Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

Why 20%? Is there any reason for ZOI nations to fight other ZOI nations?

Once the zones are all filled out in a server, what's to drive inter-kingdom/nation fighting?

This map is out-dated, but I didn't want to have to save a snip and store an image online, in order to post about this - but it still does the job:

450px-NodeSimulationWithBiomes.png


As you can see, the Vassal Nodes do NOT need to be adjacent, to eachother; They can even be more checker-boarded, than this old example. At this point in a server's development, however, is there any reason the 5 kingdoms/ZOI nations will be in-conflict with eachother?

Once at 20% of world control, what would be the point of attacking a foreign Node, asides from raiding/pillaging them?

Wouldn't it make more sense to max a Metropolis's world-control at something like 30% or 35%?



Comments

  • bloodprophetbloodprophet Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Humans doing human things.
    Some dungeons and raids are hidden behind node level. Perhaps on one server a raid is opened up and another it is not. If you want to go do that raid you would need to go kill it and level the correct node to open it.

    Why 20% of control for the world.
    Math.
    Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited November 18
    As I understand, it gets checkered because the vassal structure.

    So nodes that are currently at levels 0-2 aren't granted joining a chain, while multiple chains are being stabilished with these limitations:
    • A Metropolis (stage 6) can control up to two City (stage 5) nodes
    • A City (stage 5) can control one Town (stage 4) and one Village (stage 3) node
    • A Village (stage 3) can control an Encampment (stage 2) or an Expedition (stage 1).

    Lets imagine Node A goes level 3... but around it there's four level 2... it will get only one level 2 as vassal and there's still three level 2 nodes competing with other for level 3

    Well... I don't think each of the five Metropolis would nave direct reasons to fight each other

    A metropolis chain will have up to:
    • 1 Metropolis
    • 2 Cities
    • 2 Towns
    • 4 Villages
    • 4 Encamptment or Expedition, exclusively

    So that is 17 nodes, that's exactly 20%
  • Once the zones are all filled out in a server, what's to drive inter-kingdom/nation fighting?

    This map is out-dated, but I didn't want to have to save a snip and store an image online, in order to post about this - but it still does the job:

    450px-NodeSimulationWithBiomes.png


    As you can see, the Vassal Nodes do NOT need to be adjacent, to eachother; They can even be more checker-boarded, than this old example. At this point in a server's development, however, is there any reason the 5 kingdoms/ZOI nations will be in-conflict with eachother?

    Once at 20% of world control, what would be the point of attacking a foreign Node, asides from raiding/pillaging them?

    Wouldn't it make more sense to max a Metropolis's world-control at something like 30% or 35%?




    I think you bring up an interesting point of discussion in pushing ZOI to something like 25% and having a "no mans land". Integrating the systems to harbor such a change would be nigh impossible I imagine since two metros would technically "share" some space but the concept is cool nonetheless.
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited November 18
    I have a question:

    I know vassals can't declare war against anyone from it's own chain
    But can a vassal from chain A declare war against a vassal from chain B?

    If vassals from different chains can fight each other, this could start a slow downfall of a Metropolis
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    I'd imagine the biggest reason would be greed. Guilds will try to "control" as much land as possible. And depending on the guild, they might only be able to do it in one particular way (pvp fights or questing or money or numbers), so even if they already "control" one metro - they'll want more. This was true for castles in L2 and I'm sure at least some guilds will try and attempt it in Ashes. And it's way easier to destroy smth and then build it up with you at the helm rather than just overtake it (especially if you need to change the metro type).

    So pretty much what Blood said.
  • Once the zones are all filled out in a server, what's to drive inter-kingdom/nation fighting?

    This map is out-dated, but I didn't want to have to save a snip and store an image online, in order to post about this - but it still does the job:

    450px-NodeSimulationWithBiomes.png


    As you can see, the Vassal Nodes do NOT need to be adjacent, to eachother; They can even be more checker-boarded, than this old example. At this point in a server's development, however, is there any reason the 5 kingdoms/ZOI nations will be in-conflict with eachother?

    Once at 20% of world control, what would be the point of attacking a foreign Node, asides from raiding/pillaging them?

    Wouldn't it make more sense to max a Metropolis's world-control at something like 30% or 35%?




    adding to what people have said, there are 4 types of nodes but there will be 5 max level nodes, so maybe, and most likely, there will be repeated nodes. so what if there are 3 economic max level nodes (metropolis) and 2 scientific nodes? then there arent any military or divine nodes. so people might want to attack one of the other nodes to have the opportunity to develop a military or divine node.
  • Once the zones are all filled out in a server, what's to drive inter-kingdom/nation fighting?

    The desire of alliances to spread their power,
    lets say one of the guilds of a 3-guild-alliance manages to take over one of the castles,
    this guild will use their power against another kingdom to help one of their alliance guilds to take over it;
    Other important factor will be to honor the interest and the inter-nation conflicts of their respective nodes.

