We shall test the dev design during Alpha 2 and see how interesting it is.
Hopefully we can reach the point where nodes are at their max lvl cap and see what happens after that before a wipe.. prob won't happen anytime soon after A2 launch though They got more important stuff to test than our endgame theories lol
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
You keep talking about the race and I'm trying to explain that the race only exists at the start of a server. I'm worried about the state of these nodes in endgame.
I am completely unsure how you could consider it to be an issue at this point in the game. It makes absolutely zero sense.
Again, once the initial rush on a new server is over, players should be able to make better choices. You should be able to see who is likely to become a vassal and who a parent.
I am completely unsure how you could consider it to be an issue at this point in the game. It makes absolutely zero sense.
Again, once the initial rush on a new server is over, players should be able to make better choices. You should be able to see who is likely to become a vassal and who a parent.
My entire post is about how this could very well be an issue. After you have your 5 Metros, all the nodes are at their max level cap, you don't need to see who's "likely to become a vassal" it's already there, they're all leveled up.
This has been my starting point for this thread, how endgame could very well become stagnant because these Metros, these ZOIs, these Parent Nodes, what happens if outsiders don't see the incentive to siege them down?
You're going to say IS has levers to increase or decrease the rewards of a siege, and yes, I would hope so. I hope they show us that they're even thinking about this stuff at all tbh. If the incentives are in fact enough to convince a big group of outsiders to knock down my Parent Node, this problem becomes more of a non-issue.
But if the incentives aren't enough? If the cost, the effort, the preparations, if the hassle alone makes it not worth it to siege down a Metro for outsiders, the only players who will see an incentive not solely based on material gain will be the vassals aiming to progress their home node. To them even a profit loss on a successful siege would be worth it in the long run.
To an outsider it will be about those profits, they don't get to claim your ZOI just cus your Metro fell, their ZOI is at it's max limit as well, it can't absorb anymore territory. They will only be looking at the profit margin of a siege, while vassals would see gains outside of just profit.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
This has been my starting point for this thread, how endgame could very well become stagnant because these Metros, these ZOIs, these Parent Nodes, what happens if outsiders don't see the incentive to siege them down?
And as has been pointed out to you, the people that will siege these nodes are those from other metropolis clusters.
There are many reasons for them to do so, one such reason - specifically given by Steven himself - is profit.
That is their plan, their goal. While we dont have details of the material wealth to be gained from sieging a node, we know that Intrepid want that to be a primary reason - though there are still more reasons (content changes, disliking your current metro or castle and so wanting to take over someone elses territory, fun etc).
Saying you dont see this is fine - we havent been shown the details. We have, however, been shown the intent.
What that means is that if this is your argument, Intrepid should indeed simply ignore it knowing they have a plan. If you want your point to be listened to by Intrepid, you need to have a point that they havent already covered, even if we dont have the exact details.
Again, this is why I say this is literally only an issue in the initial race on a new server.
Any other quotes from like 5 years ago you want to reference, this is the part that is always interest me in people don't have a game yet, they are trying to hold onto certain things like it is personal, naïve of active development where they have said multiple times things change.
A 5yr old quote is better than not having a quote to back up your side.
Any other quotes from like 5 years ago you want to reference, this is the part that is always interest me in people don't have a game yet, they are trying to hold onto certain things like it is personal, naïve of active development where they have said multiple times things change.
A 5yr old quote is better than not having a quote to back up your side.
This comment makes no sense for so many reasons. Are you not here complaining because you can't attack any node you want because of the information from the devs. Why would I need further quote to "back up my side"
My point being this is in active development you can take any quote from 5 years ago it doesn't mean things aren't going to change in some form as the game is actually coming together and not just being fully on paper.
At the end of the day you can complain anyone can voice their thoughts on stuff. But if they are designing it in a certain way for multiple reasons, you will have to provide counter arguments on those potential reasons brought up.
Both in PvP and the economy.
It is clear the direction they are going with their pvp, and that is only going to grow as they show more of it. Its going to be player factions fighting, and people will move to different faction groups. The soft friction between them to increase the difficulty on the politic elements.
If you think you are jumping into AoC and just waring with any metro, node or person freely that isn't going to end up being the case. There is going to be a bunch of rules based on the design. You are going to have a bunch of nodes including the metro you can't war on as a citizen.
Any other quotes from like 5 years ago you want to reference, this is the part that is always interest me in people don't have a game yet, they are trying to hold onto certain things like it is personal, naïve of active development where they have said multiple times things change.
A 5yr old quote is better than not having a quote to back up your side.
This comment makes no sense for so many reasons. Are you not here complaining because you can't attack any node you want because of the information from the devs. Why would I need further quote to "back up my side"
We're currently in this thread due to information from Intrepid about node sieges, yes. And because that's the latest we've heard from them about this function, we're working off that info.
The latest we've heard from Intrepid about Affiliations and their hierarchies is that they want Node Affiliation to be the highest priority. Since that's the latest we've heard from them about this function, we're working off that info.
If you have a quote from them saying that Node Affiliation shouldn't be the highest priority, and it's more recent, then we'll work off that info. Your argument of "Well, they haven't recently reiterated that it's staying the same so it's not the same any more" doesn't really cut it.
