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
How often should nodes be sieged/destroyed?
Sengarden
Member
Before I go any further, yes this is a rather vague question with a lot of variables at play, but I think it's good to discuss this sort of thing, even if definitive number ranges are hard to narrow down on.
As a game with more holistic design practices than any MMO I've seen before, it's impossible to adjust one system in Ashes without impacting all others in some shape or form. With this in mind, I think it would make sense if Intrepid had a (currently flexible) idea of how often they'd expect to see nodes sieged or destroyed. If you have no idea how often something like that should occur in order to keep your core game loops going, how are you supposed to design the surrounding systems to encourage those behaviors? I think they must have a vague idea in mind, which means this is in fact something tangible that we can discuss.
We see comments being made now and then about various topics relating to the frequency of node cycling, like the freehold system, RMT, mayorship, but we don't really know yet what the average lifespan of a node will be. I'm sure it will likely depend on the current level of the node, as well as its location, but it's not entirely useless to discuss averages.
After watching last month's node livestream, it really opened up my mind to how much effort is being put into each and every node. Most people are discussing how lively they want the NPCs to be and how much character they want each node to have so that players develop a strong connection to them. So it makes me wonder, how long do we really want to keep the same node? One month? Three? Six? A year?
I'm sure people will have different opinions, I'd just enjoy hearing them and whatever reasons you have.
Obviously, it falls on a range, but to start things off, I'd say that if I found a node I enjoyed being a part of with people I like interacting with, I'd hope to enjoy my time there for at least 4-6 months. If I never lived in the same node longer than 6 months without seeing it destroyed, I wouldn't be disappointed. I think any less than three months would make it difficult for me to fully appreciate what the node has to offer while I'm there.
As a game with more holistic design practices than any MMO I've seen before, it's impossible to adjust one system in Ashes without impacting all others in some shape or form. With this in mind, I think it would make sense if Intrepid had a (currently flexible) idea of how often they'd expect to see nodes sieged or destroyed. If you have no idea how often something like that should occur in order to keep your core game loops going, how are you supposed to design the surrounding systems to encourage those behaviors? I think they must have a vague idea in mind, which means this is in fact something tangible that we can discuss.
We see comments being made now and then about various topics relating to the frequency of node cycling, like the freehold system, RMT, mayorship, but we don't really know yet what the average lifespan of a node will be. I'm sure it will likely depend on the current level of the node, as well as its location, but it's not entirely useless to discuss averages.
After watching last month's node livestream, it really opened up my mind to how much effort is being put into each and every node. Most people are discussing how lively they want the NPCs to be and how much character they want each node to have so that players develop a strong connection to them. So it makes me wonder, how long do we really want to keep the same node? One month? Three? Six? A year?
I'm sure people will have different opinions, I'd just enjoy hearing them and whatever reasons you have.
Obviously, it falls on a range, but to start things off, I'd say that if I found a node I enjoyed being a part of with people I like interacting with, I'd hope to enjoy my time there for at least 4-6 months. If I never lived in the same node longer than 6 months without seeing it destroyed, I wouldn't be disappointed. I think any less than three months would make it difficult for me to fully appreciate what the node has to offer while I'm there.
1
Comments
If the region is active/popular, chances are one of the vassal nodes will be ready to take the torch and grow into the new leading role. People can relocate and won't have to start from scratches.
Better to be a smartass than a dumbass ... this is the correct answer.
After a node is destroyed, the footprint of the node will enter a ruined state and will become an open PvP zone for a number of days equal to the node's level. These ruins consist of a debris field of treasures that are lootable by certain players.[4][5][6][7][8][9]
Which players get to loot the debris field during this period is currently under discussion by the developers.[10] Previously it was stated that any player could loot the debris field.[5] Before that it was stated that only attackers who participated in the siege will have exclusive looting rights.[11]
And they also destroy freeholds.
I think we'll have to wait until the game is released to get this statistic. Intrepid will then be able to average the frequency of all the servers and see how the gameplay could be improved to find a happy medium. In my opinion, the aim is to maintain a significant advantage for those who defend (advantage of knowledge of the terrain, guards, etc.).
This will also depend on the usefulness of the guards (they may be too strong or too weak).
But as I understand it, it's above all a question of skill and level (and at the very least of NPC elements).
