You meant the "history of humanity" shows how peaceful we humans are?
How many people are willing to fight others when their life is already good? Of course there's the tyrants that we see in our current times, but that is in fact part of the complex politics. Except if vassals in Ashes could directly influence their parent node, when said parent node sends them to war - I feel like we'd have even more freedom than we do irl.
Vassals do not need to attack their parents.
There will be fight for resources and taking other nodes' relics.
If attacking a few caravans can suddenly lead to an entire metro falling, or at the very least being so damn weak that a siege easily destroys it - I guess I'd be fine with the current setup. But right now I don't see any indications that this would be the case. We'll have to test that in A2 and see.
Not suddenly. That's the point. If you want to take down the node, the vassal node will act as a traitor for a longer time.
The parent node will be able to react and siege the vassal, a valid defense against nodes infiltrated by enemy metro nations.
With the current system, players are like citizens in a town of a nation.
If the town is attacked, the entire nation comes to defend, from sibling nodes too, because they do not see each-other as competitors in the nation. If nodes from within the nation fall, the entire nation gets weaker and can fall prey to the enemies, node by node.
Except this is not really the case. All nodes are in a constant competition with each other. If some parent node falls, there'll immediately be someone to take its place and in the case of lvl5-6 nodes - there's 2 competing nodes trying to do that.
Only in your dream are in competition. The ones bound to eachother will have stronger incentive to cooperate than fight.
Together will try to siege other nodes.
If one of them falls, entire branches could be removed from the metro nation and replaced with nodes from the buffer 20 outside.
That means they could lose access to metropolis benefits.
Again, I don't really see where yall taking this idea of "kingdoms". What I see is competing nodes, some of which get to benefit from other nodes by being stronger. And right now there's only a somewhat weak method of outcompeting said stronger node, even if you become stronger than it yourself.
What you see is your dream about a different game.
Steven's vision is to have nation like behavior between the nodes under the metropolis. He used this "nation like" expression to describe them:
"From a territory perspective it has ancillary nodes to play with and expand towards that redistricts the map, so that if a metropolis falls there's a significant difference in the layout of the world and the layout of these almost nation-like territories."
This also relates to power snowballs of nodes. As Noaani has pointed out several times, quite a lot of people will simply look at what's the strongest node right now and will go try be a citizen there, which means that vassals will forever be weaker than their parent nodes.
Steven will have to balance the taxes to force players out to live in smaller nodes too.
Maybe freehold and barony owners will be more interested to be citizens of smaller nodes.
"Citizenship dues and property taxes scale based on the stage of the node when a player became a citizen.[8][9][10][11][12]
The goal is to exert financial pressure on node populations by making taxes increasingly expensive as nodes advance, rather than putting in place hard population caps.[10][11]"
And we will have to see where dungeons and resources spawn. A metropolis ZoI overlaps with other nodes ZoI so it can happen that smaller nodes will be closer to these places than the metropolis itself.
I've seen so many people spooked by big guilds and their spooky power, yet no one cares about node power differentiation. Though I guess this was inevitable cause no one has really played games where there's a separation between a guild group and a community group (i.e. nodes). We'll have to see how that plays out in practice.
You see, that's your problem. You have to play the game else you are pushing it to become the dream game you played before. You have to understand and be able to simulate in your mind the world dynamic as Steven wants it.
You cannot convince Steven to change his vision to yours just because you and a few others ask for it.
Most likely he initially started with just this idea you want and then improved it.
Yes, so if only you alone would want this, it would have no impact onto the game. It is not even worth being implemented.
But if becomes a feature, whenever a node is attacked, all it's vassals will join as attackers to level up their node.
Enemy nations will just have to trigger the scroll and watch them cannibalize each-other.
Actually each nation will have the same problems and will not function as nations anymore.
It would be a completely different dynamic.
This kinda goes against what you said previously in this comment. Are nodes all in kingdoms singing kumbaya or are they all competing?
Or is that kumbaya just a forced mechanic from Steven and not a player-driven political landscape?
I was giving you 2 examples before, one where a node level 4 is unlikely to decide anything against parent node.
And one where if a siege can potentially be successful, it can become a traitor to the nation (your wish)
But that case will not be necessary if the level 5 node is so strong because it can cooperate and be the important tool to destroy nations arround.
Only is special cases player might want to promote their node to level up. But it will be risky: you destroy the metropolis and you can end up outside of the new metropolis, as part of the 20 buffer nodes.
They should actually siege your node first. The metropolis will join as attacker too because you deserve being destroyed, from their perspective.
It could be politics which will decide if enemies will attack your node or the metropolis.
And you said you like the politics.
Yes, this is exactly what I want, as long as this strong military node can attack upwards as well.
This is why I said that Intrepid already have levers of controlling people's decisions when it comes to figuring out which nodes should be at the top. And current levers would also promote cross-kingdom socialization as well, because if a divine node happens to be a metro and then a lvl5 military node decides that they've had enough of these weak pvers at the top - the pvers in the divine node can ask for help from other places, saying that their catacombs can benefit those who helps them stay a metro.
All of this is more interesting than this divine node staying at the top simply because at the start of the game all the pvers obviously congregated around it and boosted its XP gain.
No, the attack upwards will not be allowed because it makes no sense to weaken the nation like concept Steven wants.
Steven figured out already well in 2017 how to ensure different servers to have different evolution. Now after 4 years reading the wiki you have no better suggestion and you say Steven should come up with something else?
And in 2017 the open seas didn't have free pvp, so the initial design is not as concrete as it might seem.
It's precisely because I believe the current tools and levers that I make my suggestion, because I believe that my suggested change would make the game more interesting and exciting overall.
The deep ocean free of corruption was a good addition to the game.
It got bigger and isolates the two continents a bit better.
It changed nothing about the nodes and it left the initial corruption mechanic unchanged.
Players might still be able to cross between continents using longer routes, from island to island.
Or will offer more protection because is bigger but also higher risk, being free of PvP.
A small crowded ocean where you immediately go from a continent to the other would have made if feel like a larger lake.
When the time comes, be sure it is not your node attacked but your parent node. Maybe holding a castle or controlling a raid area will help you during negotiations.
Both of those things are guild-related features. Nodes are not directly linked to guilds (outside of the beneficiary mechanic).
And if anything it's gonna be the guilds that push the early nodes to be the highest lvl. And the same guilds will then use the reaped rewards to get themselves castles and control the local pve. And all the other citizens, who can't afford to live in a metro or prefer a different node, won't be able to do shit about their situation.
This kinda ties back to my discussions with Mag about node siege participant limits as well. If currently the node sieges have the same instant limit as castle sieges do - the vassal citizens have EVEN FEWER options to do anything about their parent node. There'll be no uprisings, no revolutions, no true internal drama, no betrayals - nothing. Just boring static nodes that will get some rare siege attempts from some ultra rich dudes who got nothing better to do with their money.
The nodes create comunities which will unite under the metropolis influence.
Solo players who insist to be "just" citizens will not be as efficient as guilds.
But participation into the castle sieges or their defense needs everyone. Even if a guild can coordinate better, it will need the support of a larger population.
Solo players who avoid guilds are typically not interested in politics either.
Your argument is weak. You just want to put sieging of parent nodes into the hand of random solo players because shaky reasons like "I am new to the game and poor but I want vertical leveling of my node even though I have weak interaction with other players... and guilds will control anyway places where money comes from."
If it were, shouldn't we both be arguing for full on instanced dungeons to exist? I mean, they are just another option, right?
We have and I said that I agree we should have several instanced bosses who are the peak pve in the game. The only thing we disagreed on was their loot.
When you add an option, you need to consider the impact it will have on the game as a whole, not just on the people that make use of that option.
