I'd also like to know what do you think of the earlier suggestion of a PvE event occurring for the same sort of purpose instead? Such as what @CROW3 suggested?
This is kind of already planned to be in the game. Even if that metro is some how living in perfect harmony with the world around it what’s to say enemy nodes can’t try to mess that up.
Maybe the metro is very careful about the number of trees it fells to ensure no tree bosses attack them, but other node group wants to weaken their resources so sends groups in to clear cut the forest forcing the tree boss to attack. Or the metro does mine too deep so it doesn’t wake the dragon in the mountain, but your group mines straight to the dragon to piss it off.
I feel like that gives more player agency, and personally seems more fun than just lowering the cost.
You may wait 2 months between full on sieges, but think of all the fun sabotaging, and PvP from the metro to try to stop that sabotage. Raiding caravans to lessen supplies, guarding rare gatherables to slow the enemies gear progression. That big battle is just the culmination of 2 months of potential conflicts.
The risk vs reward of node sieges should be balanced to make players feel the risk and attack only if they accept the consequences of not wining.
And a siege should act as a resource and gold sink on both sides.
How many metros do we expect to exist on a map at any moment?
Traveling on the map will not be hard and vassals will go often to the nearest metro to access whatever content exists there.
Sure, I think typically the siege should be costly, but if I have to wait 2 months before looking forward to defending my node again, that's terrible design.
I think most people are not going to want to put there homes on the line more often than that. There will plenty of other pvp battles to fight. If there is no stability, it would just be a pvp game, and not pvx.
Youre maintaining a stable PvE centric home by fighting for it through PvP. Sounds very PvX to me. If I am time gated to play certain content by 2 months, that's a problem.
So after all the work, time, resources, defending a node to the point it reaches lvl 6, what is the appropriate amount of time to give residents of that node to relax and work on other aspects of the game?
I'd say 3 weeks to a month tops as far as a stage 6 siege cooldown goes. For how many people would potentially be working on said node, that's a ton of time to build up a stockpile for either defenders or attackers imo.
What kinda time frame would you give stages 3-5? would it even be worth buying an in-node house if you could loose it every few weeks at lvl 6?
Not much less honestly. Maybe a 2 week minimum, gradually increasing.
5 day increments even sounds pretty good to me
Stage 3: 15 days
Stage 4: 20 days
Stage 5: 25 days
Stage 6: 30 days
Makes sense for Stage 3 to happen twice as often as Stage 6
I'd also like to know what do you think of the earlier suggestion of a PvE event occurring for the same sort of purpose instead? Such as what @CROW3 suggested? I can only see people actually wanting stage 6 nodes to be capable of being permanent if they plan on being that node. Where if they're stuck in a stage 4 or 5, they'd likely have a different outlook after shooting themselves es in the foot so to speak.
PvE events would be cool if can also be triggered or diverted.
Like node A triggers it through some quests or harvesting toward node B and node B can through bribing and intrigue redirect it to node C or even back to A. Thieves guild might help too https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Thieves'_guild
I'd also like to know what do you think of the earlier suggestion of a PvE event occurring for the same sort of purpose instead? Such as what @CROW3 suggested?
This is kind of already planned to be in the game. Even if that metro is some how living in perfect harmony with the world around it what’s to say enemy nodes can’t try to mess that up.
Maybe the metro is very careful about the number of trees it fells to ensure no tree bosses attack them, but other node group wants to weaken their resources so sends groups in to clear cut the forest forcing the tree boss to attack. Or the metro does mine too deep so it doesn’t wake the dragon in the mountain, but your group mines straight to the dragon to piss it off.
I feel like that gives more player agency, and personally seems more fun than just lowering the cost.
You may wait 2 months between full on sieges, but think of all the fun sabotaging, and PvP from the metro to try to stop that sabotage. Raiding caravans to lessen supplies, guarding rare gatherables to slow the enemies gear progression. That big battle is just the culmination of 2 months of potential conflicts.
