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!
Options
Overthinking Numbers of Nodes and Their Populations
Dolyem
Member
So I'm sick and bored and decided to do some theorycrafting about what number of node stages will work with the population and the number of total nodes(85) one can become a citizen of.
THIS IS ALL THEORY
Note: excluding the castle nodes as they aren't relevant in regards to citizenship of a node.
So just to get a sort of baseline I looked at the node stage simulator Intrepid showcased. At the peak of the progress of the timeline I counted the different nodes and their stages out of 111 and got the numbers as follows
Percents rounded down
Stage 2- 46 (41%)
Stage 3- 20 (18%)
Stage 4- 20 (18%)
Stage 5- 15 (13.5%)
Stage 6- 0
While there were no Stage 6, the maximum of 5 would put them between 4% and 5%.
So after using this as a basis, I noticed a sort of issue with having extra lower level nodes that aren't vassal nodes to try to overthrow established late Stage nodes. The issue being noticed where 5 Stage-6 nodes take up 10 Stage-5 nodes, 10 Stage-4 nodes, 20 stage-3 nodes, and 20 Stage-2 or less nodes. This only leaves 25 other nodes to work with for competition to take down high level nodes. Against the other 60. So working with what we have, I separated them out as follows in a layout for a server with 5 stage-6 nodes and the maximum for each stage node existing whike they are up.
Stage 2 or less- 28 (32%)
Stage 3- 28 (32%)
Stage 4- 12 (14%)
Stage 5- 12 (14%)
Stage 6- 5 (5%)
This would allow for 2 unvassalized Stage-5 nodes with their own vassals to contend with any of the 5 Stage-6 nodes. The only downside is there is no room for lower level stage nodes to be unvassalized and fight for dominance against other nodes, just those 2 unvassalized Stage-5 nodes. So I would say to allow for vassals to fight for independence in an effort to fight against their superior and potentially advance in node progression.
That aside, with these proposed numbers, I took the number of nodes eligible for citizenship (57) and divided the number of each node max total by that number for a percentage. I used these numbers to determine a sort of baseline for setting potential populations in nodes depending on stages. The way I did this was take each percentage and apply it to the 10000 player total, and I swapped the totals across each opposite node Stage eligible for citizenship. I.E. I used the percentage total of Stage-3 nodes and applied it to Stage 6. Why did I do this? Because the numbers actually seem to add up pretty well, and otherwise every node would have about 175 citizens.
So with numbers rounded down
Stage 3- 877 total citizens across 28 nodes, 31 citizens each.
Stage 4- 2105 total citizens across 12 nodes, 175 citizens each
Stage 5- 2105 total citizens across 12 nodes, 175 citizens each
Stage 6- 4912 citizens across 5 nodes, 982 citizens each.
This would put roughly 49% of the server as citizens in stage 6 nodes potentially. This would be excellent for economy and content. Though it may be a good idea to spread out citizen population totals more along the lines of
Stage 3-1000 citizens total (10%) 35 citizens each node
Stage 4-2000 citizens total (20%) 166 citizens each
Stage 5- 3000 citizens total (30%) 250 citizens each
Stage 6- 4000 citizens total (40%) 800 citizens each.
Now that all of that rambling is done, you have all of those numbers, and those aren't even considering the 5 castles and their 10 nodes which will house their guilds. So all of this said, does everyone think that there are enough nodes to create the proper amount of conflict despite the vassal system? How many citizens should each node be designed for? Are lower level nodes too cornered to progress with the current vassal systems design?
Did I put way to much thought into this? Yea, probably more than I should've.
Sorry for the ramblings, hope you enjoy the read of my ramblings.
THIS IS ALL THEORY
Note: excluding the castle nodes as they aren't relevant in regards to citizenship of a node.
So just to get a sort of baseline I looked at the node stage simulator Intrepid showcased. At the peak of the progress of the timeline I counted the different nodes and their stages out of 111 and got the numbers as follows
Percents rounded down
Stage 2- 46 (41%)
Stage 3- 20 (18%)
Stage 4- 20 (18%)
Stage 5- 15 (13.5%)
Stage 6- 0
While there were no Stage 6, the maximum of 5 would put them between 4% and 5%.