And I've already said that I consider this change to be a good thing that will bring better politicking into the game and better internal drama in these "kingdoms".
Either way, it's obvious that yall want what Steven says here, while some of us want what we see as a better thing for the game. We've seen big shifts in design before, so I see no reason why this one couldn't happen.
I just hope there doesn't happen some other change that suddenly makes yall's current position moot Though that would be quite funny imo.
If it were, shouldn't we both be arguing for full on instanced dungeons to exist? I mean, they are just another option, right?
We have and I said that I agree we should have several instanced bosses who are the peak pve in the game. The only thing we disagreed on was their loot.
Nah, I'm talking full on multi boss dungeons that people could spend all day in.
I mean, if they existed in Ashes, it's just another option, right?
Obviously we both know this isnt actually a valid argument. Adding the option for people to spend all day in instanced content would be detrimental to Ashes, regardless of the fact that it is "just another option". The point being,more options arent always a good thing, and sometimes there isnt an appropriate cost to balance it out.
And I've already said that I consider this change to be a good thing that will bring better politicking into the game and better internal drama in these "kingdoms".
I have no doubt that it will add more internal drama.
The question is, do you want to add internal drama at the node level in exchange for external drama?
Given the option, I'd much rather encourage node clusters fighting other node clusters, rather than fighting amongst themselves.
This seems to me to be what it comes down to. Some people want the fight to be small and local,whereas I see the entire point of the node system to be server wide conflict.
Local conflict is something that should be between smaller guilds, not nodes.
Obviously we both know this isnt actually a valid argument. Adding the option for people to spend all day in instanced content would be detrimental to Ashes, regardless of the fact that it is "just another option". The point being,more options arent always a good thing, and sometimes there isnt an appropriate cost to balance it out.
We don't know if there's a limit on how long you can "farm" the pvp arena currently. Whatever that limit is (time-wise) - I'd be fine if we had some form of instanced pve equivalent of it, be it solo or group based.
Again, to me this comes down to loot rather than the content type itself. If this instanced pve requires loot from non-instanced places - people will still have to spend a ton of time in the open world, just as is the case with pvp arena.
The question is, do you want to add internal drama at the node level in exchange for external drama?
Yes
External drama won't suddenly disappear purely because there's now a possibility of internal drama, because inter-guild drama never disappeared, even though intra-guild drama always existed.
Also, a full vassal system is still 1/5 of the world. To a semi-casual player that's already more than they will most likely experience in the game (unless the story takes us across the entire map), so having theoretical conflict against someone who's within the system would be not much different from fighting those who come from the outside. And hardcore players would involve themselves in more things than just internal strife.
Prefer what devs are doing seems a lot more heathy for the game overall. Too much chaotic elements just leads to more of a niche player base. You have to trade freedoms for balance and design and they are clearly trying to make a a successful mmorpg.
Taxes come from player activities (amenities, artisanship, commerce, properties). The game wants to allow players to move over a larger area and play the game rather than being stuck close to their node because they perceive the other nodes as potential enemies and their game-play would help those nodes build up defenses. And players don't own nodes. It is just the node where they rented an apartment.
External drama won't suddenly disappear purely because there's now a possibility of internal drama
Disappear? no.
Be drastically reduced? probably.
Again, the best this game could possibly be is if metropolis nodes with full vassals in support go to war against other full metropolis nodes with their own vassals in support. In order for this to happen, you need to understand that there are many, many people out there that would rather tear something down to rebuild it just because it isn't exactly what they want, rather than accepting something that works for the many. Once you understand that these people exist, if your goal is still a game where metropolis nodes with full vassals in support go to war against other full metropolis nodes with their own vassals in support, then your only option is to remove that tear down option from those people.
Quite honestly, the only argument for this is "but muh node!". Since Ashes clearly can't be a game where you remain loyal to one node in perpituity, this isn't an argument at all.
Taxes come from player activities (amenities, artisanship, commerce, properties). The game wants to allow players to move over a larger area and play the game rather than being stuck close to their node because they perceive the other nodes as potential enemies
I don't think allowing vassals to rebel will stop trade from happening in the world. If anything is going to scare traders it's highwaymen and pirates.
Even under the current system you'll have a whole spectrum of people who stay relatively in the same area, these can be your crafters who get mats supplied through trade of guilds, your freehold owners with processing stations and whatever other stuff they get up to. And ofc the traders who supply mats to the people who don't want to get those mats themselves.
This spectrum of players would happen either way in my opinion.
Besides... If you're scared of a node perceiving you as an enemy because of what node you belong to.... "you can just drop your citizenship"
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Taxes come from player activities (amenities, artisanship, commerce, properties). The game wants to allow players to move over a larger area and play the game rather than being stuck close to their node because they perceive the other nodes as potential enemies
I don't think allowing vassals to rebel will stop trade from happening in the world. If anything is going to scare traders it's highwaymen and pirates.
Players like you who want to harm the metropolis nation from within will attack player and mayoral caravans running between nodes. I like that the game allows such depraved actions and at the same time prevents you to siege the parent node.
As I said, the issue with your fix to the stability thing is that it leaves people neither willing nor really able to siege outside of their own metropolis cluster.
This is because you keep glossing over the fact that you can adjust the willingness of groups instead of everyone at the same time.
If vassals are sieging their parents too much you can:
Lower the rewards for vassal attackers.
Raise the rewards for vassal defenders.
Add additional costs for vassal attackers.
Make the ability to participate interactable by policies.
Don't throw the system out completely when you can adjust it!
The idea is that clusters of nodes work together. You have the economy, religion and crafting/travel (and what ever military nodes bring), with people being in which ever node type best suits them, all working towards the whole clusters prosperity. This group then looks outwards for "physical" threats, not inwards. The fact that they only need to look outward also means they have the capacity to look Outward in aggression as well - something that wouldnt happen if they were having to constantly look both inwards and outwards for threats.
Making it so node clusters only have existential threats coming from the outside is kind of key to the game functioning as intended, imo.
The threat coming from outside exclusively is not key at all. The point of the node system as a whole is to have nodes rise and fall to keep generating content. Inward tensions produce just as much gameplay as outward tensions. Alliances will form and break in both cases.
Also, like has been said before, if the true target of IS is to make a kingom builder instead of a city state builder, the design as a whole should be reworked to better suit that. Kingdoms that are not formed out of player interactions will produce apathetic chains of people who just happen to be together.
Make this make sense.....so you are acknowledging the issue and saying IS should add it in and add a bunch of conditions that make it more difficult (per person) that decides to attack the node as a citizen (This also doesn't make sense with the current system you don't pay a cost as an individual to register as an attacker of the node) When IS already has included a cost you simply LEAVE the node as a citizen. You are trying to add all these complexities that don't really do anything that will need to be balanced for no reason.
Than you are going onto say inward generates as much tension as outward (actually no it generates more tension). Leaning more on the point about the issue and why you are saying they need all these random changes just so people aren't trying to destroy each other every second.
Nodes will change without that kind of tension this games needs some level of stability not every single node trying to go to war with each. And content being reduced because of it. There is going to be enough node changes and pvp do to other kingdoms approach and causing conflict. This game isn't trying to create a high level tension to scare off every single casual do to warring going on between 20 nodes all around them. You are not considering any design elements at all, you will have to do so many restrictions to the point people just move nodes.
People out here liking post saying its just a little change trying to rework the whole system in itself. The designs already reflect what they are trying to do as well yall just don't want to acknowledge that. Your points are full of holes and like i said before Dude bro mentality my node strong so i win (which is not how the game works).
You are trying to add all these complexities that don't really do anything that will need to be balanced for no reason.
The reason is the ability to rebel in itself.