Again, my entire suggestion is based around all of that failing due to the power of a node far exceeding everything else
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Siege is not the only threat to Node/Metro.
Events system...
Monster Coin Attacks...
Castle could raise taxes...
I'd also like to know what do you think of the earlier suggestion of a PvE event occurring for the same sort of purpose instead? Such as what @CROW3 suggested?
This is kind of already planned to be in the game. Even if that metro is some how living in perfect harmony with the world around it what’s to say enemy nodes can’t try to mess that up.
Maybe the metro is very careful about the number of trees it fells to ensure no tree bosses attack them, but other node group wants to weaken their resources so sends groups in to clear cut the forest forcing the tree boss to attack. Or the metro does mine too deep so it doesn’t wake the dragon in the mountain, but your group mines straight to the dragon to piss it off.
I feel like that gives more player agency, and personally seems more fun than just lowering the cost.
You may wait 2 months between full on sieges, but think of all the fun sabotaging, and PvP from the metro to try to stop that sabotage. Raiding caravans to lessen supplies, guarding rare gatherables to slow the enemies gear progression. That big battle is just the culmination of 2 months of potential conflicts.
Again, my entire suggestion is based around all of that failing due to the power of a node far exceeding everything else
Again, my entire suggestion is based around all of that failing due to the power of a node far exceeding everything else
Lets say the frequency of sieges is like a ball on a table.
You want the table tilted to one side because you are afraid by mistake Steven will tilt it to the other side?
Would a horizontal table be acceptable?
Just curious.
I think Steven already tilts the game toward more sieges.
Again, my entire suggestion is based around all of that failing due to the power of a node far exceeding everything else
Lets say the frequency of sieges is like a ball on a table.
You want the table tilted to one side because you are afraid by mistake Steven will tilt it to the other side?
Would a horizontal table be acceptable?
Just curious.
I think Steven already tilts the game toward more sieges.
I'd say it's a horizontal table, but the ball is getting bigger and heavier until it can't move anymore, so you have something there for when it reaches a certain weight to give it a nudge
Again, my entire suggestion is based around all of that failing due to the power of a node far exceeding everything else
Lets say the frequency of sieges is like a ball on a table.
You want the table tilted to one side because you are afraid by mistake Steven will tilt it to the other side?
Would a horizontal table be acceptable?
Just curious.
I think Steven already tilts the game toward more sieges.
I'd say it's a horizontal table, but the ball is getting bigger and heavier until it can't move anymore, so you have something there for when it reaches a certain weight to give it a nudge
The ball growing heavy would be the case of a the lvl 6 Node being able to build unlimited defenses.
But it already has the disadvantage of having to gather nearby resources while the attackers have a larger area to make their siege equipment.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Again, my entire suggestion is based around all of that failing due to the power of a node far exceeding everything else
Lets say the frequency of sieges is like a ball on a table.
You want the table tilted to one side because you are afraid by mistake Steven will tilt it to the other side?
Would a horizontal table be acceptable?
Just curious.
I think Steven already tilts the game toward more sieges.
I'd say it's a horizontal table, but the ball is getting bigger and heavier until it can't move anymore, so you have something there for when it reaches a certain weight to give it a nudge
The ball growing heavy would be the case of a the lvl 6 Node being able to build unlimited defenses.
But it already has the disadvantage of having to gather nearby resources while the attackers have a larger area to make their siege equipment.
The ball getting heavier is only an indication of a node becoming far too strong comparatively to the other competitors on the server.
Again, my entire suggestion is based around all of that failing due to the power of a node far exceeding everything else
Lets say the frequency of sieges is like a ball on a table.
You want the table tilted to one side because you are afraid by mistake Steven will tilt it to the other side?
Would a horizontal table be acceptable?
Just curious.
I think Steven already tilts the game toward more sieges.
