Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Ownership = will to defend. How many will be owners?
pyreal
Member, Warrior of Old, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
How many players within a lvl 3 node will have something to lose, and thus a motivation?
If a player has no stake in a fight, why would they fight?
@BlackBrony made a good point when he asked 'Why should I fight for my node?'
Its a good question.
Having ownership centers around housing it seems, mainly FHS. So I wonder how many players in a lvl3 will actually care whether the node gets razed or not.
I think this could be a motivational problem for the node system.
If a player has no stake in a fight, why would they fight?
@BlackBrony made a good point when he asked 'Why should I fight for my node?'
Its a good question.
Having ownership centers around housing it seems, mainly FHS. So I wonder how many players in a lvl3 will actually care whether the node gets razed or not.
I think this could be a motivational problem for the node system.
1
Comments
This gets into the mind set of a pve player, vrs a pvp player. As a pvp player it isn't even a question if there is a fight I'm going to be there it is that simple. Not to mention I'm sure there will be plenty to lose in your bank and such.
As development continues we will get more information on it, and node destruction is going to be a big deal in the impact on the world and the players. I am certain players will want to defend, or even try to stop people from declaring if possible.
Any and all guilds that had their hand in raising up and supporting that metro would probably be highly interested in keeping it alive and well. So imo there's a fairly high chance that lvl3 nodes will get protected by the strong dudes above purely because it would not be beneficial for those dudes to destabilize their gameplay.
At node 3 there are 8 cottages
Low thousands freehold = 2.5k > that means 30 free holds per node?
So in one node maybe 40 people have houses, the rest don't. Of course at village stage. Number of players will increase, but freehold number is static.
Of course population won't distribute evenly, which means certain nodes will have even more players
I will say one thing on vassal nodes, if my citizenship is a T5 node under the metro vassalship i wouldnt wanna defend the metro tbh because if it gets destroyed effectivly my T5 node is a 50/50 chance to be the next metro since there 2 T5 nodes under a T6 vassal so there some weird interaction there on why should i defend the metro node. But there could be a reason to that we dont know yet just something i figured i would mention.
player density will also play a roll on how easily one can obtai a freehold majority im guessing about 70% of player will be somewhat close to the 6 Metro nodes (i beleive there still 6) so any node far away from these will have substancialy less competition for freeholds, will laso be less PKs aswell as a bonus for the people trying to advoid PK's :P
People still have access to Apartments and static housing. Theres also the fact that if you store materials at a node, that stuff gets locked in once a siege starts, and your materials are on the looting table if you fail to defend. And I quote: "A portion of all Materials (crafting components) and Gatherables that were stored in successfully sieged nodes become lootable to the victors of the siege as spoils of war."
Here's another important quote in the context of when a node is destroyed: "Gatherables and processed goods that were stored in in-node housing and apartment storage chests become lootable. These are not lootable if the node survives the siege- even if the housing buildings are destroyed or damaged during the siege.[68]"
So yeah, you non-citizens that think you're just gonna skip town better think carefully about the resources you store. It's one siege away from being taken. And if thats not enough incentive to defend a node then you are just living in coocoo land.
Seems to me you're scared you will face a rebellion from defenders and your plans will be scuppered by pacifists on one side and cutthroats on the other.
It is reasonable to state one will defend a freehold if required but one won't get involved if there's little skin in the game. There are other buildings to protect like Guild Hall or Castle. You can bet I will defend nodes my castle is linked to.
If I live in a neighboring node 1 level below the targeted node... like, mine home is level 2, and the level 3 is under siege.
You bet I'm joining the defense! More over, I'm gonna encourage the whole town to join in.
Then, as the battle is set to begin... We pull a "BraveHeart" and ride away. (figuratively)
Then after we go to powerlevel our Town.
As far as we know, apartments and static housing offer no gameplay. You can't set up a sawmill or a fishing pond, for example.
As such, losing them isn't really a problem. Since losing them isn't really a problem, not having one isn't really a problem.
Now, imagine you are a player that doesn't have a freehold, and has no reasonable expectation of getting one any time soon. You could base yourseld in one node, store all your materials there, get a house there, be a citizen etc. Basically, do all the things.
The thing is, doing all of that doesn't actually see you gain anything - at least not that we know of as yet.
The alternative is to not have a house (no loss), spread your materials over multiple zones (lower loss in a potential siege), and simply not consider any one node home. This will see you moving around the world more than someone that needs to requrn to that one locatio nis likely to be able to reasonably do.
Basically, with what we know so far, if you don't own a freehold, not considering any one node to be home is BY FAR your best play.
As such, the only reason you would have for joining a node siege is for gameplay purposes - you just want to play some siege content. The thing is, even if you have some materials stored in that node, if it loses it will probably open up the possibility of the next big node over gaining supremecy, and you probably have just as much stored in that node as this node. Basically, you may be better off if the node loses, even if you have stuff stored there.
I have no doubt Intrepid will try and fix this. The problem is, the way I see them trying to fix it is by stating that many of the node amenities and services that we have been told are available to all will now only be available to citizens. This will come across as Intrepid taking even more away from players, and so will see even more people leave the game (or people that have already left even more sure that they won't come back).
What Intrepid need to do instead is to add in a new reason for people to care about their node. The problem is, it needs to be a reason on par with owning a freehold. This was a part of the reasoning behind why my prediction is that Intrepid will essentially add in a second tier of freehold - half an acre rather than an acre and a half.
To me, that really is the only way to pull a win out of this situation.
I don't think you could either.
But then, I also never thought you could make freeholds as exclusive as they just made them without breaking the concept of sieges and node citizenship.