So after using this as a basis, I noticed a sort of issue with having extra lower level nodes that aren't vassal nodes to try to overthrow established late Stage nodes. The issue being noticed where 5 Stage-6 nodes take up 10 Stage-5 nodes, 10 Stage-4 nodes, 20 stage-3 nodes, and 20 Stage-2 or less nodes. This only leaves 25 other nodes to work with for competition to take down high level nodes. Against the other 60. So working with what we have, I separated them out as follows in a layout for a server with 5 stage-6 nodes and the maximum for each stage node existing whike they are up.
Stage 2 or less- 28 (32%)
Stage 3- 28 (32%)
Stage 4- 12 (14%)
Stage 5- 12 (14%)
Stage 6- 5 (5%)
This would allow for 2 unvassalized Stage-5 nodes with their own vassals to contend with any of the 5 Stage-6 nodes. The only downside is there is no room for lower level stage nodes to be unvassalized and fight for dominance against other nodes, just those 2 unvassalized Stage-5 nodes. So I would say to allow for vassals to fight for independence in an effort to fight against their superior and potentially advance in node progression.
That aside, with these proposed numbers, I took the number of nodes eligible for citizenship (57) and divided the number of each node max total by that number for a percentage. I used these numbers to determine a sort of baseline for setting potential populations in nodes depending on stages. The way I did this was take each percentage and apply it to the 10000 player total, and I swapped the totals across each opposite node Stage eligible for citizenship. I.E. I used the percentage total of Stage-3 nodes and applied it to Stage 6. Why did I do this? Because the numbers actually seem to add up pretty well, and otherwise every node would have about 175 citizens.
So with numbers rounded down
Stage 3- 877 total citizens across 28 nodes, 31 citizens each.
Stage 4- 2105 total citizens across 12 nodes, 175 citizens each
Stage 5- 2105 total citizens across 12 nodes, 175 citizens each
Stage 6- 4912 citizens across 5 nodes, 982 citizens each.
This would put roughly 49% of the server as citizens in stage 6 nodes potentially. This would be excellent for economy and content. Though it may be a good idea to spread out citizen population totals more along the lines of
Stage 3-1000 citizens total (10%) 35 citizens each node
Stage 4-2000 citizens total (20%) 166 citizens each
Stage 5- 3000 citizens total (30%) 250 citizens each
Stage 6- 4000 citizens total (40%) 800 citizens each.
Now that all of that rambling is done, you have all of those numbers, and those aren't even considering the 5 castles and their 10 nodes which will house their guilds. So all of this said, does everyone think that there are enough nodes to create the proper amount of conflict despite the vassal system? How many citizens should each node be designed for? Are lower level nodes too cornered to progress with the current vassal systems design?
Did I put way to much thought into this? Yea, probably more than I should've.
Sorry for the ramblings, hope you enjoy the read of my ramblings.
7
Comments
Given there will be multiple servers with different node setups at any given time, you should be able to hit those numbers at some point.
We’ll have to see how it plays out when the game launches.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
There's supposedly 50k people on a server (at least later on in the game's life). So I find it really difficult to figure out how exactly all of those will be spread out over the game or how the game will be designed to account for all of them. Especially when it comes to citizenship and anything related to it.
Damn I thought it was 10000. But I'm less concerned with player pop per node and more concerned with node conflict or lack thereof
And population ties into conflict. If nodes are accounting for 5k people XPing in them daily, but then only 2k do so, the node will start to decay. Decay of a stage-3-5 node would influence its parent node. A weak stage-6 node would probably be easier to siege. And even w/o sieges it would lead to changes in the layout of the land. And that, in turn, would lead to conflict, cause change always leads to conflict, either due to a power void or through a shift of populace from the destroyed node onto the surrounding ones which would bring resources scarcity and new money flows with it.
But that's just a theory... A NODE THEORY!