I'd say it's a horizontal table, but the ball is getting bigger and heavier until it can't move anymore, so you have something there for when it reaches a certain weight to give it a nudge
The ball growing heavy would be the case of a the lvl 6 Node being able to build unlimited defenses.
But it already has the disadvantage of having to gather nearby resources while the attackers have a larger area to make their siege equipment.
The ball getting heavier is only an indication of a node becoming far too strong comparatively to the other competitors on the server.
Through what game mechanics can a metropolis get (too) strong, stronger than the other 4?
Again, my entire suggestion is based around all of that failing due to the power of a node far exceeding everything else
Lets say the frequency of sieges is like a ball on a table.
You want the table tilted to one side because you are afraid by mistake Steven will tilt it to the other side?
Would a horizontal table be acceptable?
Just curious.
I think Steven already tilts the game toward more sieges.
I'd say it's a horizontal table, but the ball is getting bigger and heavier until it can't move anymore, so you have something there for when it reaches a certain weight to give it a nudge
The ball growing heavy would be the case of a the lvl 6 Node being able to build unlimited defenses.
But it already has the disadvantage of having to gather nearby resources while the attackers have a larger area to make their siege equipment.
The ball getting heavier is only an indication of a node becoming far too strong comparatively to the other competitors on the server.
Through what game mechanics can a metropolis get (too) strong, stronger than the other 4?
I mean, by allowing with the other 4 could itself be an issue for a world designed around conflict.
But you could easily have 1 become far more organized and resourceful under control of a mega guild and before you say they're limited by member caps, mega guilds will just have multiple guilds in cooperation more than likely.
0
Options
HumblePuffinMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'd also like to know what do you think of the earlier suggestion of a PvE event occurring for the same sort of purpose instead? Such as what @CROW3 suggested?
This is kind of already planned to be in the game. Even if that metro is some how living in perfect harmony with the world around it what’s to say enemy nodes can’t try to mess that up.
Maybe the metro is very careful about the number of trees it fells to ensure no tree bosses attack them, but other node group wants to weaken their resources so sends groups in to clear cut the forest forcing the tree boss to attack. Or the metro does mine too deep so it doesn’t wake the dragon in the mountain, but your group mines straight to the dragon to piss it off.
I feel like that gives more player agency, and personally seems more fun than just lowering the cost.
You may wait 2 months between full on sieges, but think of all the fun sabotaging, and PvP from the metro to try to stop that sabotage. Raiding caravans to lessen supplies, guarding rare gatherables to slow the enemies gear progression. That big battle is just the culmination of 2 months of potential conflicts.
Again, my entire suggestion is based around all of that failing due to the power of a node far exceeding everything else
Yes but you had referenced CROW3’s idea in what I quoted, and I was just kinda saying that’s already in game it’s just not a quest.
Monster coin events, and the event system in general will put that PvE pressure on the nodes.
The node atrophy will put pressure on the nodes.
Instead of adding another step I just feel it makes more sense to balance those systems so they are actually enough to effect the node.
Can adjust event mob health, damage and/or numbers. Can adjust the amount of atrophy per day. Can adjust the costs to repair/replace damaged node services. Those all just make sense to me more within game as opposed to wars becoming cheaper
I'd also like to know what do you think of the earlier suggestion of a PvE event occurring for the same sort of purpose instead? Such as what @CROW3 suggested?
This is kind of already planned to be in the game. Even if that metro is some how living in perfect harmony with the world around it what’s to say enemy nodes can’t try to mess that up.
Maybe the metro is very careful about the number of trees it fells to ensure no tree bosses attack them, but other node group wants to weaken their resources so sends groups in to clear cut the forest forcing the tree boss to attack. Or the metro does mine too deep so it doesn’t wake the dragon in the mountain, but your group mines straight to the dragon to piss it off.
I feel like that gives more player agency, and personally seems more fun than just lowering the cost.
