systems will be a pvp server but that is the player choice being the problem not the design. Either players learn how to work with the system or it devolves into a pvp fest. Do you honestly think that every single server out there will? Why stop them from making dumb decisions that *can* be avoided?
Rather, what you can do is look at the facts. You referenced a system from EQN and you equated it to the system in discussion in this thread from Ashes. Note, I didn't do this, you did - asking me to prove they are the same after YOU made the equivalence is just odd - again.
That game was cancelled for simply not being fun, and in almost 10 years since that system idea was made public, no other game has considered that specific system until Ashes came along with it's self admitted amateur creative lead.
This system has been in the collective consciousness of those in the industry for over a decade (obviously longer than it has been known to the general public). Rather than asking me to provide backing to statements that you yourself made, perhaps spend a few minutes of your own time pondering why no professional game developer considered this system after SoE spent some time in to looking in to it.
So, it is either a massive reduction in player agency, or PvP.
For a game that is claiming to be PvX and have as much player agency as possible, that just seems to me to be one more in a long line of contradictions.
Still waiting. You're having a hard time Noaani, I think you should look at those facts.