    6wtxguK.jpg
    Aren't we all sinners?
  • I have no idea why people think alliances will just want to spread and spread and spread
    Maybe people never played any good games and have no clue?

    I guess nobody here played any game that has player sovereignty

    What you want as a guild in a game that has actual sovereignty is having everything what you need and farm it more than anyone and protect your borders
  • Once at 20% of world control, what would be the point of attacking a foreign Node, asides from raiding/pillaging them?
    Resource scarcity.
    You will need resources to repair your epic tier gear which degrades even if NPCs kill you.
    Will you switch to rare tier and wait peacefully until enough resources trickle in?

    The deep ocean.
    People from all 5 metro nations will go there for something. Maybe for the resources they need. They will reduce their gear durability faster than before the perma flagged PvP area was added.
    Even on a server with players biased toward PvE, is hard to imagine them cooperating peacefully to share the few resources.
    They can try to create some agreements. Maybe if the disadvantage of fighting is too obvious and the server has low population, they'll succeed maintaining peace.

    Relics
    Relics include the four Ancient artifacts of Verra that were originally discovered by King Atrax in his pursuit of the power of The Essence.[15][16]
    5 Metropolises and only 4 ancient artifacts... hmm >:)
    Limited access to the relics stored in a node's reliquary are granted to players after a node is destroyed by a node siege.[8][9][3][2][10][11][12]
    Benefits are also conferred to those who capture, steal, or sabotage relics held the reliquary.[5]

    Looting a relic from a node will create a shard of the relic, which can be used in recipes for certain crafted items and enchantments; or it can be consumed for a single-use buff that reflects the original relic's purpose.[13] These shards can be traded.[14]


    Peaceful servers make players lose their PvP skills. I can see PvP guilds coming from other servers to "train" the local player-base. I can see players leaving the game if such anomalies happen.
    September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
  • TyranthraxusTyranthraxus Member
    edited November 21
    Aye - yours truly only recently found out about the different types of relics that will be in-game, for cities to try to hold on to. I guess resources and entryways are possible areas of ambition and aspiration, once the world fills out.

    It makes you wonder: If a ZOI-nation wants to *DROP* a minor node of one type to pick up another node of another type, do we know if this will be possible?

    Have yet to see something on this.



  • NerrorNerror Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited November 20
    The relic system will likely be a big driver for conflict. And obviously opening up new content that is locked away behind the wrong node being the metropolis.

    I don't think we should overlook kings wanting more big nodes in their region. Taking down a metropolis in an enemy kingdom could open up for another metropolis in their own, further increasing their income and power. And if the king is smart, they invest most of that gain back into all the nodes in their region to keep people loyal. Benevolent ruler type of thing. This type of system could lead to a lot of kingdom vs. kingdom type of play, which would be cool.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Aye - yours truly only found out about the different types of relics that will be in-game, for cities to try to hold on to. I guess resources and entryways are possible areas of ambition and aspiration, once the world fills out.

    It makes you wonder: If a ZOI-nation wants to *DROP* a minor node of one type to pick up another node of another type, do we know if this will be possible?

    Have yet to see something on this.




    You want this one thrown into the Q&A randomizer?

    My group is out of questions to ask and you already used yours.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • Azherae wrote: »
    You want this one thrown into the Q&A randomizer?

    My group is out of questions to ask and you already used yours.

    Yours truly would be happy to serve up this month's inspiration for you all, @Azherae !



  • akabearakabear Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    I have no idea why people think alliances will just want to spread and spread and spread
    Maybe people never played any good games and have no clue?

    I guess nobody here played any game that has player sovereignty

    What you want as a guild in a game that has actual sovereignty is having everything what you need and farm it more than anyone and protect your borders

    L2 one clan through use of pk domination and alt clans controlled the all castles, protected access to all major dungeons round the clock.. essentially controlling the board.
    NW faction controlled all but 1 territory..

    Look here on the recruiting fronts, there clans that will likely be max capacity, ally with 1 to 2 others and you have a 10% server domination.

    See similar here with the permissible guild sizes.
  • akabear wrote: »
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    I have no idea why people think alliances will just want to spread and spread and spread
    Maybe people never played any good games and have no clue?

    I guess nobody here played any game that has player sovereignty

    What you want as a guild in a game that has actual sovereignty is having everything what you need and farm it more than anyone and protect your borders

    L2 one clan through use of pk domination and alt clans controlled the all castles, protected access to all major dungeons round the clock.. essentially controlling the board.
    NW faction controlled all but 1 territory..

    Look here on the recruiting fronts, there clans that will likely be max capacity, ally with 1 to 2 others and you have a 10% server domination.

    See similar here with the permissible guild sizes.

