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
Stage 6 Node Corruption
Dolyem
Member
Alright I expect this to get spicy if people read it.
So I had a random thought after reading some comments regarding mega guilds, and just big guilds controlling end game content and I had a sort of light bulb moment that could sort of help with this, but its actually mostly about promoting a changing world and preventing any server from becoming too stagnant due to any 1 of the stage 6 nodes simply being too powerful due to being either too fortified with massive alliances, the most skilled players maintaining them, just an overall difference in power balance between players, etc.
First I will say that the main goal SHOULD be for players to conflict with each other, bring down and raising up nodes through natural gameplay. This is the most ideal and intended way things should evolve on any server.
However, sometimes things may not work out that way, so to insure that these sorts of things do happen, I propose STAGE 6 NODE CORRUPTION!
Its obviously a take away from player corruption, but it would more or less be caused by a stage 6 node not being sieged successfully for a certain amount of time. I would say that it should be a substantial amount of time, literally 3 to 6 months minimum, before corruption could even become active, and I would even also recommend having a required amount of attempted sieges against the node as well, maybe 10, dependent on how easily or often sieges can be done. The corruption gains would be based on more time as a stage 6 node after its initial corruption activating, and increase with each siege it succeeds against after the initial corruption. In lore it could be based off of corruption following prolonged power in long established nodes, corrupting the system within.
What would Stage 6 Node Corruption do? Destroy the node? NO! That's just lazy design. Weaken the node? ALSO NO! That makes being a level 6 node eventually a bad thing. I merely suggest that as time goes on for a corrupted stage 6 node, sieges against it cost less and less resources to activate, as well as perhaps more monster attacks happening. So while the defending node will still be very capable and their skill set wont be affected, the outmatched attackers would at least be able to make more attempts against them as time goes on. I would say to make a cap on how low the siege cost can go as well, but make it relatively cheap compared to the original cost once it hits that cap.
While it doesn't guarantee a successful siege, because it shouldn't, it can guarantee a plethora of events, a solid mechanic to make an exceedingly powerful node to receive a bit more difficulty to match that power, and it encourages making the world change and evolve instead of remain the same once the initial powers settle in and advance to endgame.
So I had a random thought after reading some comments regarding mega guilds, and just big guilds controlling end game content and I had a sort of light bulb moment that could sort of help with this, but its actually mostly about promoting a changing world and preventing any server from becoming too stagnant due to any 1 of the stage 6 nodes simply being too powerful due to being either too fortified with massive alliances, the most skilled players maintaining them, just an overall difference in power balance between players, etc.
First I will say that the main goal SHOULD be for players to conflict with each other, bring down and raising up nodes through natural gameplay. This is the most ideal and intended way things should evolve on any server.
However, sometimes things may not work out that way, so to insure that these sorts of things do happen, I propose STAGE 6 NODE CORRUPTION!
Its obviously a take away from player corruption, but it would more or less be caused by a stage 6 node not being sieged successfully for a certain amount of time. I would say that it should be a substantial amount of time, literally 3 to 6 months minimum, before corruption could even become active, and I would even also recommend having a required amount of attempted sieges against the node as well, maybe 10, dependent on how easily or often sieges can be done. The corruption gains would be based on more time as a stage 6 node after its initial corruption activating, and increase with each siege it succeeds against after the initial corruption. In lore it could be based off of corruption following prolonged power in long established nodes, corrupting the system within.
What would Stage 6 Node Corruption do? Destroy the node? NO! That's just lazy design. Weaken the node? ALSO NO! That makes being a level 6 node eventually a bad thing. I merely suggest that as time goes on for a corrupted stage 6 node, sieges against it cost less and less resources to activate, as well as perhaps more monster attacks happening. So while the defending node will still be very capable and their skill set wont be affected, the outmatched attackers would at least be able to make more attempts against them as time goes on. I would say to make a cap on how low the siege cost can go as well, but make it relatively cheap compared to the original cost once it hits that cap.
While it doesn't guarantee a successful siege, because it shouldn't, it can guarantee a plethora of events, a solid mechanic to make an exceedingly powerful node to receive a bit more difficulty to match that power, and it encourages making the world change and evolve instead of remain the same once the initial powers settle in and advance to endgame.
1
Comments
Its more or less a safeguard. So if a stage 6 node stays that way for 6 months, things have a greater potential to change. Its not like its kicking stage 6 nodes out the door for existing for a month lmao
In this suggestion it doesn't weaken the node at all. It just makes it cheaper to attack.
Technically it wouldn't affect the cooldown of the siege declaration, so the node would still have the same amount of recovery time it is normally allotted before another siege could be declared.
I think the goal is clear and the node defence will be balanced considering also what the attackers can do.
My guess is that a node 6 will survive easier if it has many vassals. And bringing down the vassals will be the first step to weaken the node, to deplete whatever reserves it has.
Nodes that are being sieged will always be outnumbered, simply because more people don't live in the node than do. It will also be much easier to recruit people to attack a node than it will be to defend one, because there is more incentive to bring down any node that is not yours.
Vassal nodes cannot attack their own superior nodes.
So who would attack a level 6 node?
The post of @Krakhun makes me unsure now.
Can noncitizen players declare siege onto a node and participate to the siege?
I know a vassal node can not declare war on it parent node, but does that mean a player can't join the attackers if someone else declares war? (not sure myself)
I actually asked a similar question for the dev streams. Asking if non siege participants, attacker or defenders, and even citizens of the node can attack freeholds of a node successfully sieged.
I do think non-cotizens should be able to opt in to defend, though citizens should have priority
If you want more change, play on a server with more change.