Any other quotes from like 5 years ago you want to reference, this is the part that is always interest me in people don't have a game yet, they are trying to hold onto certain things like it is personal, naïve of active development where they have said multiple times things change.
A 5yr old quote is better than not having a quote to back up your side.
This comment makes no sense for so many reasons. Are you not here complaining because you can't attack any node you want because of the information from the devs. Why would I need further quote to "back up my side"
We're currently in this thread due to information from Intrepid about node sieges, yes. And because that's the latest we've heard from them about this function, we're working off that info.
The latest we've heard from Intrepid about Affiliations and their hierarchies is that they want Node Affiliation to be the highest priority. Since that's the latest we've heard from them about this function, we're working off that info.
If you have a quote from them saying that Node Affiliation shouldn't be the highest priority, and it's more recent, then we'll work off that info. Your argument of "Well, they haven't recently reiterated that it's staying the same so it's not the same any more" doesn't really cut it.
Sorry to say but being loyal to your node doesn't mean you need to go to war with a metro with a lack of reason.
The latest information you have is the fact that nodes are more like kingdoms / factions actually and you can not dec on any vassal node tied to you .
But hey when you don't' agree with current information you just take quotes from 5 years ago and only go based off that while keeping your eyes closed to what is currently being developed right? When your points are countered you say say this was said years ago and don't' actually mention anything about the designs of the game that the systems are tied together ad based off.
Always a issue with open development people hear a word and get overly attached. Rather than doing critical feedback based off certain designs that are being implemented in the game and tied to systems. You just go off what was said at some point regardless of game direction even though they say things are changing.
Personally I'm going to look at old stuff and new stuff and think on all elements of the game even more so when it comes to nodes since everything is tied to them. And base my points around that, since that should be the bear minimum if we are talking about one of the most important systems.
Always a issue with open development people hear a word and get overly attached. Rather than doing critical feedback based off certain designs that are being implemented in the game and tied to systems.
This is the feedback. A forum post with a suggestion and my thoughts, you giving your feedback to my suggestion, this is all part of the feedback process.
You keep saying we can't use quotes from 5 years ago because development changes, yet you also keep saying to stop asking to change anything about how they'll develop their game because it'd go against their vision. Their vision can change, their game can change, their development can change.
Until they come out with more recent info about that change, all we have to go on are those older quotes. And just because they are old does not mean they are now different. Even if they were different, that just goes to show you how easily they can change their vision. Which is all I'm asking for here, a small change to their vision.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Always a issue with open development people hear a word and get overly attached. Rather than doing critical feedback based off certain designs that are being implemented in the game and tied to systems.
This is the feedback. A forum post with a suggestion and my thoughts, you giving your feedback to my suggestion, this is all part of the feedback process.
You keep saying we can't use quotes from 5 years ago because development changes, yet you also keep saying to stop asking to change anything about how they'll develop their game because it'd go against their vision. Their vision can change, their game can change, their development can change.
Until they come out with more recent info about that change, all we have to go on are those older quotes. And just because they are old does not mean they are now different. Even if they were different, that just goes to show you how easily they can change their vision. Which is all I'm asking for here, a small change to their vision.
Whatever reason they want, which as said before will most likely effect them negatively on politics but than their growth and sustainability as well. Saying whatever reason like you don't know means you need to spend more time on thinking about it.
There is information out there you just want to ignore it. Anyone can give feed back and im also giving my own against yours its really that simple.
You are trying to say a small change means you are really failing to understand the direction they are going with their design. You are simply saying you want something different and don't back it up in any of the designs they have been showing. Effectively saying I want this just so i can pk.
Eventually you will have to come to terms its different kingdoms and you are allied against other ones. Current information literally is indicating that saying you can not DEC on any vassal node related to the parent. Stop ignoring current information.
The "allies can't attack allies" thing IS FROM TWO THOUSAND FUCKING EIGHTEEN
The "allied nodes' citizens are auto-defenders" IS FROM FUCKING 2017.
As I've been saying from the very start, Mag's argument is so fucking weak, that his own damn argument against others' arguments WORKS AGAINST HIMSELF.
The "allies can't attack allies" thing IS FROM TWO THOUSAND FUCKING EIGHTEEN
The "allied nodes' citizens are auto-defenders" IS FROM FUCKING 2017.
As I've been saying from the very start, Mag's argument is so fucking weak, that his own damn argument against others' arguments WORKS AGAINST HIMSELF.
This is you trying to put things together so you can feel you are correct when this has nothing to do with anything.
Your ally can't attack an ally is pretty obvious.
This is when you know you don't have a argument when you need to fabricate some kind of narrative that makes no sense.
If you ally with another node obviously they are going to say that node can't attack if you have an alliance. This is not talking about the node changes to how they work or their goal from them.
Stop trying to reach 7 years ago for old information to try to convince yourself you are correct and look at what is current being done. Effectively you don't have an argument so you are trying to say others are weak since you can't bring up any valid points.
Part of the reason why you are bringing up a 7 year old comment lacking the context. You are hoping if you keep posting random old things something will stick. Since you want to believe something so strongly you are taking information and trying to create your own meaning for it.