You may wait 2 months between full on sieges, but think of all the fun sabotaging, and PvP from the metro to try to stop that sabotage. Raiding caravans to lessen supplies, guarding rare gatherables to slow the enemies gear progression. That big battle is just the culmination of 2 months of potential conflicts.
Again, my entire suggestion is based around all of that failing due to the power of a node far exceeding everything else
Yes but you had referenced CROW3’s idea in what I quoted, and I was just kinda saying that’s already in game it’s just not a quest.
Monster coin events, and the event system in general will put that PvE pressure on the nodes.
The node atrophy will put pressure on the nodes.
Instead of adding another step I just feel it makes more sense to balance those systems so they are actually enough to effect the node.
Can adjust event mob health, damage and/or numbers. Can adjust the amount of atrophy per day. Can adjust the costs to repair/replace damaged node services. Those all just make sense to me more within game as opposed to wars becoming cheaper
That'd be fine by me, my main concern is simply having a node remain in power for most of a servers life
I think it would be great for a node metro to remain for such a long time, as long as it did so in the face of great pressure. If a node’s citizens can band together to defend and sustain the node as those pressures mount, that’s a good thing. I wouldn’t want to artificially undermine that sense of community just to undermine it.
That said, I think we’re talking about an extraordinary edge case. I don’t think stage 6 nodes will withstand the pressures against them for very long.
2
Options
HumblePuffinMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'd also like to know what do you think of the earlier suggestion of a PvE event occurring for the same sort of purpose instead? Such as what @CROW3 suggested?
This is kind of already planned to be in the game. Even if that metro is some how living in perfect harmony with the world around it what’s to say enemy nodes can’t try to mess that up.
Maybe the metro is very careful about the number of trees it fells to ensure no tree bosses attack them, but other node group wants to weaken their resources so sends groups in to clear cut the forest forcing the tree boss to attack. Or the metro does mine too deep so it doesn’t wake the dragon in the mountain, but your group mines straight to the dragon to piss it off.
I feel like that gives more player agency, and personally seems more fun than just lowering the cost.
You may wait 2 months between full on sieges, but think of all the fun sabotaging, and PvP from the metro to try to stop that sabotage. Raiding caravans to lessen supplies, guarding rare gatherables to slow the enemies gear progression. That big battle is just the culmination of 2 months of potential conflicts.
Again, my entire suggestion is based around all of that failing due to the power of a node far exceeding everything else
Yes but you had referenced CROW3’s idea in what I quoted, and I was just kinda saying that’s already in game it’s just not a quest.
Monster coin events, and the event system in general will put that PvE pressure on the nodes.
The node atrophy will put pressure on the nodes.
Instead of adding another step I just feel it makes more sense to balance those systems so they are actually enough to effect the node.
Can adjust event mob health, damage and/or numbers. Can adjust the amount of atrophy per day. Can adjust the costs to repair/replace damaged node services. Those all just make sense to me more within game as opposed to wars becoming cheaper
That'd be fine by me, my main concern is simply having a node remain in power for most of a servers life
I can understand that. It sounds like quite a grand tale though if they are able to over come all those things, and those systems are tuned to be meaningfully impactful. I hope this theoretical Metro is named Ba Sing Se.
I think it would be great for a node metro to remain for such a long time, as long as it did so in the face of great pressure. If a node’s citizens can band together to defend and sustain the node as those pressures mount, that’s a good thing. I wouldn’t want to artificially undermine that sense of community just to undermine it.
That said, I think we’re talking about an extraordinary edge case. I don’t think stage 6 nodes will withstand the pressures against them for very long.
Bards will sing songs about those epic battles.
( especially if the events involve known NPCs )
Sieging a metropolis is supposed to be a "monumental, world changing event" if metropolis's are falling every other month, its not exactly a monumental event anymore.
Sieging a metropolis is supposed to be a "monumental, world changing event" if metropolis's are falling every other month, its not exactly a monumental event anymore.