I liken it to nodes as players in the open world. If a player(node) is forever beating out and beating up other playerd(nodes), why shouldn't they also get corruption as to keep things balanced out?
I'd also like to say this is just an idea for IF it becomes and issue. Testing always comes first, but a long term deterrent like thus is hard to test out efficiently, hence why I even brought it up.
What is wrong with having a strong level 6 node which players have spent a great deal to time and work to level up, build and make strong? WHY should those players be punished for being successful? Let the level 6 node reign for years, just like Rome did in its time!
One node cannot dominate a server. Other nodes, even if just level 5, can take the place or Persia or Gaul in the 'Roman world' of the level 6 node. That is what should happen in the game.
Do not punish players for their own successful work by weakening the node they built.
I absolutely hate the idea of punishing players for being good at the game, and being able to protect their node.
Can I ask why you think it is a punishment? Nodes will be in demand and someone without one will try to take it. Its the game design. Nodes will rise and fall, and in doing so it will change the environment. If the node is strong enough to withstand the enemy attacking then more power to them. Its nothing personal.
Making it cheaper (therefor easier) to attack a node just because it is populated with skilled players, that have successfully defended their node can't be anything but a punishment.
The way how I see this statement is that it presents as precondition 1 node causing the world to be stagnant.
If only 1 node can cause the world to not change then some balancing has to be done during Alpha 2
But if we have 3 or 4 metropolises who decide to have peace, then that should be possible.
It is about what the majority of players on a server want.
Metros can change based on the changes occuring in other Metros, Cities and Towns.
A Metro can also change based on influences from the Castle.
Metros can also change significantly with a different Mayor.
Metros may also change significantly due to how they respond or fail to respond to the Events System.
As they were discussing what is meaningful conflict, I realized that the conflict between nodes gives meaning to PvP.
That means nodes should not become harder to defend over time. More frequent sieges would exhaust the defenders and also would take away from their PvE time.
It would become an accepted thing that nodes are meant to fall and could encourage players to move to another metropolis before things start to happen.
Also, there would still be the normal cooldown on a siege meant to prevent a node from being repeatedly attacked without being able to recover.
There is no debuff to the node itself. Just enabling easier access to sieges against it due to their overwhelming streak of wins.
Just as you don't want the best PvPers ganking without being checked, you don't want any one node to be the most dominant without a check.
From that point of view, the whole discussion is kinda pointless. If that node is blocking new content, and the rest of the server wants it gone, they have months to gather the resources they need. Whether its a reduced amount or not, will make little to no difference.
That would just need tweaked. The point is more or less to give a server a fighting chance in the face of an unstoppable node, and by doing so, always promote change. What's the actual con to this suggestion you're worried about?
I'd even argue the same concept to be applied to mayor's in office too long.
You stated that level 6 nodes are "unstoppable" and "basically unbeatable" but we have No evidence of that. You may think that, but you essentially made that up, right?
Remember, a level 6 node can control something around 25% of the server area, or maybe 33% if nodes are not positioned evenly around the map. So, if the players on a server have good enough reason to want that node removed, they can outnumber the node 2 or 3 to 1. It appears to me that the map and game design certainly make even the most powerful node vulnerable to the majority of server players. If, however, through alliances and good governance (keeping the server players happy), the level 6 node is able to keep the non-citizens content and happy then good for them! Let the node continue, don't give advantages to their enemy.
Edit: PS Same goes for mayors...if they are doing a good job, let them continue serving. Just because they have been doing a good job for a long time is not a rational reason to remove them.
Incorrect, I said for stage 6 nodes that are unstoppable, not ALL stage 6 nodes are unstoppable
So would you also opt for zealous PvPers to not be restricted? After all, they're just great at it and don't want to be limited by how much they can do it. Why punish them with corruption if they can get away with it by being the better PvPer?
It can be a very detrimental thing if corruption is not addressed; and that's the intent of corruption, is to present a challenge to the players that if not addressed it becomes exacerbated and a problem over time.[9] – Steven Sharif
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Corrupted_areas
As a game mechanic, I see this as an incentive to be active. Don't just do your niche game-play without caring about your node. Also tries to keep players more in AoC than playing something else.
So players who take care of their node should have better defenses.
If a node level 6 stays in power without attacking other nodes, just surviving sieges (if they happen), it should not be penalized.
But if the citizens of the nation belonging to that lvl 6 Node win frequently in sieges against other nations, then maybe there should be a form of balancing.
I would rather help the weaker ones defend better if they lost their nodes too often by boosting resource generation in their areas.
The strong lvl 6 node would maybe try to grab those resources too but the nearby citizens being close, would have some advantage.
What I see as the current change incentive in regards to Tier 6 Nodes:
- up to 4 enemy metropoli which would probably band together sooner or later to take down the "oldie"
- bordem would set in at some point if the tier 6 node remains so long that basically everyone has gotten access to its resources, gear and lore. People will look for new things and will leave the node for that reason
- Assuming this Node and the alliance behind it is the only big node that tramples all upcoming competition, bordem and lack of progression would once again become an issue. Since the Tier 6 Node Alliance stomps down all other Nodes before they can become too big, that is basically a cap for new high level content which will cause dissatisfaction amongst players
TL;DR - In most cases I think the Tier 6 Node will suffer from its own long lasting success as the psychology will turn against them. Players can only manage the node, but not the access to new content which is set up in a way that it will require them to vanish at some point.
Worst case scenario would be such an Alliance dominating a server to the point where people just leave for other servers due to lack of content, which in the extremest of cases will force a server merger and then the node would vanish