Yes, it's that important. You already know this because you think it's going to be overused.
Yes, it's worth balancing for.
And yes it can be balanced for.
So you all can stop saying you are asking for a small change and asking for mass pvp of all node against each other and a more chaotic environment at the cost of the health and growth of the game.
As I said, the issue with your fix to the stability thing is that it leaves people neither willing nor really able to siege outside of their own metropolis cluster.
This is because you keep glossing over the fact that you can adjust the willingness of groups instead of everyone at the same time.
If vassals are sieging their parents too much you can:
Lower the rewards for vassal attackers.
Raise the rewards for vassal defenders.
Add additional costs for vassal attackers.
Make the ability to participate interactable by policies.
Don't throw the system out completely when you can adjust it!
Throw the system out because the game is better off without it.
First of all, sieges can't be tied to node policy at all. While we have been talking about vassal nodes vs parent nodes, it is actually citizens of vassal nodes vs parent nodes. The vassal node itself isn't a factor here, thus policies can't be a factor. If Intrepid were to implement something like this, the penalty for losing the siege would need to be the automatic destruction of this vassal node.
Second, you can't "add" an additional cost to attackers, when the only person that has a cost associated with an attacking siege is the player that obtains the scroll. You could say "just make it more expensive for a citizen to get the scroll", but then a non-citizen would get it, and that cost is very easily avoided. You could then say "make two scrolls, one that allows and one that doesn't", but now the cost of the one that allows citizens to attack needs to factor in the cost multiplied by 250 - keeping in mind that this cost per person needs to be on par with having to drop citizenship.
Rewards associated with the siege are after the fact, and are not exclusive to people that participated in the siege. It isn't an appropriate place to place a penalty, as the idea is literally that it is a free-for-all.
There are no rewards directly associated with defending a siege. The reward is the node not being destroyed.
So, not only is the system a bad idea to have, but the levers you think Intrepid have to influence people simply do not exist.
The idea is that clusters of nodes work together. You have the economy, religion and crafting/travel (and what ever military nodes bring), with people being in which ever node type best suits them, all working towards the whole clusters prosperity. This group then looks outwards for "physical" threats, not inwards. The fact that they only need to look outward also means they have the capacity to look Outward in aggression as well - something that wouldnt happen if they were having to constantly look both inwards and outwards for threats.
Making it so node clusters only have existential threats coming from the outside is kind of key to the game functioning as intended, imo.
The threat coming from outside exclusively is not key at all. The point of the node system as a whole is to have nodes rise and fall to keep generating content. Inward tensions produce just as much gameplay as outward tensions. Alliances will form and break in both cases.
[/quote]
It actually kind of is key.
Node clusters infighting amongst themselves is not what is going to cause content to shift and change. Node clusters forming, organizing and then looking out at other node clusters is what is going to see drastic changes in content.
Also, like has been said before, if the true target of IS is to make a kingom builder instead of a city state builder, the design as a whole should be reworked to better suit that. Kingdoms that are not formed out of player interactions will produce apathetic chains of people who just happen to be together.
There is player interaction here.
You seem to only be considering the notion that everyone wants their node to be the metropolis. This is not the case at all.
All up, as I said in an above post, the only argument for allowing vassal citizens to siege their parent node is "but muh node". It is simply people wanting to stay in the same node despite that node no longer suiting the way they want to play the game.
The correct thing to do when the node you are in no longer suits the way you play, is to move on to a node that does suit the way you want to play.
The argument that no loyalty should be a thing is a non-factor in this discussion, as the side wanting vassals to siege parents is talking about destroying the node of a thousand or more players, and as such dislodging them.
Node loyalty is a mirage, a fairytale, an illusion. You will have to move nodes many times in Ashes, this is just a fact. Arguing for a change to the game to prevent this is not likely to see success.
So you all can stop saying you are asking for a small change and asking for mass pvp of all node against each other and a more chaotic environment at the cost of the health and growth of the game.
Siege frequency has to be balanced anyway using these same levers. The changes in themselves ARE small development wise. All these systems already exist in some form.
Yes, we want a more chaotic environment for the benefit of health and growth of the game.
And if the chaos is too much, it can be adjusted down which you can't refute.
Node loyalty is a mirage, a fairytale, an illusion.
So is RL money and most of the world economy. Same goes for guild loyalty if you want to keep it in MMORPG terms. It doesn't mean that people won't care or fight for those things. Whenever you build something up and spend time and effort, you start caring. This goes as much for nodes as it does for everything else. It's basic human psychology.
I am not in the camp that want vassals to attack parent nodes, but I want Intrepid to remove the option for parent nodes to attack vassal nodes directly. If the leadership of the parent node wants a vassal node gone, they should have to do it through 3rd parties.
So you all can stop saying you are asking for a small change and asking for mass pvp of all node against each other and a more chaotic environment at the cost of the health and growth of the game.
Siege frequency has to be balanced anyway using these same levers. The changes in themselves ARE small development wise. All these systems already exist in some form.
Yes, we want a more chaotic environment for the benefit of health and growth of the game.
And if the chaos is too much, it can be adjusted down which you can't refute.
Its already been mentioned multiple times, what you want is NOT to the benefit and heath of the game, but just a feature you want yourself. Its already been pointed out multiple times it is a negative experience , and your argument continues to be I want my node to be a metro or I want to attack who I want to attack regardless how the game designed.
Its been pointed out your points are not strong with how you are reference levers, which is simple because again you are not considered the design of the actual game. And why you are asking for larger changes without realizing and missing a lot of details on how things work in the game. Pointed out by both noaani and I.
Node loyalty is a mirage, a fairytale, an illusion.
So is RL money and most of the world economy. Same goes for guild loyalty if you want to keep it in MMORPG terms. It doesn't mean that people won't care or fight for those things. Whenever you build something up and spend time and effort, you start caring. This goes as much for nodes as it does for everything else. It's basic human psychology.
I am not in the camp that want vassals to attack parent nodes, but I want Intrepid to remove the option for parent nodes to attack vassal nodes directly. If the leadership of the parent node wants a vassal node gone, they should have to do it through 3rd parties.
I feel them being able to attack is fine, and there should be a consequence if they lose the fight depending on things. And if they win it should be a consequence in itself. This can be balanced around the resources they need to sustain their area. Weakening their own kingdom will more easily open them up to being sieged. So most likely not a thing people are going to be for doing as a first choice or in general.
We need to see more so of what their goals will be for node sieges and such and effects. This is the only thing that is in more the grey area.
I am not in the camp that want vassals to attack parent nodes, but I want Intrepid to remove the option for parent nodes to attack vassal nodes directly. If the leadership of the parent node wants a vassal node gone, they should have to do it through 3rd parties.
It is an interesting thought.
In a fully developed map, if a metropolis would have the interest to destroy one of his own nodes, the other metropolises will have the interest to defend it. Unless there is an agreement between them, but in that case your 3rd party solution would work better.
I would not take away this feature but I hope buffer nodes will not immediately replace the destroyed node, so that the parent node to be temporarily weakened by lack of taxes flowing in.
Anyway you cannot make all players happy in all cases. If two metropolises decide that one of the nodes must fall, chances are that it will fall.
I would not take away this feature but I hope buffer nodes will not immediately replace the destroyed node, so that the parent node to be temporarily weakened by lack of taxes flowing in.
As it stands now, in a fully developed map, if a single node goes down the other 5 Metros will not absorb any of those nodes because they'd be at their max vassal limit in a fully developed map.
You'd either need a string of sieges all happening at once around the same region to actually change any "kingdom" borders, or a buffer node happened to be a high enough level to absorb a tiny bit of the nodes from the "kingdom" that lost a node.