I get all of that and agree. What I mean is having nodes capable of fighting eachother to progress. If vassals can't fight eachother and everything is a vassal node, that concerns me in regards to a server with 5 established stage 6 nodes. Where with my suggestion, you could have nodes not vassalized by the 5 stage 6 nodes to promote more conflict
I was discussing with my guild mate Nover...I think the node type will determine the amount of folks that will flock to it. Early/mid game, I can see eco and sci nodes having a higher pop count. I believe the base instinct will drive players to these nodes especially if they are higher level comparitively to other nodes in the area in general, but maybe even for the specific node type. I get its just theorycrafting, but I dont see a linear progression at all!
Since nodes can go to war, I bet we may even see someone start up a node nearby to a larger node in order to try and gain control. I think the vassal system will really kick in AFTER a situation like the above happens.
Perception of nodal success and feel of a thriving game will depend on getting this balance right.
Part of a draw to any given town will be a combination of the town planning utility (services), the convenience of that utility setout (town master planning), visual Populus (how active and how many players you can see, not just how many are at the town), how dense that population is (reasonably close to feel active, not random figures moving across a distant vista) as well as the benefits.
From the wiki
Vassal nodes cannot declare war on their parent node or any of their vassals.[2]
My whole point is to keep the top 5 nodes on their toes, they should need to keep their vassals happy in order to not be overthrown. Without having to worry about their own vassals declaring war, how will those nodes overcome that problem besides having to abandon ship entirely? I'd rather fight for the node I worked on.
And if you're talking about the metros' side of the situation, then we just don't know what exactly gonna be the benefits that would ensure the survival of a metro. We know that policies are a part of those benefits, but I'm not sure if it'd be enough.
In other words, we don't have any real info. And we definitely don't have info on how population sizes will influence nodes.
My thoughts are that a node likely needs active cooperation from its vassals in order to successfully defend a siege.
While it may well be that many players would rather fight for the node they worked on, I can also see situations where a players preference is to be a citizen of a level 5 node (I dont see this happening with lower tier nodes) that is a vassal of a specific type of level 6 node.
Two fairly obvious examples (to me) would be someone wanting to be in a scientific node for its access to crafting, but wanting the market access afforded by an economic metropolis.
The second example may be someone wanting to live in a military node for bounty hunting, but wanting the fast travel afforded by a scientific metropolis.
We dont know much about different type node benefits as yet - especially at lower levels. However, it isnt too hard to imagine situations where people may want the lower tier benefits of one node type, but the metropolis benefit of a different node type.
As such, I simply dont see it being a case of everyone wanting "their node" to be the local metropolis. Obviously some will, no doubt. I can just see there being as many players wanting to have a combination of benefits as I can see wanting to have "their node" be the metropolis.
The way I see it, node clusters will work almost like factions in a game like WoW. You aren't supposed to fight within your faction - at least not openly. The threat to a metropolis level node should be coming from other metropolis level nodes and their vassals.
If a node clusters vassals are not happy with their metropolis, to me the appropriate thing for them to do is to assist another metropolis in sieging said metropolis. Obviously not directly, but to me, a metropolis that doesnt have active support from most of its vassals in a siege shouldnt stand much of a chance.
We have no real way of knowing how the game is designed to handle all of this, but to me, the above seems like it would work the best. Better than allowing vassals to attack their parent node.
What I hope the system will be is a very symbiotic vassal/parent relationship, where the parent needs the vassal to thrive, and vice versa. People in vassal nodes should have full access to services in the parent node, on par with the citizens in that node. The same goes the other way. Let's say the parent node is economic. They would greatly benefit from having vassals of a different node type because of mutual access to services. The only real downside to not being a citizen of the parent or vassal node you need the service from should be a little travel time between the nodes.
In other words, I hope the system encourages players to see the entire parent/vassal branch as beneficial and worth fighting for and improving, even if the mayor sucks in a given node. I hope Intrepid doesn't make a system where a mayor can cut off any benefits and services to and from vassal and parent nodes. That's too much power.
As for declaring war against other nodes, I really hope we get more information soon.