The answer in my opinion is up for the players to decide. There is one core principle that Steven has emphasized a lot and I won't get tired of repeating: PvE activity creates incentives for PvP; PvP activity creates incentives for PvE. So with this as the basic concept in mind I'll elaborate my position which is: Depending on the overall activity level of players on a server the frequency of change will be higher or lower. Consider the rough overview of building time for Nodes; so for "average" player activity this will be accurate enough I think:
This is very important because for sieges to happen there need to be sufficient rewards on the table. There is not too much to gain from raiding a Camp. It might be useful for a warring nation to focus on sieging T3 & T4 Nodes, but the real big loot will only come with high tier Nodes. For these to be around it will take weeks to exist and after that a bit more time for materials to stack up in the city.
So I think it is most likely that sieges will take place twice a month on the more active servers and maybe once on the less active servers. Technically it could be more often of course but every successful siege will increase the caution (and frustration) of those player who go back to building up. So their behavior will adapt to that which at worse is leaving the game or reducing their PvE efficiency (which could be no longer storing many or any resources not needed right now) to not make a good target for raids.
Is a Siege the only way to “destroy” a Node??
There are 5 Metros per server… but significantly more Towns and Cities.
I don’t know why Node Sieges would only be twice per month.
Right, I suppose that's mostly what I'm looking for opinions on here. Obviously, we can only speculate, but we've played MMOs before. We get the picture of how the system is supposed to work. I was just curious if there was some huge quantity of people who actually wanted their community burned down every two months for the sake of recycling land and content more quickly, or if people want to take a little more time to enjoy things.
Eventually, when the game comes out, and people say "Oh, it's too easy/hard to siege a node, please fix," they're going to start referring to "too easy" or "too hard" as the span of time they find themselves living in a node, on average. Because that's the tangible experience. People don't have a tangible experience around the server-wide siege win/loss ratio until they're told it by a data collector, they have a tangible experience around how much time they get to spend in their home before it's gone. So I'm just trying to see how people want that experience, on average, to go for them personally, even if it's not the experience of everyone.
If the node survives, there will be a cooldown before the node can be sieged again:
Village (30 days).[20]
Town (40 days).[20]
City (50 days).[20]
Metropolis (60 days).[20]
What we do not know is how quickly a node that levels up if a siege is successful is available to siege. It will not be immediate:
Node sieges are declared directly by any player[13] who completes the prerequisites for the siege initiation.[14] Sieges are started via a siege scroll, which is acquired through a quest that scales in difficulty with respect to the level of the node. A substantial investment is required to attain the siege scroll.[15][2][16]
Steven also stated: "Normal habit to see that landscape change over time" in reference to the rise and fall of nodes.
I'd say that based on the games I play that have similar functions, these values are correct. Maybe the Village ones could be shorter but Village -> Town might be shorter due to Vassal Exp once more of the world is 'online', so Villages would be better 'protected' by long timers and Towns would just be 'not that different'.
So, to give my preferences...
Elite Dangerous Background Simulation which recalculates influence and statuses once daily. Depending on the activity in game, sometimes the update time 'drifts' which is somewhat annoying, since you can't always be sure that your contribution for the day happens 'before rollover' or 'after rollover'. But in the macro-sense of how long it normally takes to trigger a war for control of a system, or interact with a positive or negative state in the Star system, it's generally 4-8 days. For me as a player who flips between hardcore and casual for this game depending on the status of our sector, this also feels pretty good. I'd be oddly irritated if we had to do more than two weeks of 'effort' to get to 'an outcome', especially since there's usually a similar cooldown period after, even moreso in the cases where the groups involved (assuming either friendly or having some general political agreements) negotiate/investigate the reasons for any changes, but that means that larger scale change over time takes about 2 months, which brings us back around to:
FFXI Campaign which also recalculates region control every Sunday, but unlike Conquest which is just 'you fought in this area the most' (basically Node exp but competitive between the nations for an area) this one is 'a moving war front'. So there are locations that you can't take over until certain prior ones have been taken.