When the reality is what they are currently doing and showing now.
When the reality is what they are currently doing and showing now.
Then do show us a current mention of vassals not being able to attack a parent node
It's you who've been bringing up "oh, all your arguments are from 5 years ago and that shit changes". I have just shown you that the entire damn counterargument to this thread is from 5+ years ago, so, please, show us that this statement hasn't changed since then
To get back on the topic, do you think that in addition to allowing vassals to register as attackers, would the game benefit from being able to enforce vassal behavior with policies?
For example, as a part of a trade negotiation between a master and a vassal mayor, the master could demand the activation of a node policy that now prevents the vassals from joining attackers until the policy times out. This way there would be more options to ensure loyalty other than getting a "trust me bro" from the vassals.
Another example policy could be an expensive master node policy, which could unilaterally prevent one of it's vassal chains from joining the attackers, but the policy could have aftereffects that affect the diplomatic/trade/event statuses between the master and the vassal chain. A master could save itself from a certain gank, but it would then destabilize a part of it's vassal nodes, maybe even severing the chain completely?
Or do you think keeping these relations outside of the game systems would be better and let players sort these things out?
The 4x in me would enjoy more diplomatic systems, but I know mmo folks tend to love unruly backstabbing more.
When the reality is what they are currently doing and showing now.
Then do show us a current mention of vassals not being able to attack a parent node
It's you who've been bringing up "oh, all your arguments are from 5 years ago and that shit changes". I have just shown you that the entire damn counterargument to this thread is from 5+ years ago, so, please, show us that this statement hasn't changed since then
Are you lost in the plot, are you not arguing against that you can't attack as a citizen because of information from the devs....Like what is this comment lmao?
The more variety the better. I want true deep politics (which means internal conflict as well), so allowing tyranny is great, as long as players can do smth about it.
Are you lost in the plot, are you not arguing against that you can't attack as a citizen because of information from the devs....Like what is this comment lmao?
Mag, you were the one who started this whole "your argument is from 5 years ago so it doesn't apply" shtick when the quote about node loyalty was brought up.
You were the one who said "oh, things change in 5 years, so the node loyalty quote is useless at this point, cause they haven't mentioned that since then".
Which is why I'm asking you to give me a recent quote where Steven even just alludes to vassal citizens not being able to attack parent node during a siege.
I'm simply using your own argumentation against your arguments.
I'm hesitant about asking for more mechanics at this stage to be honest. That's one of the reasons I felt comfortable asking about this thread topic, it seems to be like a simple change which could lead to a big impact.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
To get back on the topic, do you think that in addition to allowing vassals to register as attackers, would the game benefit from being able to enforce vassal behavior with policies?
For example, as a part of a trade negotiation between a master and a vassal mayor, the master could demand the activation of a node policy that now prevents the vassals from joining attackers until the policy times out. This way there would be more options to ensure loyalty other than getting a "trust me bro" from the vassals.
Another example policy could be an expensive master node policy, which could unilaterally prevent one of it's vassal chains from joining the attackers, but the policy could have aftereffects that affect the diplomatic/trade/event statuses between the master and the vassal chain. A master could save itself from a certain gank, but it would then destabilize a part of it's vassal nodes, maybe even severing the chain completely?
Or do you think keeping these relations outside of the game systems would be better and let players sort these things out?
The 4x in me would enjoy more diplomatic systems, but I know mmo folks tend to love unruly backstabbing more.
Thoughts?
Let players do what they want in the scope of he system. A vassal node can do what they want and play the politics how they like be it supporting the parent node or not doing much to support it. Let the politics around kingdoms be focused in more interesting actions than settling everything with pvp as they are currently doing.
The parent node can use the benefits it gives to vassals to entice them in supporting them, but also entice players from other nodes to go to those vassal nodes for the benefits.
This just feels like a bad way of trying to control pvp and leaning into the argument of a parent node having control over your node when they are not the mayor... Essentially you are trying to fabricate a reason for people to want to rebel and to control those people.
Not all policies effect vassals either they are most likely working on elements of how that will work and how many benefits. The most important figure for any node is going to be the mayor for your growth and what you get in the node.
I'm hesitant about asking for more mechanics at this stage to be honest. That's one of the reasons I felt comfortable asking about this thread topic, it seems to be like a simple change which could lead to a big impact.
This is a valid concern, though I think the first scenario would be fairly doable development wise. If right now the technology exists to prevent vassals from joining attackers, I'd imagine tying that to a policy wouldn't be too much work.
The repercussion part of the second example would be more difficult though, especially to meaningfully balance, even if the levers to affect the world exist.
I guess personally I'd be down to at least having a rudimentary "non-aggression pact" policy for vassal relations. Maybe anything more complicated would be just unnecessary.
I'm hesitant about asking for more mechanics at this stage to be honest. That's one of the reasons I felt comfortable asking about this thread topic, it seems to be like a simple change which could lead to a big impact.
Yes, but not necessarily a desired impact.
The status quo sets up a specific dependency vassal nodes have on their parent node. That is not an accident.