In this sense, it might be citizens of border nodes who are the only ones guaranteed to be able to actually "conquer" anything in a fully developed map, and actually able to shift the ZOI borders around... real change.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
First of all, sieges can't be tied to node policy at all. While we have been talking about vassal nodes vs parent nodes, it is actually citizens of vassal nodes vs parent nodes. The vassal node itself isn't a factor here, thus policies can't be a factor. If Intrepid were to implement something like this, the penalty for losing the siege would need to be the automatic destruction of this vassal node.
Geh, looks like you didn't read my post about policies. Let me refresh:
Both of these examples would be a way to add political elements between vassals and masters using existing systems. Policies exist, and siege registration is going to be already selective based on vassal status. Combine, and you get policies which affect siege registration.
I don't understand how vassals aren't a factor? The current system lists them as automatic defenders!
Second, you can't "add" an additional cost to attackers, when the only person that has a cost associated with an attacking siege is the player that obtains the scroll. You could say "just make it more expensive for a citizen to get the scroll", but then a non-citizen would get it, and that cost is very easily avoided. You could then say "make two scrolls, one that allows and one that doesn't", but now the cost of the one that allows citizens to attack needs to factor in the cost multiplied by 250 - keeping in mind that this cost per person needs to be on par with having to drop citizenship.
I already did suggest another type of scroll. And yes, I said it should cost more.
250 is probably not the right number, but I imagine a good value exists between 1 and infinity. The right number will be found during alpha.
Rewards associated with the siege are after the fact, and are not exclusive to people that participated in the siege. It isn't an appropriate place to place a penalty, as the idea is literally that it is a free-for-all.
There are no rewards directly associated with defending a siege. The reward is the node not being destroyed.
To me this screams a giant "Victory!" pop-up which doles out currencies of all kinds.
If you're talking about attackers looting the ruins afterwards, then former vassals can be prevented from joining the looting.
So yes, attacker and defender rewards can be adjusted for vassals. An additional siege scroll cost for allowing vassals to attack can be added.
And that's with playing nice with all the existing systems.
Node clusters infighting amongst themselves is not what is going to cause content to shift and change. Node clusters forming, organizing and then looking out at other node clusters is what is going to see drastic changes in content.
This is just you saying "trust me bro". What's different with change caused by infighting? A node goes up up and then it goes down. As long as that is happening, the world content keeps cycling. If you think players can't figure out alliances and put together metros without the system babying them, I think you'll be in for a surprise.
You seem to only be considering the notion that everyone wants their node to be the metropolis. This is not the case at all.
I think we've said multiple multiple times that not everyone is going to be rebelling. And why are you saying this when apparently the ability to rebel would cause too much instability?
Do you think people would infight too much and there would be no stability?
Fine let's adjust that with the levers.
Or...
Do you think people would be happy to remain vassal even given the ability to rebel?
Good! Things will be probably stable!
As you said, not everyone wants their node to be a metropolis, so there will be interesting politics within nodes between people who do and who don't.
Some node communities will be actively hostile as vassals.
Some will be almost completely loyal.
Most will be somewhere in the middle, and it'll be down to politics between players to keep the kingdom growing.
It is simply people wanting to stay in the same node despite that node no longer suiting the way they want to play the game.
The correct thing to do when the node you are in no longer suits the way you play, is to move on to a node that does suit the way you want to play.
Maybe you're just not a community person? Maybe I need to write an example for this to make sense to you:
On server start, you go off and find a nice spot to farm for mobs and iron. A few other people come around and they help you out every now and then. Time goes on, more people keep flowing in and eventually the node has turned into a town. Iron is no longer the only thing, but rarer resources are popping up and the money is getting better. You know most of the regulars of the node, you've joined a guild in the node, you have a house and participate in the politics. You prop up a discord server for the node, and debate plans for trade alliances and facilities there. The node has long been a community in itself.
Then one day the node gets the message "you've been vassalized by Shitburg".
With the current plan, the community grinds to a halt. Once the town is maxed out, plans stagnate into just keeping the node from atrophying. Some people will be happy not doing anything and hang around as long as making some money is possible. Many people will move to a bigger node to chase advancement. But you'll find many people disappointed that they can't actively do anything about the situation. You've collectively put thousands of hours into an area and the answer is to just move.
Mind you, this sort of attachment is what will make the game politics and pvp actually matter. If people aren't invested, it all turns into a big Alterac Valley.
Node loyalty is a mirage, a fairytale, an illusion. You will have to move nodes many times in Ashes, this is just a fact. Arguing for a change to the game to prevent this is not likely to see success.
Yet all signs and quotes point to Ashes being the game about node loyalty. How vassal chains work is the only confusing puzzle piece.
I think I remember you mentioning how the game has many contradictions. This is one of them. And it's bad. Intrepid devs want people to be loyal to nodes and they want nodes to prevent each other from growing. But they somehow want those inherently opposed nodes to be a unified "kingdom"?
I don't see why we are taking policies and skewing it to work in a different way lmao. There is no mention of the point of them to restrict what players can do as they are about buffing the node and players, not controlling actions. I've already mentioned that in this thread already.
That whole previous post is moot. You are trying to add a whole other complexity to the system that doesn't actually add any value. You are trying to paint a scenario where a parent node can actually control other nodes in taking away free will from in game mechanics. When that is not the case.
Again here is a cost LEAVE the node, and join another node / kingdom that wants to destroy them.
Then one day the node gets the message "you've been vassalized by Shitburg".[/i]
Your example is missing the fact that as your node is developing, "Shitburg" is there all along, leveling up.
You are also missing the fact that while you and your community are there gathering the resources and being a community, once you become a vassal if "Shitburg", you are all still there, all still a community, still have those resources,and now happen to have access to services that you had no hand in setting up. Your small community is now a small community within a larger community.
Vassal chains are not the conflicting part of the node system. The conflict is the notion of loyalty. The rest of the games systems point to players needing to be mobile to a degree. Resources are not infinite so players need to continually relocate if they want to gather the same resource. Node infrastructure is temporary, so if you are a profession reliant on that you will need to move often. Content will change so if you want to live near content you enjoy, you will need to move often. Populations as a whole will move over time, so if your gameplay relies on large population (even running a tavern), you'll need to move often.
Everything in the games design is about players moving to new nodes somewhat frequently - the basic premise of the games design requires this (ever changing content due to node changes). The only thing that isn't in line with this principle is not actually a part of game design, it is Stevens comment about node loyalty. There is no game design element towards this as yet, just an empty statement with game design elements to the opposite effect.
I would not take away this feature but I hope buffer nodes will not immediately replace the destroyed node, so that the parent node to be temporarily weakened by lack of taxes flowing in.
As it stands now, in a fully developed map, if a single node goes down the other 5 Metros will not absorb any of those nodes because they'd be at their max vassal limit in a fully developed map.
You'd either need a string of sieges all happening at once around the same region to actually change any "kingdom" borders, or a buffer node happened to be a high enough level to absorb a tiny bit of the nodes from the "kingdom" that lost a node.
In this sense, it might be citizens of border nodes who are the only ones guaranteed to be able to actually "conquer" anything in a fully developed map, and actually able to shift the ZOI borders around... real change.
What do you mean by "citizens of border nodes are the only ones guaranteed to be able to actually "conquer" anything "?
You mean to receive vassals?
Steven created these buffer nodes to make the map evolution less predictable.
He also wants to create sieges and he assumes that scarcity and limited relics will drive the 5 nations to fight each-other.
When rare resources spawn somewhere, players will rush there to collect them. Caravans will start transporting them to freeholds. Those caravans will be in greater danger. Freeholds processing these resources will attract sieges too.
What do you mean by "citizens of border nodes are the only ones guaranteed to be able to actually "conquer" anything "?
