I have 0 idea how you come to the conclusion vassals nodes not being able to attack means 90% of the other players have 0 interest in sieging suddenly.
My Original Post pretty much spells it all out. For nodes to continue changing after 5 Metros are finally created, those Metros will eventually have to come down and be replaced with other nodes.
Citizens within a Metro's vassal network cannot siege down that Metro, which means only non-citizens and citizens of entirely separate vassal networks could siege down that Metro. My question is why would they? What is their incentive to travel so far out of their home region, to come to my Parent Node and knock it down? The cost is huge, the payoff is whatever is in the storage of the node. The majority of the stuff in the node will very likely be things they could have just lifeskilled and grinded in dungeons to get themselves with less hassle. The only unique thing you get from sieges are Relic Shards, but why would you bother sieging down a Metro when you could siege down a Village for some Relic Shards?
In games like EVE when you knocked down someone's stations in a system, you'd then go and claim that system. There was an incentive for outside invaders to come and destroy your home. In Ashes outside invaders won't be gaining any territory, the ZOIs have their limits, and if they knock down some foreign Metro that ZOI will just be handed down to it's level 5 nodes, not to the invaders.
If outsiders lack incentive to knock down Metros, and insiders lack the ability to siege down their Parent Node... who is going to be sieging these Parent Nodes down?
You really don't get PvP mindset of players, im just going to make this post short. You are effectively trying to say 6000+ other people have no desire to pvp siege a node lol? Not even talking about what they could be getting as drops from raiding. People don't need some reward to attack. The reward is the pvp in destroying a whole city in itself is enough for a PvPer.
You are trying to make up thin air and saying they have no reason not to attack which makes 0 sense, but even without a reason people will siege a node.
It is OK as it is described now, with 5 castles each taking taxes from most likely 2-3 metropolis owned nodes. There will be enough war to occupy these castles, every weekend.
Castles rule over 1/5 of the map. It'll definitely be more than 2-3 nodes.
Metropolises should be more stable and one falling will be an important event.
I assume you're not comparing castle and metro stability here, because castles never change, while metros are supposed to change if we hope to see any shift in player power on the map.
I wanted to say that castles will take taxes from 2-3 metropolises, if not directly, then through their vassals.
I do compare castle and motropolis stability.
Castles will be sieged every month and will have some PvP action every weekend.
Castle owners could change and come from any of the 5 metropolis ZoI.
No matter where the metropolises are, they should be more stable. I expect a metropolis to last at least 4-6 months. 6-8 months on average feels good for me.
You really don't get PvP mindset of players...
You are trying to make up thin air and saying they have no reason not to attack which makes 0 sense, but even without a reason people will siege a node.
It is just that person is not you clearly.
Not sure why you're making this so personal. I get it, you like to PvP, as do I. Which is why I want more instances of Node Sieges to happen, so that I can participate in PvP more often.
If big guilds don't see any incentives to siege down a Metro, they aren't going to unless some other big guild they want to meme on is there. But that's not always going to be the case, and sieging down a Metro will have a large cost associated with it. A cost that could be saved for a castle siege, or better spent on a siege of a weaker node they have a better chance of actually winning against, etc. Those people lack the "PvP mindset" that you have, but those are most people.
I'd think someone who has the PvP mindset would want what I want though, more chances to siege down a node, which is what I'm asking for here. Everyone keeps telling me letting vassals siege their parent nodes would be too chaotic, too unstable... but someone who has the PvP mindset wouldn't be afraid of that.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
You really don't get PvP mindset of players...
You are trying to make up thin air and saying they have no reason not to attack which makes 0 sense, but even without a reason people will siege a node.
It is just that person is not you clearly.
Not sure why you're making this so personal. I get it, you like to PvP, as do I. Which is why I want more instances of Node Sieges to happen, so that I can participate in PvP more often.
If big guilds don't see any incentives to siege down a Metro, they aren't going to unless some other big guild they want to meme on is there. But that's not always going to be the case, and sieging down a Metro will have a large cost associated with it. A cost that could be saved for a castle siege, or better spent on a siege of a weaker node they have a better chance of actually winning against, etc. Those people lack the "PvP mindset" that you have, but those are most people.
I'd think someone who has the PvP mindset would want what I want though, more chances to siege down a node, which is what I'm asking for here. Everyone keeps telling me letting vassals siege their parent nodes would be too chaotic, too unstable... but someone who has the PvP mindset wouldn't be afraid of that.
This isn't personal lmao, I'm saying you are making things up that don't make sense.
Guilds / nodes don't need incentive to siege a place, and there is incentive to siege a place. so you are wrong on both fronts.