Your suggestion alters that dynamic.
This your main reason seems to be to ensure nodes are sieges,and since Intrepid have said they intend to make this the case with their current systems, it means the idea is moot.
Are you lost in the plot, are you not arguing against that you can't attack as a citizen because of information from the devs....Like what is this comment lmao?
Mag, you were the one who started this whole "your argument is from 5 years ago so it doesn't apply" shtick when the quote about node loyalty was brought up.
You were the one who said "oh, things change in 5 years, so the node loyalty quote is useless at this point, cause they haven't mentioned that since then".
Which is why I'm asking you to give me a recent quote where Steven even just alludes to vassal citizens not being able to attack parent node during a siege.
I'm simply using your own argumentation against your arguments.
You are misinterpreting what I'm talking about..... even if that was the case going off current information with nodes is a fact and not from 5+ years ago.
You shouldn't be asking me that question in this thread that is based on devs talking, it is pretty silly. I would say go over the information on the vassals and make sure you aren't missing some points. And go over what the devs had been talking about.
I didn't say node loyalty is useless, I spoke that you can't look at a quote 5 years ago and refuse to also look at the current direction and changes to the game. Change is expected in active development but this is more so just development and them finalizing their ideas.
What is important is their main pillars remain keeping the game on track to be what people expected (not fine details from exact quotes). You look at what they have said past or present but also what they are designing and showing to you as it grows and evolves into the game.
So long as the game is being made in the intended design with nodes, wars, pvx, classses, etc. You can't try to hold a dev accountable for a old quote. This is active development not a released game.
Essentially you are trying to fabricate a reason for people to want to rebel and to control those people.
We don't even need to fabricate a reason, their planned scope already includes them.
PvP in a PvX game where they are going for kingdoms vrs kingdoms does not lend any positive points.
Effectively you are saying there are taxes and i have to pvp so I want to war against the metro above me. Doesn't really hold as any kind of point of reason. You are trying to stretch a point and can't really point to any kind of really damning detail.
The only kind of way you would have a point is if taxes where set to some insane value which i highly doubt will be the case. The one that will set your taxes is your mayor of the node you live in.
Alll nodes will most likely have to pay a fee tot heir parent node which is important and part of political warfare other nodes can use against it. And most likely tied towards the perks you gain from being a vassal on top of it. So effectively you are paying but getting buffs for it as well.
This your main reason seems to be to ensure nodes are sieges,and since Intrepid have said they intend to make this the case with their current systems, it means the idea is moot.
It does, but I feel this is one of the best ways to explore what endgame in Ashes might look like before we get to learn what it actually will be like.
If this is just going to end up another game where we're all constantly raiding the same dungeons, on some endless gear grind, waiting for the next expansion to release... I dunno, like I'm sure Ashes will still be fun up to that point, but MMOs tend to not do so well when it comes to creating engaging endgame loops.
Nodes being sieged, altering the world around it, and thus the content available to us, that is where Ashes has a leg up on other MMOs when it comes to endgame content. We could end up with a World Boss this server has never seen before in years just because of a lucky combination of Metros in the world.
That to me sounds like what other MMOs try to do with expansions, it shakes up the content on the server, and you could very well see some wave of players who have been inactive log back in just to experience this new content. It's like an expansion release but it's already pre-built into the game.
I understand your and Mag's concerns when it comes to how this change could end up resulting in some chaotic pvp hellscape, where no node is safe, and stability is a rare comfort. But if we think of it as a spectrum, one extreme is chaos and the other stability, I'd rather be on the chaotic side of things, because it'd mean content is still changing in the world.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
So long as the game is being made in the intended design with nodes, wars, pvx, classses, etc. You can't try to hold a dev accountable for a old quote. This is active development not a released game.
Yes, which is precisely why I'm not holding them to a promise that vassals can't attack parent nodes, cause that shit was said over 5 years ago
I'm not interested in inferring non-existent information from "what seems to be logical". I have concrete info from the past that has yet to be refuted in any way. And I'm giving my feedback based on that. Steven said he wants loyalty to nodes, but he also said that vassal nodes can't do shit about their upwards progression.
To me that sounds like a contradiction, because if I'm loyal to my node - I want it to succeed. Success in Ashes is determined quite directly and is shown through vertical progression. If I can't take any direct action to help my node succeed - that is bad design imo, which is why I'm giving the feedback that I'm giving.
The "look where they're going with their designs" doesn't work for your arguments either, cause you say that Intrepid don't really want senseless PKing, yet several changes in the relatively near past was about exactly that (open seas being the biggest example). If anything, a proper siege that's been built up to through a ton of work and socializing has WAAAAAAY more sense and meaning in it than the fucking open seas.
So, just as Steven could change his sea design with a single mention of it - I'm sure he can make a small change of "vassal citizens can join the attack on a parent node". Also, I'm not even asking for ability to attack allies. I'm strictly speaking about punching upwards, because the ones at the top have the power to punch downwards right now.
Just to add to @NiKr 's post above, just because I want my node to succeed doesn't even necessarily mean I want it to be a Metro. I could just hope for it to be some trade center, or the producer of the best Weapons in the region, or the focal point of a specific religion in the game.. These are all things that a vassal could very well do under a Parent Node.