You mean to receive vassals?
Yes. In a fully developed map, the 5 Metro vassal networks would be at their max. Without buffer nodes this would mean the borders of those ZOIs never change, unless a lot of sieges happen in the same area.
Like those 2 pics I posted here earlier of the lvl 5 City that fell. None of it's vassals got absorbed into the neighboring ZOIs, which means eventually they'd just collect together into the ZOI with the exact same borders as before, just with a diff node as the City. Same stuff, same people, just slightly moved around.
With a buffer node though, you'd have the opportunity of a high enough buffer node to steal one of those vassals after that City fell. Eventually maybe even that buffer node could steal enough nodes from it's neighbors that it became a Metro in it's own right.
That's all I mean when I say a buffer node can actually conquer, it has both the option to siege basically all of their neighboring nodes, AND absorb them as vassals.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
The only thing that isn't in line with this principle is not actually a part of game design, it is Stevens comment about node loyalty. There is no game design element towards this as yet, just an empty statement with game design elements to the opposite effect.
Cost of investment and cost of movement are the main design features that support Steven's desire for node loyalty.
Once the nodes have leveled up and have sold out all of their in-node and freehold housing (guild-only stuff), only the apartments will remain. And those go up in cost the more people have bought them, which means that moving to a new node means paying way more for new housing than what you paid for your initial place.
Majority of casuals would most likely not even be able to afford a node move. And you yourself said that sieging a parent node should have a cost equivalent to moving nodes, right? So that would imply that the cost is already fairly high.
And this doesn't even include the social aspect of leaving your community (if you've built one) or ease of content access due to knowledge of its layout and acquaintance with other people who might be farming it.
In-node/freehold owners have it slightly easier because they can sell their shit and use that money to at least get an apartment, though even then you'd be trading a super prestigious thing for a fucking instance, which I'm not sure how many people would be willing to do.
And all of this is in the context of being a citizen and having benefits from that (which are supposedly really nice), so it's not like becoming a bum after being a citizen will be all that alluring.
So I think you're wrong in saying that there're no features that promote node loyalty. If anything, I'd say that majority of node-related features do exactly that, because changing nodes is not as easy as you make it out to be.
And iirc it was you who said that a lot of people would leave the game if their node got destroyed (and their shit with it), and moving nodes would be quite close to that, especially if you have to transfer your stuff on caravans and those get raided.
I really feel like yalls acceptance of this current design comes from your belief that you'll be the ones with freeholds, in metros with strong guilds, so of course it's a good thing that the plebs down below can't rebel against you, cause how dare they rise up.
Your example is missing the fact that as your node is developing, "Shitburg" is there all along, leveling up.
Truuu, until it too gets vassalized by a bigger fish. Then we are gridlocked until a metro falls. You must understand how some can see the current proposed system frustrating, even if you prefer moving.
You are also missing the fact that while you and your community are there gathering the resources and being a community, once you become a vassal if "Shitburg", you are all still there, all still a community, still have those resources,and now happen to have access to services that you had no hand in setting up. Your small community is now a small community within a larger community.
I don't think that's not quite how communities work. The point of my example was to demonstrate the organic growth of a community from people working together. If you smash a community into another community that now taxes you and prevents your growth, you get a rivalry. Sure, the pragmatic folk will see the opportunities, but your average gamer will not see this new node in a positive light.
The rest of the games systems point to players needing to be mobile to a degree. Resources are not infinite so players need to continually relocate if they want to gather the same resource. Node infrastructure is temporary, so if you are a profession reliant on that you will need to move often. Content will change so if you want to live near content you enjoy, you will need to move often. Populations as a whole will move over time, so if your gameplay relies on large population (even running a tavern), you'll need to move often.
...
Everything in the games design is about players moving to new nodes somewhat frequently - the basic premise of the games design requires this (ever changing content due to node changes).
Mobility is important yes, but those are new communities forming out of siege refugees and the opportunists. The old communities will still exist, harvesting their own areas and importing and exporting the goods they still have. Unless you have some secret information, I don't think resources will vanish to the point where nodes will completely run out everything and atrophy. So far we just know that some resources are tied to node level and some are (semi?)randomly appearing clusters. Veering too far into this realm turns into debating about hypotheticals.
Vassal chains are not the conflicting part of the node system. The conflict is the notion of loyalty.
...
The only thing that isn't in line with this principle is not actually a part of game design, it is Stevens comment about node loyalty. There is no game design element towards this as yet, just an empty statement with game design elements to the opposite effect.
Well, that's certainly a take. While this is not impossible, for me, the current pieces line up closer to a city state builder instead of a kingdom builder. Until some sort of objective reality comes crashing down, I can only work with what I believe in.
So in short,
Mr Steven pls!
The vassal system needs work.
What do you mean by "citizens of border nodes are the only ones guaranteed to be able to actually "conquer" anything "?
You mean to receive vassals?
Yes. In a fully developed map, the 5 Metro vassal networks would be at their max. Without buffer nodes this would mean the borders of those ZOIs never change, unless a lot of sieges happen in the same area.
Like those 2 pics I posted here earlier of the lvl 5 City that fell. None of it's vassals got absorbed into the neighboring ZOIs, which means eventually they'd just collect together into the ZOI with the exact same borders as before, just with a diff node as the City. Same stuff, same people, just slightly moved around.
With a buffer node though, you'd have the opportunity of a high enough buffer node to steal one of those vassals after that City fell. Eventually maybe even that buffer node could steal enough nodes from it's neighbors that it became a Metro in it's own right.
That's all I mean when I say a buffer node can actually conquer, it has both the option to siege basically all of their neighboring nodes, AND absorb them as vassals.
I think that old simulation revealed problems and caused Steven to reduce node count and add the 20 buffer nodes.
Steven said that if a metropolis falls, a new metropolis can be created from a node in the buffer zone. Maybe he has an updated simulation and he observed a better map dynamic.
Steven also said that leveling up a node to metropolis level is relatively fast and easy but developing the metropolis, all it's buildings will require effort.
So players who move after a node was destroyed may level up a node fast.
Or even gathering rare resources at the edge of a metro nation might level up the nodes in the buffer zone.
And there is no node atrophy. Once leveled up, they do not delevel.
The only thing that isn't in line with this principle is not actually a part of game design, it is Stevens comment about node loyalty. There is no game design element towards this as yet, just an empty statement with game design elements to the opposite effect.
Cost of investment and cost of movement are the main design features that support Steven's desire for node loyalty.
Once the nodes have leveled up and have sold out all of their in-node and freehold housing (guild-only stuff), only the apartments will remain. And those go up in cost the more people have bought them, which means that moving to a new node means paying way more for new housing than what you paid for your initial place.
Majority of casuals would most likely not even be able to afford a node move. And you yourself said that sieging a parent node should have a cost equivalent to moving nodes, right? So that would imply that the cost is already fairly high.
And this doesn't even include the social aspect of leaving your community (if you've built one) or ease of content access due to knowledge of its layout and acquaintance with other people who might be farming it.
In-node/freehold owners have it slightly easier because they can sell their shit and use that money to at least get an apartment, though even then you'd be trading a super prestigious thing for a fucking instance, which I'm not sure how many people would be willing to do.
And all of this is in the context of being a citizen and having benefits from that (which are supposedly really nice), so it's not like becoming a bum after being a citizen will be all that alluring.
So I think you're wrong in saying that there're no features that promote node loyalty. If anything, I'd say that majority of node-related features do exactly that, because changing nodes is not as easy as you make it out to be.
And iirc it was you who said that a lot of people would leave the game if their node got destroyed (and their shit with it), and moving nodes would be quite close to that, especially if you have to transfer your stuff on caravans and those get raided.