By the current design, they could fall every other month. But, If they're falling every other month, that would imply sieging is too easy if there werent any successful defenses, hence it would need tweaking. Vice versa, if the defense is always winning, that needs tweaking as well. With an equal effort on offense and defense, there should be equal chances of victory and loss.
When I think Stage 6 metro, I think Stormwind. That needs to last a while. However, it takes the city to defend the city, otherwise it’s just another Stromgard.
I'd have assumed that the suggestion @CROW3 made was the 'obvious' one.
Maintaining a Metropolis tier node that doesn't invite PvE events just from the natural friction it would have with the environment/world would be hard enough.
'Status maintenance' content doesn't have to be boring, particularly in this type of game.
I get more 'missions' (not the ingame type, the big type that I put out for my faction's supporters) in Elite from that, than anything else, and it normally is a decent draw for people. They're probably just drawn for the immersion/RP too, since most of the time I'm not rewarding them directly and the ingame rewards aren't particularly optimal.
EDIT: I can't English today, too much tokenization work, so forgive my wobbly grammar.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Might want your Metro to fall if there are no Metros where you can complete your Racial progression.
Especially if you love the location and Node Type and you just hope for a change in dominant Race.
Another would be the desire to switch to a different node type and having none available as stage 6.
There's also wanting to create a coastal stage 6 node thus needing to destroy the inland one, or vice versa.
These would all be viable reasons even if you are part of the current stage 6 node in question.
Hell, even freeing up freehold space, or new dungeon content is a possibility as why to get rid of the stage 6 node that's been up too long, even if you're a part of it.
There's going to be 85 regular nodes and 15 castle nodes...that's a lot for a single server, and this is just at launch, eventually there will be expansions that will increase this. This means that smaller guilds can take any number of of the 85 regular nodes and big guilds will fight over the 15 castle nodes.... which is plenty. We don't know how many people can be allowed in a guild yet, or whether guilds can form in game alliances too.
If they do introduce alliances of say 3 guilds banding together, that's 15x3 which is 45 alliances...
Also, a guild controlling a certain node, does not prevent other people from participating in end game content... the only thing that happens is the guild controlling the node gets extra resources.
So if you want to counter that, then just band together with other smaller guilds to make a larger alliance, or join a bigger guild etc... Like this is an mmo, it's not just your guild vs other guilds... there's more to it.
0
Options
HumblePuffinMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Comments
This is kind of already planned to be in the game. Even if that metro is some how living in perfect harmony with the world around it what’s to say enemy nodes can’t try to mess that up.
Maybe the metro is very careful about the number of trees it fells to ensure no tree bosses attack them, but other node group wants to weaken their resources so sends groups in to clear cut the forest forcing the tree boss to attack. Or the metro does mine too deep so it doesn’t wake the dragon in the mountain, but your group mines straight to the dragon to piss it off.
I feel like that gives more player agency, and personally seems more fun than just lowering the cost.
You may wait 2 months between full on sieges, but think of all the fun sabotaging, and PvP from the metro to try to stop that sabotage. Raiding caravans to lessen supplies, guarding rare gatherables to slow the enemies gear progression. That big battle is just the culmination of 2 months of potential conflicts.
Not much less honestly. Maybe a 2 week minimum, gradually increasing.
5 day increments even sounds pretty good to me
Stage 3: 15 days
Stage 4: 20 days
Stage 5: 25 days
Stage 6: 30 days
Makes sense for Stage 3 to happen twice as often as Stage 6
PvE events would be cool if can also be triggered or diverted.
Like node A triggers it through some quests or harvesting toward node B and node B can through bribing and intrigue redirect it to node C or even back to A. Thieves guild might help too
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Thieves'_guild
Again, my entire suggestion is based around all of that failing due to the power of a node far exceeding everything else
Events system...
Monster Coin Attacks...
Castle could raise taxes...
I hope you get on a server with like-minded players, friend.
Lets say the frequency of sieges is like a ball on a table.