We're not saying node loyalty always leads to a rebellion against the Parent Node, just some times lol.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
So long as the game is being made in the intended design with nodes, wars, pvx, classses, etc. You can't try to hold a dev accountable for a old quote. This is active development not a released game.
Yes, which is precisely why I'm not holding them to a promise that vassals can't attack parent nodes, cause that shit was said over 5 years ago
I'm not interested in inferring non-existent information from "what seems to be logical". I have concrete info from the past that has yet to be refuted in any way. And I'm giving my feedback based on that. Steven said he wants loyalty to nodes, but he also said that vassal nodes can't do shit about their upwards progression.
To me that sounds like a contradiction, because if I'm loyal to my node - I want it to succeed. Success in Ashes is determined quite directly and is shown through vertical progression. If I can't take any direct action to help my node succeed - that is bad design imo, which is why I'm giving the feedback that I'm giving.
The "look where they're going with their designs" doesn't work for your arguments either, cause you say that Intrepid don't really want senseless PKing, yet several changes in the relatively near past was about exactly that (open seas being the biggest example). If anything, a proper siege that's been built up to through a ton of work and socializing has WAAAAAAY more sense and meaning in it than the fucking open seas.
So, just as Steven could change his sea design with a single mention of it - I'm sure he can make a small change of "vassal citizens can join the attack on a parent node". Also, I'm not even asking for ability to attack allies. I'm strictly speaking about punching upwards, because the ones at the top have the power to punch downwards right now.
The way you see things seems to be quite off even when you say things are the same. You tie node growth to loyalty I really do not, you can be loyal and see to your nodes success over a long period of time. Be it you have a metro, don't have a metro or lose a metro and come back.
You are misinterpreting what I'm saying again and trying to use open seas as a valid argument they are pushing for chaotic rp. Its easier to say things like this if you refuse to actually look at the context and the design aims. Open seas is a different environment with different dangers, but its both a choice to go there as well as main gameplay loops will will be on the land. Where most the players will end up spending their time.
Lets say on the high chance a player can spend 30% of their time on the seas, it is by choice and a small amount of their playtime. Also something most likely players that are of lower levels won't be engaging in as much keeping them away from that element of pvp.
Again its not a small change you are trying to frame it like that, a small change would be making it so metros cant attack their allies. You are trying to advocate for whole metros being destroyed which is a much bigger effect on top of the loss mixed with it. This is balanced out by not being a citizen and more than likely joining another node to fight against them if you want to punch up. Its not about in fighting between kingdoms as i said before them "punching down" will most likely have a huge negative impact towards them.
This your main reason seems to be to ensure nodes are sieges,and since Intrepid have said they intend to make this the case with their current systems, it means the idea is moot.
...
If this is just going to end up another game where we're all constantly raiding the same dungeons, on some endless gear grind, waiting for the next expansion to release...
...
But if we think of it as a spectrum, one extreme is chaos and the other stability, I'd rather be on the chaotic side of things, because it'd mean content is still changing in the world.
There will be a lot of PvP even if metropolises survive many months.
There is the deep ocean
There is the weekly fight to defend or siege castles.
Nodes from different metropolis nations will fight for relics:
Limited access to the relics stored in a node's reliquary are granted to players after a node is destroyed by a node siege.[8][9][3][2][10][11][12] Benefits are also conferred to those who capture, steal, or sabotage relics held the reliquary.[5] https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Relics
And there will not be enough resources for everybody. Players will have to fight to get them:
Economic systems require scarcity. And in a game, all scarcity is artificially created in an attempt to simulate supply/demand structures or as we would call them points of player friction. https://ashesofcreation.wiki/World_manager
The smaller nodes will fall more often as the cost for besieging them is smaller.
The game does not need complete chaos.
So long as the game is being made in the intended design with nodes, wars, pvx, classses, etc. You can't try to hold a dev accountable for a old quote. This is active development not a released game.
Yes, which is precisely why I'm not holding them to a promise that vassals can't attack parent nodes, cause that shit was said over 5 years ago
Some features mentioned years ago could be outdated but this is a core feature as important as the design pillars.
I'm not interested in inferring non-existent information from "what seems to be logical". I have concrete info from the past that has yet to be refuted in any way. And I'm giving my feedback based on that. Steven said he wants loyalty to nodes, but he also said that vassal nodes can't do shit about their upwards progression.
To me that sounds like a contradiction, because if I'm loyal to my node - I want it to succeed. Success in Ashes is determined quite directly and is shown through vertical progression. If I can't take any direct action to help my node succeed - that is bad design imo, which is why I'm giving the feedback that I'm giving.
Being loyal to your node does not mean you have to siege parent nodes which provide the PvE content and security in the area.
The "look where they're going with their designs" doesn't work for your arguments either, cause you say that Intrepid don't really want senseless PKing, yet several changes in the relatively near past was about exactly that (open seas being the biggest example). If anything, a proper siege that's been built up to through a ton of work and socializing has WAAAAAAY more sense and meaning in it than the fucking open seas.