I really feel like yalls acceptance of this current design comes from your belief that you'll be the ones with freeholds, in metros with strong guilds, so of course it's a good thing that the plebs down below can't rebel against you, cause how dare they rise up.
You are counteracting your own argument saying casuals can't afford it (I can see the pattern in these conversations where you guys don't have any ground so you are making up scenarios since you lack actual points or proof)
Back to why you are counteracting your point though is you all have been advocating the current game design won't cause enough change in the game with nodes falling (also a made up scenario ). So you saying casuals won't be able to afford it yet you are wanting more node destruction, which by your logic casuals can not afford to move (entirely made up)
The more this conversation goes on the more its clear you guys have no ground and are making crap up at this point. Again adding your own holes in the discussion, on top of saying they need to rebel, when there is no reason to rebel do to parent nodes not actually being a tyrant that can control and reduce the quality of living of vassal nodes that has been shown. Which it being the opposite being able to give some elements of benefits to them which I have a feeling will be something under their control if they want it or not (based off taxes)
And there is no node atrophy. Once leveled up, they do not delevel.
Yeah, think the sim only had those "events" that citizens gotta defend their node from or face being sieged. Also noticed quite a few bugs in it too, like nodes that didn't level up after being over the needed exp for that level up lol....
Really wish I could get my hands on a node sim sometime soon, interests me way more than the Character Creator ppl begging for Prob won't happen anytime soon with how Steven wants to keep it under wraps though.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Comments
There will be fight for resources and taking other nodes' relics.
Not suddenly. That's the point. If you want to take down the node, the vassal node will act as a traitor for a longer time.
The parent node will be able to react and siege the vassal, a valid defense against nodes infiltrated by enemy metro nations.
Only in your dream are in competition. The ones bound to eachother will have stronger incentive to cooperate than fight.
Together will try to siege other nodes.
If one of them falls, entire branches could be removed from the metro nation and replaced with nodes from the buffer 20 outside.
That means they could lose access to metropolis benefits. What you see is your dream about a different game.
Steven's vision is to have nation like behavior between the nodes under the metropolis. He used this "nation like" expression to describe them:
"From a territory perspective it has ancillary nodes to play with and expand towards that redistricts the map, so that if a metropolis falls there's a significant difference in the layout of the world and the layout of these almost nation-like territories."
Steven will have to balance the taxes to force players out to live in smaller nodes too.
Maybe freehold and barony owners will be more interested to be citizens of smaller nodes.
"Citizenship dues and property taxes scale based on the stage of the node when a player became a citizen.[8][9][10][11][12]
The goal is to exert financial pressure on node populations by making taxes increasingly expensive as nodes advance, rather than putting in place hard population caps.[10][11]"
And we will have to see where dungeons and resources spawn. A metropolis ZoI overlaps with other nodes ZoI so it can happen that smaller nodes will be closer to these places than the metropolis itself.
You see, that's your problem. You have to play the game else you are pushing it to become the dream game you played before. You have to understand and be able to simulate in your mind the world dynamic as Steven wants it.
You cannot convince Steven to change his vision to yours just because you and a few others ask for it.
Most likely he initially started with just this idea you want and then improved it.
I was giving you 2 examples before, one where a node level 4 is unlikely to decide anything against parent node.
And one where if a siege can potentially be successful, it can become a traitor to the nation (your wish)
But that case will not be necessary if the level 5 node is so strong because it can cooperate and be the important tool to destroy nations arround.
Only is special cases player might want to promote their node to level up. But it will be risky: you destroy the metropolis and you can end up outside of the new metropolis, as part of the 20 buffer nodes.
No, the attack upwards will not be allowed because it makes no sense to weaken the nation like concept Steven wants.
The deep ocean free of corruption was a good addition to the game.
It got bigger and isolates the two continents a bit better.
It changed nothing about the nodes and it left the initial corruption mechanic unchanged.
Players might still be able to cross between continents using longer routes, from island to island.
Or will offer more protection because is bigger but also higher risk, being free of PvP.
A small crowded ocean where you immediately go from a continent to the other would have made if feel like a larger lake.
The nodes create comunities which will unite under the metropolis influence.
Solo players who insist to be "just" citizens will not be as efficient as guilds.
But participation into the castle sieges or their defense needs everyone. Even if a guild can coordinate better, it will need the support of a larger population.
Solo players who avoid guilds are typically not interested in politics either.
Your argument is weak. You just want to put sieging of parent nodes into the hand of random solo players because shaky reasons like "I am new to the game and poor but I want vertical leveling of my node even though I have weak interaction with other players... and guilds will control anyway places where money comes from."
Yes, with limitations, just as what I'm agreeing to in this current context.
And I've already said that I consider this change to be a good thing that will bring better politicking into the game and better internal drama in these "kingdoms".
Either way, it's obvious that yall want what Steven says here, while some of us want what we see as a better thing for the game. We've seen big shifts in design before, so I see no reason why this one couldn't happen.
I just hope there doesn't happen some other change that suddenly makes yall's current position moot
I mean, if they existed in Ashes, it's just another option, right?
Obviously we both know this isnt actually a valid argument. Adding the option for people to spend all day in instanced content would be detrimental to Ashes, regardless of the fact that it is "just another option". The point being,more options arent always a good thing, and sometimes there isnt an appropriate cost to balance it out.
I have no doubt that it will add more internal drama.
The question is, do you want to add internal drama at the node level in exchange for external drama?
Given the option, I'd much rather encourage node clusters fighting other node clusters, rather than fighting amongst themselves.
This seems to me to be what it comes down to. Some people want the fight to be small and local,whereas I see the entire point of the node system to be server wide conflict.
Local conflict is something that should be between smaller guilds, not nodes.
Again, to me this comes down to loot rather than the content type itself. If this instanced pve requires loot from non-instanced places - people will still have to spend a ton of time in the open world, just as is the case with pvp arena.
Yes
External drama won't suddenly disappear purely because there's now a possibility of internal drama, because inter-guild drama never disappeared, even though intra-guild drama always existed.
Also, a full vassal system is still 1/5 of the world. To a semi-casual player that's already more than they will most likely experience in the game (unless the story takes us across the entire map), so having theoretical conflict against someone who's within the system would be not much different from fighting those who come from the outside. And hardcore players would involve themselves in more things than just internal strife.
Be drastically reduced? probably.
Again, the best this game could possibly be is if metropolis nodes with full vassals in support go to war against other full metropolis nodes with their own vassals in support. In order for this to happen, you need to understand that there are many, many people out there that would rather tear something down to rebuild it just because it isn't exactly what they want, rather than accepting something that works for the many. Once you understand that these people exist, if your goal is still a game where metropolis nodes with full vassals in support go to war against other full metropolis nodes with their own vassals in support, then your only option is to remove that tear down option from those people.
Quite honestly, the only argument for this is "but muh node!". Since Ashes clearly can't be a game where you remain loyal to one node in perpituity, this isn't an argument at all.
Even under the current system you'll have a whole spectrum of people who stay relatively in the same area, these can be your crafters who get mats supplied through trade of guilds, your freehold owners with processing stations and whatever other stuff they get up to. And ofc the traders who supply mats to the people who don't want to get those mats themselves.
This spectrum of players would happen either way in my opinion.
Besides... If you're scared of a node perceiving you as an enemy because of what node you belong to.... "you can just drop your citizenship"
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
If vassals are sieging their parents too much you can:
Lower the rewards for vassal attackers.
Raise the rewards for vassal defenders.
Add additional costs for vassal attackers.
Make the ability to participate interactable by policies.
Don't throw the system out completely when you can adjust it!