- There is still housing in the city, even unique ones. And even if it is "just" your apartment, losing the node means losing the interior until you rebuild it in a new node.
- A citizenship is said to have its own unique perks so anyone profitting from these perks would be well advised to keep that Node in existence
- lore and faction motivated players have a reason to defend a node. Losing a Node could spell the premature end of a story arch that would only go on with a Node in the area advancing.
- Anyone who has stored goods and gear in the Node will want to defend it during a siege to not lose those goods.
- from Tier 4 onwards Nodes will also have patron guilds which will have guild halls in the city that they will not want to lose
- At the stage where they can be stored a Node's relics can provide very rare materials, anyone profitting from those will be incentivized to defend this free material allocation
And as a last point I might add that the Alpha stage is also there to help see how well a system is working. If sieges fail to attract any defenders it could cause Intrepid to deem the siege systems incentive structure dysfunctional. And since an Alpha phase is exactly there to ensure that the mechanics and system work as intended, there is a good chance they be adjusted through additional investment opportunities or additional reward systems for defenders.
That is actually quite smart.
Not saying that as a surpise that you came up with it or anyt, just genuinly surprised I hadn't thought of it yet.
Edit to add; now watch Intrepid not allow storage in a node until the point where that node can be sieged - because taking away from players is their thing right now.
This all falls apart when you realize the only people that will lack access to freehold tech are those without friends or a guild. Its quite the large social interaction addition to the game. We don't even know the full access options a player can hand out for freeholds yet either. It could even be the case that people can make them open to the public.
Also, Im really shocked that people are so quick to think that every node will be generic copies of each other. Do you think you will be finding the same resources and mob drops in the desert as you will be in the Riverlands? All sorts of people have different preferences in zone aesthetic, mob types, farming spots (both gathering and mobs), etc. The travel time involved in what many of the non-citizen advocates here are "planning" is ridiculous. Most people will try to minimize travel times and keep their structures in-tact. Participating in a siege defense doesn't even hurt you.
Do you think that if you join a guild that has a freehold or two they will just happily accept it if you dont show up to defend it? What about the political landscape this game is going to foster? Again, the thought that defending a node has no incentives is just baffling to me if you have any plans to make friends or join any guild worth their salt. but hey, if you guys wanna do flips and tricks just to avoid a siege battle, go for it. You're choosing, not forced, choosing to not engage with the systems.
When the game comes out I will have access to a freehold or two even if I dont personally own it. You better make plans to do the same, or run the very high risk of making the game harder for yourself for no reason.
Realistically, there will be 750 - 1k freeholds on a server at a time (the only assumption beng made here - I have justified this in another thread).
A family can have a total of 9 people in it. 8 people to start, but you can add one more via marrage (why you can add one person via marrage but only one person is well beyond me).
That means a freehold can have up to 9 people in it. WIth 1k freeholds on a server, that is 9k people with access to use a freehold.
A server will have 20 - 25k active players on it in order to achieve the 8 - 10k concurrent player target Intrepid has.
So, at the absolute best, slightly less than half of the playerbase has access to a freehold.
However, there are a few important points that reduce it further still.
The next point to consider is that guilds won't limit themselves to the minimum number of freeholds. A guild of 90 players isn't going to just stop at 10 freeholds - and organized guilds are the people that will essentially have first dibs on freeholds.
Next you have to consider that a freehold can't necessarily support 9 players. Sure, that is how many may have access to it, but it I use up all the land on my freehold for planting crops, then that is just me using that freehold.
Same with animal husbandry and fishing. It is only freeholds set up as processing and crafting hubs that will see multiple people using them.
So, all of a sudden we have to assume that there will be less than 5k people per server with access to freeholds, potentially as low as 2k.
Now, to be clear, my concern isn't about whether I will have one or not. I rarely argue about things from my own personal perspective. If I am playing the game, I will have a freehold (perhaps two). I have no doubt about that.
To me, it is about the entire player stack. If the game isn't worthwhile for players from the top end all the way down to the casual, then the game as a whole isn't worth playing - as the game needs all of these players to function.
You really think that only those 9 players will be able to use their freehold?
Is this not just a duplicate thread of the same topic?
Yes I do. A player owns a freehold, and can set permissions to others within their family. Permission is required to use crafting stations and such.
That is actually fairly clear to me.
Humm...
Tier 0 = wilderness
Tier 1 = expedition
Tier 2 = encampment
Tier 3 = village
Tier 4 = town
Tier 5 = city
Tier 6 = metropolis
What kind of storage services (or any services of another type) you two expect to be available in an expedition or even encampment?
Yes, but are you expecting a peddler and a guy with a chest that can offer basic storage, like a 4-6 slots for your Tetris bags; or are you expecting a well connected trader, offering goods from beyond the sea, and a respectable banker owning a magic safe capable of warehouse level of storage? Said banker being behind a counter onto which a pen is linked with a delicate chain of course...
Well, see, when you put it that way, all I can read is "this is for hardcore players, normal players won't care about it".
No one likes losing shit, therefore why would a casual risk having all of their goods on one single node? Even if it takes time, the smart choice is to spread evenly and have a base of operations.
Casuals won't be making huge money, they might not even be able to afford rare items
I expect a vendor who can take my stuff for gold and a bank large enough to store some stuff. There won't be one tier 1 node on a server.
Encampment (stage 2) and Expedition (stage 1) nodes are technically not vassal nodes as they do not support citizenships. If their parent Village (stage 3) node is destroyed by a node siege, these nodes are also destroyed.[19]
Hope you stashed your stuff so far away from civilization that it's not even in the ZOI of a T3 node.