So, just as Steven could change his sea design with a single mention of it - I'm sure he can make a small change of "vassal citizens can join the attack on a parent node". Also, I'm not even asking for ability to attack allies. I'm strictly speaking about punching upwards, because the ones at the top have the power to punch downwards right now.
The open seas were added with a good reason. See... Tenguru is concerned that there will be too much stability and peace. Players who want PvP will go to nodes on the coast, close to the ocean. Players who want PvE will stay away from that area.
Comments
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Again, once the initial rush on a new server is over, players should be able to make better choices. You should be able to see who is likely to become a vassal and who a parent.
This has been my starting point for this thread, how endgame could very well become stagnant because these Metros, these ZOIs, these Parent Nodes, what happens if outsiders don't see the incentive to siege them down?
You're going to say IS has levers to increase or decrease the rewards of a siege, and yes, I would hope so. I hope they show us that they're even thinking about this stuff at all tbh. If the incentives are in fact enough to convince a big group of outsiders to knock down my Parent Node, this problem becomes more of a non-issue.
But if the incentives aren't enough? If the cost, the effort, the preparations, if the hassle alone makes it not worth it to siege down a Metro for outsiders, the only players who will see an incentive not solely based on material gain will be the vassals aiming to progress their home node. To them even a profit loss on a successful siege would be worth it in the long run.
To an outsider it will be about those profits, they don't get to claim your ZOI just cus your Metro fell, their ZOI is at it's max limit as well, it can't absorb anymore territory. They will only be looking at the profit margin of a siege, while vassals would see gains outside of just profit.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
And as has been pointed out to you, the people that will siege these nodes are those from other metropolis clusters.
There are many reasons for them to do so, one such reason - specifically given by Steven himself - is profit.
That is their plan, their goal. While we dont have details of the material wealth to be gained from sieging a node, we know that Intrepid want that to be a primary reason - though there are still more reasons (content changes, disliking your current metro or castle and so wanting to take over someone elses territory, fun etc).
Saying you dont see this is fine - we havent been shown the details. We have, however, been shown the intent.
What that means is that if this is your argument, Intrepid should indeed simply ignore it knowing they have a plan. If you want your point to be listened to by Intrepid, you need to have a point that they havent already covered, even if we dont have the exact details.
Again, this is why I say this is literally only an issue in the initial race on a new server.
A 5yr old quote is better than not having a quote to back up your side.
This comment makes no sense for so many reasons. Are you not here complaining because you can't attack any node you want because of the information from the devs. Why would I need further quote to "back up my side"
My point being this is in active development you can take any quote from 5 years ago it doesn't mean things aren't going to change in some form as the game is actually coming together and not just being fully on paper.
At the end of the day you can complain anyone can voice their thoughts on stuff. But if they are designing it in a certain way for multiple reasons, you will have to provide counter arguments on those potential reasons brought up.
Both in PvP and the economy.
It is clear the direction they are going with their pvp, and that is only going to grow as they show more of it. Its going to be player factions fighting, and people will move to different faction groups. The soft friction between them to increase the difficulty on the politic elements.
If you think you are jumping into AoC and just waring with any metro, node or person freely that isn't going to end up being the case. There is going to be a bunch of rules based on the design. You are going to have a bunch of nodes including the metro you can't war on as a citizen.
We're currently in this thread due to information from Intrepid about node sieges, yes. And because that's the latest we've heard from them about this function, we're working off that info.
The latest we've heard from Intrepid about Affiliations and their hierarchies is that they want Node Affiliation to be the highest priority. Since that's the latest we've heard from them about this function, we're working off that info.
If you have a quote from them saying that Node Affiliation shouldn't be the highest priority, and it's more recent, then we'll work off that info. Your argument of "Well, they haven't recently reiterated that it's staying the same so it's not the same any more" doesn't really cut it.
Sorry to say but being loyal to your node doesn't mean you need to go to war with a metro with a lack of reason.
The latest information you have is the fact that nodes are more like kingdoms / factions actually and you can not dec on any vassal node tied to you .
But hey when you don't' agree with current information you just take quotes from 5 years ago and only go based off that while keeping your eyes closed to what is currently being developed right? When your points are countered you say say this was said years ago and don't' actually mention anything about the designs of the game that the systems are tied together ad based off.
Always a issue with open development people hear a word and get overly attached. Rather than doing critical feedback based off certain designs that are being implemented in the game and tied to systems. You just go off what was said at some point regardless of game direction even though they say things are changing.
Personally I'm going to look at old stuff and new stuff and think on all elements of the game even more so when it comes to nodes since everything is tied to them. And base my points around that, since that should be the bear minimum if we are talking about one of the most important systems.
You keep saying we can't use quotes from 5 years ago because development changes, yet you also keep saying to stop asking to change anything about how they'll develop their game because it'd go against their vision. Their vision can change, their game can change, their development can change.
Until they come out with more recent info about that change, all we have to go on are those older quotes. And just because they are old does not mean they are now different. Even if they were different, that just goes to show you how easily they can change their vision. Which is all I'm asking for here, a small change to their vision.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Whatever reason they want, which as said before will most likely effect them negatively on politics but than their growth and sustainability as well. Saying whatever reason like you don't know means you need to spend more time on thinking about it.