The threat coming from outside exclusively is not key at all. The point of the node system as a whole is to have nodes rise and fall to keep generating content. Inward tensions produce just as much gameplay as outward tensions. Alliances will form and break in both cases.
Also, like has been said before, if the true target of IS is to make a kingom builder instead of a city state builder, the design as a whole should be reworked to better suit that. Kingdoms that are not formed out of player interactions will produce apathetic chains of people who just happen to be together.
Than you are going onto say inward generates as much tension as outward (actually no it generates more tension). Leaning more on the point about the issue and why you are saying they need all these random changes just so people aren't trying to destroy each other every second.
Nodes will change without that kind of tension this games needs some level of stability not every single node trying to go to war with each. And content being reduced because of it. There is going to be enough node changes and pvp do to other kingdoms approach and causing conflict. This game isn't trying to create a high level tension to scare off every single casual do to warring going on between 20 nodes all around them. You are not considering any design elements at all, you will have to do so many restrictions to the point people just move nodes.
People out here liking post saying its just a little change trying to rework the whole system in itself. The designs already reflect what they are trying to do as well yall just don't want to acknowledge that. Your points are full of holes and like i said before Dude bro mentality my node strong so i win (which is not how the game works).
The reason is the ability to rebel in itself.
Yes, it's that important. You already know this because you think it's going to be overused.
Yes, it's worth balancing for.
And yes it can be balanced for.
So you all can stop saying you are asking for a small change and asking for mass pvp of all node against each other and a more chaotic environment at the cost of the health and growth of the game.
First of all, sieges can't be tied to node policy at all. While we have been talking about vassal nodes vs parent nodes, it is actually citizens of vassal nodes vs parent nodes. The vassal node itself isn't a factor here, thus policies can't be a factor. If Intrepid were to implement something like this, the penalty for losing the siege would need to be the automatic destruction of this vassal node.
Second, you can't "add" an additional cost to attackers, when the only person that has a cost associated with an attacking siege is the player that obtains the scroll. You could say "just make it more expensive for a citizen to get the scroll", but then a non-citizen would get it, and that cost is very easily avoided. You could then say "make two scrolls, one that allows and one that doesn't", but now the cost of the one that allows citizens to attack needs to factor in the cost multiplied by 250 - keeping in mind that this cost per person needs to be on par with having to drop citizenship.
Rewards associated with the siege are after the fact, and are not exclusive to people that participated in the siege. It isn't an appropriate place to place a penalty, as the idea is literally that it is a free-for-all.
There are no rewards directly associated with defending a siege. The reward is the node not being destroyed.
So, not only is the system a bad idea to have, but the levers you think Intrepid have to influence people simply do not exist. The threat coming from outside exclusively is not key at all. The point of the node system as a whole is to have nodes rise and fall to keep generating content. Inward tensions produce just as much gameplay as outward tensions. Alliances will form and break in both cases.
[/quote]
It actually kind of is key.
Node clusters infighting amongst themselves is not what is going to cause content to shift and change. Node clusters forming, organizing and then looking out at other node clusters is what is going to see drastic changes in content. There is player interaction here.
You seem to only be considering the notion that everyone wants their node to be the metropolis. This is not the case at all.
All up, as I said in an above post, the only argument for allowing vassal citizens to siege their parent node is "but muh node". It is simply people wanting to stay in the same node despite that node no longer suiting the way they want to play the game.
The correct thing to do when the node you are in no longer suits the way you play, is to move on to a node that does suit the way you want to play.
The argument that no loyalty should be a thing is a non-factor in this discussion, as the side wanting vassals to siege parents is talking about destroying the node of a thousand or more players, and as such dislodging them.
Node loyalty is a mirage, a fairytale, an illusion. You will have to move nodes many times in Ashes, this is just a fact. Arguing for a change to the game to prevent this is not likely to see success.
Siege frequency has to be balanced anyway using these same levers. The changes in themselves ARE small development wise. All these systems already exist in some form.
Yes, we want a more chaotic environment for the benefit of health and growth of the game.
And if the chaos is too much, it can be adjusted down which you can't refute.
So is RL money and most of the world economy. Same goes for guild loyalty if you want to keep it in MMORPG terms. It doesn't mean that people won't care or fight for those things. Whenever you build something up and spend time and effort, you start caring. This goes as much for nodes as it does for everything else. It's basic human psychology.
I am not in the camp that want vassals to attack parent nodes, but I want Intrepid to remove the option for parent nodes to attack vassal nodes directly. If the leadership of the parent node wants a vassal node gone, they should have to do it through 3rd parties.
Its already been mentioned multiple times, what you want is NOT to the benefit and heath of the game, but just a feature you want yourself. Its already been pointed out multiple times it is a negative experience , and your argument continues to be I want my node to be a metro or I want to attack who I want to attack regardless how the game designed.
Its been pointed out your points are not strong with how you are reference levers, which is simple because again you are not considered the design of the actual game. And why you are asking for larger changes without realizing and missing a lot of details on how things work in the game. Pointed out by both noaani and I.
I feel them being able to attack is fine, and there should be a consequence if they lose the fight depending on things. And if they win it should be a consequence in itself. This can be balanced around the resources they need to sustain their area. Weakening their own kingdom will more easily open them up to being sieged. So most likely not a thing people are going to be for doing as a first choice or in general.
We need to see more so of what their goals will be for node sieges and such and effects. This is the only thing that is in more the grey area.
In a fully developed map, if a metropolis would have the interest to destroy one of his own nodes, the other metropolises will have the interest to defend it. Unless there is an agreement between them, but in that case your 3rd party solution would work better.
I would not take away this feature but I hope buffer nodes will not immediately replace the destroyed node, so that the parent node to be temporarily weakened by lack of taxes flowing in.
Anyway you cannot make all players happy in all cases. If two metropolises decide that one of the nodes must fall, chances are that it will fall.
You'd either need a string of sieges all happening at once around the same region to actually change any "kingdom" borders, or a buffer node happened to be a high enough level to absorb a tiny bit of the nodes from the "kingdom" that lost a node.
In this sense, it might be citizens of border nodes who are the only ones guaranteed to be able to actually "conquer" anything in a fully developed map, and actually able to shift the ZOI borders around... real change.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Geh, looks like you didn't read my post about policies. Let me refresh:
Both of these examples would be a way to add political elements between vassals and masters using existing systems. Policies exist, and siege registration is going to be already selective based on vassal status. Combine, and you get policies which affect siege registration.
I don't understand how vassals aren't a factor? The current system lists them as automatic defenders!
I already did suggest another type of scroll. And yes, I said it should cost more.
250 is probably not the right number, but I imagine a good value exists between 1 and infinity. The right number will be found during alpha.
To me this screams a giant "Victory!" pop-up which doles out currencies of all kinds.
If you're talking about attackers looting the ruins afterwards, then former vassals can be prevented from joining the looting.
So yes, attacker and defender rewards can be adjusted for vassals. An additional siege scroll cost for allowing vassals to attack can be added.
And that's with playing nice with all the existing systems.
This is just you saying "trust me bro". What's different with change caused by infighting? A node goes up up and then it goes down. As long as that is happening, the world content keeps cycling. If you think players can't figure out alliances and put together metros without the system babying them, I think you'll be in for a surprise.
I think we've said multiple multiple times that not everyone is going to be rebelling. And why are you saying this when apparently the ability to rebel would cause too much instability?
Do you think people would infight too much and there would be no stability?
Fine let's adjust that with the levers.
Or...
Do you think people would be happy to remain vassal even given the ability to rebel?
Good! Things will be probably stable!
As you said, not everyone wants their node to be a metropolis, so there will be interesting politics within nodes between people who do and who don't.
Some node communities will be actively hostile as vassals.