It takes the Beastman army about a month to push from Neutral all the way to 'can attack Nation's cities directly', and it takes the 'player' side about 3 weeks minimum to push from Neutral to 'can attack the Beastman headquarters', since there are three 'steps' each taking a week. Therefore it takes about 6 weeks minimum to 'push all the way back from them attacking Windurst, to being able to counterattack their castle'. (that's probably no longer true since the game was made easier in many ways, but that was the original design flow). I think that felt pretty normal too, slightly too fast actually but it seldom actually played out at that speed even when people had 'figured out that content'. So based on the fact that 'if I was fighting to defend Windurst in week 1' and came back to find 'let's assault Castle Zvahl' in week 5 I would be wondering 'did something weird happen?' I figure these numbers can't be much shorter, even though Elite can be.
This is probably because Elite has so many more things happening within any given 'nation', though, so slow change but many activities to contribute to is good, for me. I said in some other post a while back, that the emotions this seems to cause, for me, are moreso related to attachment and interaction, than 'change'. I can get the same effect from 'maintenance' if it is active. 'Responding to a Natural Disaster' in a star system to prevent a change is a stronger feeling for me than 'make sure to do the same 20 things you did last week to prevent decay'. But similarly if it doesn't need to be the same 20 things (Elite at the macro-level for a Faction) then it's good too.
My preferences align with Intrepid's base concept.
Okay I might need to explain that further.
When a siege takes place I suspect there to be a combination of intiators and hired swords to be present. The initiators primary goals will probably be political, removing the growth limit from their node, destroying the base of an enemy guild or weakening a bigger enemy faction. While these things are nice and interesting for a group of mercenaries, the benefits from that will probably be for smaller. Hence for their participation there need to be other benefits and for them loot in some shape or form will probably be the main incentive to join.
Regarding my "2 per month" prediction: I think this will be the annual average, it will be higher for more active or more PvP oriented server communities and a bit lower for less PvP oriented server communities, but even within these communities I am absolutely certain that there will be "cycles" to this, there will be times when big alliances clash and sieges become much more frequent, while in their aftermath when the faction reorganize and nodes are rebuilt sieges might not happen at all for some time. My predicition was considering that and trying to average it out from what data I have which admittedly is not very much, but that is what the Alpha 2 is for, because Intrepid also wants to know.
Unlikely that loot will be a primary motivator for Sieges.
The primary motivator for Node Sieges will be to change some status quo.
Mercenaries will be insignifciant compared to alliances.
2 Node Sieges per month also seems unlikely for an annual average.
And really has less to do with "PvP oriented server communities" and mostly motivated by the desire to change the staus quo of various regions of the world.
Which "factions" will be "reorganizing" and how are you able to anticipate which "factions'" goals will succeed?
Which Nodes get "rebuilt"? And how can you pre-determine who will be content with the "rebuilt" Nodes? Or how long people will be content with the "rebuilt" Nodes?
Answer:
I am guessing as best I can until we receive further information.
Loot is one. Other nodes progression will be another. Economy, revenge, castles, supply lines, local resources, road choke points, honor, guild's pride... as you can see the reasons will be endless, but how long it takes to be able to seige, plus timers, plus in game activities, plus out of game activities, plus personel and friendships will all play a part.
Basically what I am say Dygz is your point is all moot as well.
That said, for a given pair of nodes, a siege daily would be chaotic, weekly may be too frequent, monthly feels better, quarterly seems ok, biannually feels too static, annually feels like the node system is broken.
I want nodes to have a chance to settle, become something worth defending, then enter a siege.
My point is not moot since I have not placed a limit, like "only twice" per month.
My point is that there is insufficient evidence to support that claim.
Especially when the primary support for the claim is loot - and loot wiil not be the primary motivator for Sieges.
So my answer to How often should nodes be sieged/destroyed? is that destroying a node should not happen often unless players really don't care about it.
But the advantage in defending the node should not lead to rare siege events.
On the map there are 85 nodes and at least 20 of them will be outside of a metropolis vassal structure.
These 20 nodes I would like to have some improved defense, to prevent being a preferred target, compared to an equivalent level node in a metropolis system.
In the 65 nodes with a metro, only 45 can be sieged.
One node siege / day on the map as an average would be ok for me (but I might change my opinion during Alpha).
That means sometime 2 sieges could happen and sometime no siege for 2-3 days. I expect the entire map will watch the siege events and will rush to participate on one side or the other.