There is information out there you just want to ignore it. Anyone can give feed back and im also giving my own against yours its really that simple.
You are trying to say a small change means you are really failing to understand the direction they are going with their design. You are simply saying you want something different and don't back it up in any of the designs they have been showing. Effectively saying I want this just so i can pk.
Eventually you will have to come to terms its different kingdoms and you are allied against other ones. Current information literally is indicating that saying you can not DEC on any vassal node related to the parent. Stop ignoring current information.
The "allies can't attack allies" thing IS FROM TWO THOUSAND FUCKING EIGHTEEN
The "allied nodes' citizens are auto-defenders" IS FROM FUCKING 2017.
As I've been saying from the very start, Mag's argument is so fucking weak, that his own damn argument against others' arguments WORKS AGAINST HIMSELF.
This is you trying to put things together so you can feel you are correct when this has nothing to do with anything.
Your ally can't attack an ally is pretty obvious.
This is when you know you don't have a argument when you need to fabricate some kind of narrative that makes no sense.
If you ally with another node obviously they are going to say that node can't attack if you have an alliance. This is not talking about the node changes to how they work or their goal from them.
Stop trying to reach 7 years ago for old information to try to convince yourself you are correct and look at what is current being done. Effectively you don't have an argument so you are trying to say others are weak since you can't bring up any valid points.
Part of the reason why you are bringing up a 7 year old comment lacking the context. You are hoping if you keep posting random old things something will stick. Since you want to believe something so strongly you are taking information and trying to create your own meaning for it.
When the reality is what they are currently doing and showing now.
It's you who've been bringing up "oh, all your arguments are from 5 years ago and that shit changes". I have just shown you that the entire damn counterargument to this thread is from 5+ years ago, so, please, show us that this statement hasn't changed since then
For example, as a part of a trade negotiation between a master and a vassal mayor, the master could demand the activation of a node policy that now prevents the vassals from joining attackers until the policy times out. This way there would be more options to ensure loyalty other than getting a "trust me bro" from the vassals.
Another example policy could be an expensive master node policy, which could unilaterally prevent one of it's vassal chains from joining the attackers, but the policy could have aftereffects that affect the diplomatic/trade/event statuses between the master and the vassal chain. A master could save itself from a certain gank, but it would then destabilize a part of it's vassal nodes, maybe even severing the chain completely?
Or do you think keeping these relations outside of the game systems would be better and let players sort these things out?
The 4x in me would enjoy more diplomatic systems, but I know mmo folks tend to love unruly backstabbing more.
Thoughts?
Are you lost in the plot, are you not arguing against that you can't attack as a citizen because of information from the devs....Like what is this comment lmao?
You were the one who said "oh, things change in 5 years, so the node loyalty quote is useless at this point, cause they haven't mentioned that since then".
Which is why I'm asking you to give me a recent quote where Steven even just alludes to vassal citizens not being able to attack parent node during a siege.
I'm simply using your own argumentation against your arguments.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Let players do what they want in the scope of he system. A vassal node can do what they want and play the politics how they like be it supporting the parent node or not doing much to support it. Let the politics around kingdoms be focused in more interesting actions than settling everything with pvp as they are currently doing.
The parent node can use the benefits it gives to vassals to entice them in supporting them, but also entice players from other nodes to go to those vassal nodes for the benefits.
This just feels like a bad way of trying to control pvp and leaning into the argument of a parent node having control over your node when they are not the mayor... Essentially you are trying to fabricate a reason for people to want to rebel and to control those people.
Not all policies effect vassals either they are most likely working on elements of how that will work and how many benefits. The most important figure for any node is going to be the mayor for your growth and what you get in the node.
We don't even need to fabricate a reason, their planned scope already includes them.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
This is a valid concern, though I think the first scenario would be fairly doable development wise. If right now the technology exists to prevent vassals from joining attackers, I'd imagine tying that to a policy wouldn't be too much work.
The repercussion part of the second example would be more difficult though, especially to meaningfully balance, even if the levers to affect the world exist.
I guess personally I'd be down to at least having a rudimentary "non-aggression pact" policy for vassal relations. Maybe anything more complicated would be just unnecessary.
Yes, but not necessarily a desired impact.
The status quo sets up a specific dependency vassal nodes have on their parent node. That is not an accident.
Your suggestion alters that dynamic.
This your main reason seems to be to ensure nodes are sieges,and since Intrepid have said they intend to make this the case with their current systems, it means the idea is moot.
You are misinterpreting what I'm talking about..... even if that was the case going off current information with nodes is a fact and not from 5+ years ago.
You shouldn't be asking me that question in this thread that is based on devs talking, it is pretty silly. I would say go over the information on the vassals and make sure you aren't missing some points. And go over what the devs had been talking about.
I didn't say node loyalty is useless, I spoke that you can't look at a quote 5 years ago and refuse to also look at the current direction and changes to the game. Change is expected in active development but this is more so just development and them finalizing their ideas.
What is important is their main pillars remain keeping the game on track to be what people expected (not fine details from exact quotes). You look at what they have said past or present but also what they are designing and showing to you as it grows and evolves into the game.