    Braver of worlds but you don't understand how the corruption system works? Please read up on it. There won't be any PK domination in this game.
  • @akabear I understand that in other games could just spread, for example L2 or New World

    In New World when the new servers came up recently, the big old guilds went there and took over everything again, then people left the server

    But it is different in games like EVE Online... AoC is closer to EVE Online than closer to New World, becase in EVE and AoC there's the vulnerability timers, there's the destruction, there's the upkeep for what you take

    AoC is only comparable to EVE Online, not comparabable to L2 or New World
  • akabearakabear Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Hartassen wrote: »
    akabear wrote: »
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    I have no idea why people think alliances will just want to spread and spread and spread
    Maybe people never played any good games and have no clue?

    I guess nobody here played any game that has player sovereignty

    What you want as a guild in a game that has actual sovereignty is having everything what you need and farm it more than anyone and protect your borders

    L2 one clan through use of pk domination and alt clans controlled the all castles, protected access to all major dungeons round the clock.. essentially controlling the board.
    NW faction controlled all but 1 territory..

    Look here on the recruiting fronts, there clans that will likely be max capacity, ally with 1 to 2 others and you have a 10% server domination.

    See similar here with the permissible guild sizes.


    Braver of worlds but you don't understand how the corruption system works? Please read up on it. There won't be any PK domination in this game.

    L2 days, was quite common to burn off 1-3 hrs of karma, risking gear that would take 6-9 months of grinding to replace, while a red hot piñata.

    Pk`ing was used as a measns to provoke wars, have guilds back off from raids and entering key areas, punish/retribution for thieves/spies and a multitude of other reasong.. Choosing the right players to hit the message home did not take so many kills.

    So, yes, I do see it as a tool.

    However, Pk`ing as a tool of persuasion will all depend on a few things, what comes to mind is how onerous karma cleansing is, how truly debilitating multiple pk`s are on your killing capacity and the general culture of the regional community (active pvp`ers or passive pve`ers).

    But once those constraints are worked out and the workarounds quantified, then perhaps it will be used as a selective tool in Ashes too!






  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    There are 9 races and only 5 Metros.
    There is at least some pressure to ensure that there is a Metro that helps you finish your racial progression.
    Also, a bit of pressure to make sure the server has a Node Type with the Metro super-power you want.
    And, perhaps, some incentive to destroy a Metro with a super-power you don't want the server to have... like Fast(er) Travel.
  • Dygz wrote: »
    There are 9 races and only 5 Metros.
    There is at least some pressure to ensure that there is a Metro that helps you finish your racial progression.
    Also, a bit of pressure to make sure the server has a Node Type with the Metro super-power you want.
    And, perhaps, some incentive to destroy a Metro with a super-power you don't want the server to have... like Fast(er) Travel.

    If each race has a metro, then there's no reason to fight node wars

    Besides, I bet player nodes have nothing to do with that, probably the racial progression will be tied to the racial gate node
  • Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    @akabear I understand that in other games could just spread, for example L2 or New World

    In New World when the new servers came up recently, the big old guilds went there and took over everything again, then people left the server

    But it is different in games like EVE Online... AoC is closer to EVE Online than closer to New World, becase in EVE and AoC there's the vulnerability timers, there's the destruction, there's the upkeep for what you take

    AoC is only comparable to EVE Online, not comparabable to L2 or New World

    How is AoC not comparable to L2? Along with Archage 2, these two games are from which it takes the majority of its influence.

    Castles, market-style, sieges, etc....



  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited November 22
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    @akabear I understand that in other games could just spread, for example L2 or New World

    In New World when the new servers came up recently, the big old guilds went there and took over everything again, then people left the server

    But it is different in games like EVE Online... AoC is closer to EVE Online than closer to New World, becase in EVE and AoC there's the vulnerability timers, there's the destruction, there's the upkeep for what you take

    AoC is only comparable to EVE Online, not comparabable to L2 or New World

    How is AoC not comparable to L2? Along with Archage 2, these two games are from which it takes the majority of its influence.

    Castles, market-style, sieges, etc....




    Because in EVE and AoC there are upkeeps and certain limitations sometimes

    In AoC if your guild could take all nodes from the map then I would love to see if your guild could prevent them from deleveling, even tough there isn't a gold upkeep there's still the xp upkeep, plus the fact that all guilds from the enslaved nodes can declare war on you and prevent you from paying the upkeep... on top of it there's the node count limit

    in EVE there are the costs related to holding the solar systems, such costs are mostly fuel and logistics effort that are 100% player run. EVE has and had alliances with 10-30 k players/characters and they couldn't take not even a third of the server.. in EVE there are no limitations, it's just that it's impossible holding so much ground due to the amount of effort... EVE has no limits and people couldn't do it due to the amount of effort for holding so many systems

    So EVE and AoC have these upkeeps that just by themselves won't let your guild take over the server (and AoC has limits on top of it)

    But in all other games you can pretty much take the entire map
  • Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    ....But in all other games you can pretty much take the entire map

    Right - many of the same features - but with better pre-planning and implementation. AoC will borrow heavily from sources such as these.



Sign In or Register to comment.