Then wondering, if that ZOI is the zone you want to XP in to develop, how does it compare to a % or fraction of the overall map?
just bribe some other people to destroy it for you, just bank roll peoples attacks to knock it out of the game so you can get ur teir 5 to the new 6
A stage 6 node has the following Vassals.
2 stage 5
2 stage 4
4 stage 3
4 stage 0-2
And a metropolis' ZOI is roughly 1/5 of the world map (excluding oceans I'm assuming)
What do we mean when we say 'contend with'?
The only ways I can think of to 'fight' a node are VERY strong Economic pressure, and sieging it.
The only requirement to siege a node is to complete the questline required for the scroll and this can be done by a single player.
I feel like I'm missing something here. If you want a node brought down, literally any player can start that process for you, what you would need to do is get enough attackers. So I figure the concern is that 'citizens of a Node can't act against it in a Siege' and similarly for 'citizens of Vassals', but I can't find anything other than 'can't declare Node War'.
But Node War seems to only have the purpose of 'being allowed to attack the citizens' as if in a Guild War.
I can't find any indication of what this is 'for' other than the usual 'you annoyed us so we're killing you'. I can definitely see an issue here, but I'm not sure if I see the actual concern here. 'Overthrown' doesn't seem to have anything to do with Node Wars only Node Sieges.
That's something that would need to be cleared up I suppose. If vassal citizens can't declare war but can declare sieges , that's an entirely different story. That would be ideal.
All I found so far. It doesn't mention vassal citizens but I would want to have it stated before I jump to the conclusion of whether or not they can side against other nodes in their vassal system after seeing these.
During the declaration period, individuals or guilds can register to attack or defend providing they meet the criteria.[15][16]
The player who originally declared the siege cannot exclude anyone from joining the attack.[15]
Citizens of the node or provincial nodes being attacked are automatically registered as defenders.[29]
Players do not need to be citizens of the node in order to register as defenders, but they cannot be citizens of a node that is at war with the node they wish to defend.[30]
Citizens of allied nodes cannot register to attack.[31]
this worries me or looking in to deep.
You are seiging me. I get my mega guild of 300 players and tell 100 of them to join the war as an attacker. Now we go into war, you dont attack, we took all of your spots.
We did something like this in New World - we signed up and didnt fight, allowing us to win the war by pretending to be the enemies.
doesnt help, if leader isnt knowledgeable of who player names are and accepts all 60 with good gearscore into their war... or at worse, unfortunately seeing our Guild leader get us to mass report the war leader, to prevent him from editing the 50 players before war starts.
I mean, they'd have to be citizens of other nodes. All of the citizens in the node being attack and its vassals are auto-assigned as defenders.
That quote doesn't seem to apply to Castle Sieges at all, though, from the context I read it in.
This is one of those things that I WOULD ask about but is so likely to still be under discussion/fine tuning that it isn't going to be answerable.
But simply put, those are fairly connected, I think. Node Sieges aren't intended to be fair, Castle Sieges seemingly are some level of 'fair'. The former point is probably the reason why they would need to verify being able to have truly huge battles (in terms of player numbers)
Unless I read (and reread) nover's comment very wrong - they were talking about the same thing. The wiki quote in question was misused by nover for this context, because node sieges are uncapped (allegedly), but I addressed that in my comment.
You could put a ton of different limitations on sieges and/or requirements for guild's actions during a siege, but literally all of those would influence the normal guild behavior much more than that of a single megaguild's one.
L2's castle sieges were pretty much the same as AoC's node ones. Anyone could attack, anyone could defend, no caps (afaik). It was obviously unfair against all the non-huge guilds, but that in itself was a social interaction telling those smaller guilds to band together and stand up against the big bois. And people did.
So unless Intrepid decide to remove the limit on registered participants - I really don't see how they'll prevent this abuse of the system. Banning all the guilds who do this would be very counterproductive and I doubt it would even do anything, unless you were to ban all the players themselves.
That will become in-game politics! Highly likely and not much consequence for the side that does it as there is a near neutered pk system; so no harsh payback by pk, just likely they ended up warred
Ah, as NiKr said!