So long as the game is being made in the intended design with nodes, wars, pvx, classses, etc. You can't try to hold a dev accountable for a old quote. This is active development not a released game.
PvP in a PvX game where they are going for kingdoms vrs kingdoms does not lend any positive points.
Effectively you are saying there are taxes and i have to pvp so I want to war against the metro above me. Doesn't really hold as any kind of point of reason. You are trying to stretch a point and can't really point to any kind of really damning detail.
The only kind of way you would have a point is if taxes where set to some insane value which i highly doubt will be the case. The one that will set your taxes is your mayor of the node you live in.
Alll nodes will most likely have to pay a fee tot heir parent node which is important and part of political warfare other nodes can use against it. And most likely tied towards the perks you gain from being a vassal on top of it. So effectively you are paying but getting buffs for it as well.
If this is just going to end up another game where we're all constantly raiding the same dungeons, on some endless gear grind, waiting for the next expansion to release... I dunno, like I'm sure Ashes will still be fun up to that point, but MMOs tend to not do so well when it comes to creating engaging endgame loops.
Nodes being sieged, altering the world around it, and thus the content available to us, that is where Ashes has a leg up on other MMOs when it comes to endgame content. We could end up with a World Boss this server has never seen before in years just because of a lucky combination of Metros in the world.
That to me sounds like what other MMOs try to do with expansions, it shakes up the content on the server, and you could very well see some wave of players who have been inactive log back in just to experience this new content. It's like an expansion release but it's already pre-built into the game.
I understand your and Mag's concerns when it comes to how this change could end up resulting in some chaotic pvp hellscape, where no node is safe, and stability is a rare comfort. But if we think of it as a spectrum, one extreme is chaos and the other stability, I'd rather be on the chaotic side of things, because it'd mean content is still changing in the world.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
I'm not interested in inferring non-existent information from "what seems to be logical". I have concrete info from the past that has yet to be refuted in any way. And I'm giving my feedback based on that. Steven said he wants loyalty to nodes, but he also said that vassal nodes can't do shit about their upwards progression.
To me that sounds like a contradiction, because if I'm loyal to my node - I want it to succeed. Success in Ashes is determined quite directly and is shown through vertical progression. If I can't take any direct action to help my node succeed - that is bad design imo, which is why I'm giving the feedback that I'm giving.
The "look where they're going with their designs" doesn't work for your arguments either, cause you say that Intrepid don't really want senseless PKing, yet several changes in the relatively near past was about exactly that (open seas being the biggest example). If anything, a proper siege that's been built up to through a ton of work and socializing has WAAAAAAY more sense and meaning in it than the fucking open seas.
So, just as Steven could change his sea design with a single mention of it - I'm sure he can make a small change of "vassal citizens can join the attack on a parent node". Also, I'm not even asking for ability to attack allies. I'm strictly speaking about punching upwards, because the ones at the top have the power to punch downwards right now.
We're not saying node loyalty always leads to a rebellion against the Parent Node, just some times lol.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
The way you see things seems to be quite off even when you say things are the same. You tie node growth to loyalty I really do not, you can be loyal and see to your nodes success over a long period of time. Be it you have a metro, don't have a metro or lose a metro and come back.
You are misinterpreting what I'm saying again and trying to use open seas as a valid argument they are pushing for chaotic rp. Its easier to say things like this if you refuse to actually look at the context and the design aims. Open seas is a different environment with different dangers, but its both a choice to go there as well as main gameplay loops will will be on the land. Where most the players will end up spending their time.
Lets say on the high chance a player can spend 30% of their time on the seas, it is by choice and a small amount of their playtime. Also something most likely players that are of lower levels won't be engaging in as much keeping them away from that element of pvp.
Again its not a small change you are trying to frame it like that, a small change would be making it so metros cant attack their allies. You are trying to advocate for whole metros being destroyed which is a much bigger effect on top of the loss mixed with it. This is balanced out by not being a citizen and more than likely joining another node to fight against them if you want to punch up. Its not about in fighting between kingdoms as i said before them "punching down" will most likely have a huge negative impact towards them.
There will be a lot of PvP even if metropolises survive many months.
There is the deep ocean
There is the weekly fight to defend or siege castles.
Nodes from different metropolis nations will fight for relics:
Limited access to the relics stored in a node's reliquary are granted to players after a node is destroyed by a node siege.[8][9][3][2][10][11][12] Benefits are also conferred to those who capture, steal, or sabotage relics held the reliquary.[5]
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Relics
And there will not be enough resources for everybody. Players will have to fight to get them:
Economic systems require scarcity. And in a game, all scarcity is artificially created in an attempt to simulate supply/demand structures or as we would call them points of player friction.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/World_manager
The smaller nodes will fall more often as the cost for besieging them is smaller.
The game does not need complete chaos.
Being loyal to your node does not mean you have to siege parent nodes which provide the PvE content and security in the area.
The open seas were added with a good reason. See... Tenguru is concerned that there will be too much stability and peace. Players who want PvP will go to nodes on the coast, close to the ocean. Players who want PvE will stay away from that area.
You are illogical.