Some will be almost completely loyal.
Most will be somewhere in the middle, and it'll be down to politics between players to keep the kingdom growing.
I guess this is a slightly better characterization than a meme.
Maybe you're just not a community person? Maybe I need to write an example for this to make sense to you:
On server start, you go off and find a nice spot to farm for mobs and iron. A few other people come around and they help you out every now and then. Time goes on, more people keep flowing in and eventually the node has turned into a town. Iron is no longer the only thing, but rarer resources are popping up and the money is getting better. You know most of the regulars of the node, you've joined a guild in the node, you have a house and participate in the politics. You prop up a discord server for the node, and debate plans for trade alliances and facilities there. The node has long been a community in itself.
Then one day the node gets the message "you've been vassalized by Shitburg".
With the current plan, the community grinds to a halt. Once the town is maxed out, plans stagnate into just keeping the node from atrophying. Some people will be happy not doing anything and hang around as long as making some money is possible. Many people will move to a bigger node to chase advancement. But you'll find many people disappointed that they can't actively do anything about the situation. You've collectively put thousands of hours into an area and the answer is to just move.
Mind you, this sort of attachment is what will make the game politics and pvp actually matter. If people aren't invested, it all turns into a big Alterac Valley.
Yet all signs and quotes point to Ashes being the game about node loyalty. How vassal chains work is the only confusing puzzle piece.
I think I remember you mentioning how the game has many contradictions. This is one of them. And it's bad. Intrepid devs want people to be loyal to nodes and they want nodes to prevent each other from growing. But they somehow want those inherently opposed nodes to be a unified "kingdom"?
Nodes 3 better have some excellent solutions.
That whole previous post is moot. You are trying to add a whole other complexity to the system that doesn't actually add any value. You are trying to paint a scenario where a parent node can actually control other nodes in taking away free will from in game mechanics. When that is not the case.
Again here is a cost LEAVE the node, and join another node / kingdom that wants to destroy them.
Your example is missing the fact that as your node is developing, "Shitburg" is there all along, leveling up.
You are also missing the fact that while you and your community are there gathering the resources and being a community, once you become a vassal if "Shitburg", you are all still there, all still a community, still have those resources,and now happen to have access to services that you had no hand in setting up. Your small community is now a small community within a larger community.
Vassal chains are not the conflicting part of the node system. The conflict is the notion of loyalty. The rest of the games systems point to players needing to be mobile to a degree. Resources are not infinite so players need to continually relocate if they want to gather the same resource. Node infrastructure is temporary, so if you are a profession reliant on that you will need to move often. Content will change so if you want to live near content you enjoy, you will need to move often. Populations as a whole will move over time, so if your gameplay relies on large population (even running a tavern), you'll need to move often.
Everything in the games design is about players moving to new nodes somewhat frequently - the basic premise of the games design requires this (ever changing content due to node changes). The only thing that isn't in line with this principle is not actually a part of game design, it is Stevens comment about node loyalty. There is no game design element towards this as yet, just an empty statement with game design elements to the opposite effect.
You mean to receive vassals?
Steven created these buffer nodes to make the map evolution less predictable.
He also wants to create sieges and he assumes that scarcity and limited relics will drive the 5 nations to fight each-other.
When rare resources spawn somewhere, players will rush there to collect them. Caravans will start transporting them to freeholds. Those caravans will be in greater danger. Freeholds processing these resources will attract sieges too.
Like those 2 pics I posted here earlier of the lvl 5 City that fell. None of it's vassals got absorbed into the neighboring ZOIs, which means eventually they'd just collect together into the ZOI with the exact same borders as before, just with a diff node as the City. Same stuff, same people, just slightly moved around.
With a buffer node though, you'd have the opportunity of a high enough buffer node to steal one of those vassals after that City fell. Eventually maybe even that buffer node could steal enough nodes from it's neighbors that it became a Metro in it's own right.
That's all I mean when I say a buffer node can actually conquer, it has both the option to siege basically all of their neighboring nodes, AND absorb them as vassals.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Once the nodes have leveled up and have sold out all of their in-node and freehold housing (guild-only stuff), only the apartments will remain. And those go up in cost the more people have bought them, which means that moving to a new node means paying way more for new housing than what you paid for your initial place.
Majority of casuals would most likely not even be able to afford a node move. And you yourself said that sieging a parent node should have a cost equivalent to moving nodes, right? So that would imply that the cost is already fairly high.
And this doesn't even include the social aspect of leaving your community (if you've built one) or ease of content access due to knowledge of its layout and acquaintance with other people who might be farming it.
In-node/freehold owners have it slightly easier because they can sell their shit and use that money to at least get an apartment, though even then you'd be trading a super prestigious thing for a fucking instance, which I'm not sure how many people would be willing to do.
And all of this is in the context of being a citizen and having benefits from that (which are supposedly really nice), so it's not like becoming a bum after being a citizen will be all that alluring.
So I think you're wrong in saying that there're no features that promote node loyalty. If anything, I'd say that majority of node-related features do exactly that, because changing nodes is not as easy as you make it out to be.
And iirc it was you who said that a lot of people would leave the game if their node got destroyed (and their shit with it), and moving nodes would be quite close to that, especially if you have to transfer your stuff on caravans and those get raided.
I really feel like yalls acceptance of this current design comes from your belief that you'll be the ones with freeholds, in metros with strong guilds, so of course it's a good thing that the plebs down below can't rebel against you, cause how dare they rise up.
I don't think that's not quite how communities work. The point of my example was to demonstrate the organic growth of a community from people working together. If you smash a community into another community that now taxes you and prevents your growth, you get a rivalry. Sure, the pragmatic folk will see the opportunities, but your average gamer will not see this new node in a positive light.
Mobility is important yes, but those are new communities forming out of siege refugees and the opportunists. The old communities will still exist, harvesting their own areas and importing and exporting the goods they still have. Unless you have some secret information, I don't think resources will vanish to the point where nodes will completely run out everything and atrophy. So far we just know that some resources are tied to node level and some are (semi?)randomly appearing clusters. Veering too far into this realm turns into debating about hypotheticals.
Well, that's certainly a take. While this is not impossible, for me, the current pieces line up closer to a city state builder instead of a kingdom builder. Until some sort of objective reality comes crashing down, I can only work with what I believe in.
So in short,
Mr Steven pls!
The vassal system needs work.
Steven said that if a metropolis falls, a new metropolis can be created from a node in the buffer zone. Maybe he has an updated simulation and he observed a better map dynamic.
Steven also said that leveling up a node to metropolis level is relatively fast and easy but developing the metropolis, all it's buildings will require effort.
So players who move after a node was destroyed may level up a node fast.
Or even gathering rare resources at the edge of a metro nation might level up the nodes in the buffer zone.
And there is no node atrophy. Once leveled up, they do not delevel.
You are counteracting your own argument saying casuals can't afford it (I can see the pattern in these conversations where you guys don't have any ground so you are making up scenarios since you lack actual points or proof)
Back to why you are counteracting your point though is you all have been advocating the current game design won't cause enough change in the game with nodes falling (also a made up scenario ). So you saying casuals won't be able to afford it yet you are wanting more node destruction, which by your logic casuals can not afford to move (entirely made up)
The more this conversation goes on the more its clear you guys have no ground and are making crap up at this point. Again adding your own holes in the discussion, on top of saying they need to rebel, when there is no reason to rebel do to parent nodes not actually being a tyrant that can control and reduce the quality of living of vassal nodes that has been shown. Which it being the opposite being able to give some elements of benefits to them which I have a feeling will be something under their control if they want it or not (based off taxes)
Really wish I could get my hands on a node sim sometime soon, interests me way more than the Character Creator ppl begging for
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.