You want the table tilted to one side because you are afraid by mistake Steven will tilt it to the other side?
Would a horizontal table be acceptable?
Just curious.
I think Steven already tilts the game toward more sieges.
I'd say it's a horizontal table, but the ball is getting bigger and heavier until it can't move anymore, so you have something there for when it reaches a certain weight to give it a nudge
The ball growing heavy would be the case of a the lvl 6 Node being able to build unlimited defenses.
But it already has the disadvantage of having to gather nearby resources while the attackers have a larger area to make their siege equipment.
Oh. Doom and gloom.
Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
The ball getting heavier is only an indication of a node becoming far too strong comparatively to the other competitors on the server.
Through what game mechanics can a metropolis get (too) strong, stronger than the other 4?
I mean, by allowing with the other 4 could itself be an issue for a world designed around conflict.
But you could easily have 1 become far more organized and resourceful under control of a mega guild and before you say they're limited by member caps, mega guilds will just have multiple guilds in cooperation more than likely.
Yes but you had referenced CROW3’s idea in what I quoted, and I was just kinda saying that’s already in game it’s just not a quest.
Monster coin events, and the event system in general will put that PvE pressure on the nodes.
The node atrophy will put pressure on the nodes.
Instead of adding another step I just feel it makes more sense to balance those systems so they are actually enough to effect the node.
Can adjust event mob health, damage and/or numbers. Can adjust the amount of atrophy per day. Can adjust the costs to repair/replace damaged node services. Those all just make sense to me more within game as opposed to wars becoming cheaper
That'd be fine by me, my main concern is simply having a node remain in power for most of a servers life
That said, I think we’re talking about an extraordinary edge case. I don’t think stage 6 nodes will withstand the pressures against them for very long.
I can understand that. It sounds like quite a grand tale though if they are able to over come all those things, and those systems are tuned to be meaningfully impactful. I hope this theoretical Metro is named Ba Sing Se.
Bards will sing songs about those epic battles.
( especially if the events involve known NPCs )
By the current design, they could fall every other month. But, If they're falling every other month, that would imply sieging is too easy if there werent any successful defenses, hence it would need tweaking. Vice versa, if the defense is always winning, that needs tweaking as well. With an equal effort on offense and defense, there should be equal chances of victory and loss.
Maintaining a Metropolis tier node that doesn't invite PvE events just from the natural friction it would have with the environment/world would be hard enough.
'Status maintenance' content doesn't have to be boring, particularly in this type of game.
I get more 'missions' (not the ingame type, the big type that I put out for my faction's supporters) in Elite from that, than anything else, and it normally is a decent draw for people. They're probably just drawn for the immersion/RP too, since most of the time I'm not rewarding them directly and the ingame rewards aren't particularly optimal.
EDIT: I can't English today, too much tokenization work, so forgive my wobbly grammar.
Especially if you love the location and Node Type and you just hope for a change in dominant Race.
Change generally. @Dygz gave a good example.
Another would be the desire to switch to a different node type and having none available as stage 6.
There's also wanting to create a coastal stage 6 node thus needing to destroy the inland one, or vice versa.
These would all be viable reasons even if you are part of the current stage 6 node in question.
Hell, even freeing up freehold space, or new dungeon content is a possibility as why to get rid of the stage 6 node that's been up too long, even if you're a part of it.
If they do introduce alliances of say 3 guilds banding together, that's 15x3 which is 45 alliances...
Also, a guild controlling a certain node, does not prevent other people from participating in end game content... the only thing that happens is the guild controlling the node gets extra resources.
So if you want to counter that, then just band together with other smaller guilds to make a larger alliance, or join a bigger guild etc... Like this is an mmo, it's not just your guild vs other guilds... there's more to it.
I don’t really disagree with anything you said, and do agree it definitely feels like it’s at the “we gotta test and see” point.
But we do know that max guild size is aimed at 300 with all guild perks going to guild size, and alliances will be up to 4 guilds.