You are not changing your argument to their reason not winning and wanting to siege a smaller node so they can win. Winning or losing has nothing to do with this discussion, people will attack nodes we aren't trying to discussion what nodes are effect for them to attack or not. Nor do we have the slightest bit of information of balancing so anything thought process in regard to this is fully fabricated, and again had nothing to do with this current discussion.
If you want to siege a node stop being a vassal and move to the other kingdom and attack the node. THere is nothing in game that prevents you from doing that based on the cost or whatever set amount of time it takes to move.
Any pvper that wants to attack a node will move or do what they need to do if that is the case. There is not limits we know of to sieging a node because the dec cost which you would need to be part of a organized group for that anyway.
This is why I'm saying you are making things up since you try to make it sound like a person is stuck at a node forever and can do nothing against the node if they are a vassal.
I do compare castle and motropolis stability.
Castles will be sieged every month and will have some PvP action every weekend.
Castle owners could change and come from any of the 5 metropolis ZoI.
No matter where the metropolises are, they should be more stable. I expect a metropolis to last at least 4-6 months. 6-8 months on average feels good for me.
A metro will probably be either involved in sieges or wars of their vassals (or even of themselves). And those can happen way more frequently. And wars imply constant pvp between sides (which might comprise thousands of people on the server btw).
But I personally don't see a castle changing hands as "change". Nothing changes about the castle, nothing changes about the stuff that it's influencing. Taxes might go up or down, but that's a fraction of the cost of smth in town, which is barely noticeable in day-to-day activities.
While even a stage5 node falling would be a huge deal that shifts relationships among several nodes.
In other words, we're just talking about different scales of stability here. Castles are monolith, while a Metro might get sieged as soon as it gets off of its level up protection (doubt that'll happen, but still).
If you want to siege a node stop being a vassal and move to the other kingdom and attack the node. THere is nothing in game that prevents you from doing that based on the cost or whatever set amount of time it takes to move.
This is exactly what my issue is though. I shouldn't have to drop citizenship of my home node just to siege it's parent node.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Also, do we still not know whether node citizenship applies to the entire account or if our alts can be homeless even if our main is a citizen?
In the latest update on the "you can be citizen of only one node" statement, Steven says that we can choose to not be a citizen even if we have housing. So, does that choice apply across the entire account or only for one character?
Cause if it's only one char, then we could simply declare the siege on our alt. This kinda makes me think that it's gonna be truly an account-wide decision, but then we go back to the "espionage" talk with guilds, so why not have smth similar with nodes?
So my question to others would be: Would you want your citizenship to be applicable to all chars separately or all together?
If you want to siege a node stop being a vassal and move to the other kingdom and attack the node. THere is nothing in game that prevents you from doing that based on the cost or whatever set amount of time it takes to move.
This is exactly what my issue is though. I shouldn't have to drop citizenship of my home node just to siege it's parent node.
Actually you should that is how they are designing the game. If you want to be a ronin go for it, but the people that are attacking are going to be the guilds organizing it not random people that just want to pvp / destroy every node.
Clearly the dev's want limit on things and don't want total destruction with the negative impact it have on the market a players. Rules and designs are there for a reason.
If your reason is simply you don't want to leave your node you don't have a strong enough reason to siege the other node clearly.
If you want to siege a node stop being a vassal and move to the other kingdom and attack the node. THere is nothing in game that prevents you from doing that based on the cost or whatever set amount of time it takes to move.
This is exactly what my issue is though. I shouldn't have to drop citizenship of my home node just to siege it's parent node.
Yes you should.
Accepting the rule of the parent node is part of the deal of being a citizen of the vassal.
It's a package deal. If you dont like the deal, look for a new one.
So my question to others would be: Would you want your citizenship to be applicable to all chars separately or all together?
This is a good Question, NiKr.
I can see Pro's and Con's for why that should be possible or not. It could save Time if someone wants to make like a handful of Characters for the same Node.
But if someone wants to have Characters in "several, different Nodes/Places", this should be possible as well. I can see People having to work to "register" themself as a Node Citizen with every single Character.
It's a package deal. If you dont like the deal, look for a new one.
But we're at the exact point where we can influence said deal. I'd prefer if the deal wasn't just "eat shit or die"
Keep in mind, the idea of moving to a different node is kind of central to the point of Ashes. Saying that you can take the deal or more to another node isnt "eat shit or die", but more "eat shit or do the thing the game wants you to often have to do".
I'm sure you've heard me mention before that Ashes is contradictory by design. One of those contradictions is that on the one hand they want loyalty to the node above guilds and such,but on the other hand they want us moving to new nodes somewhat often.
Wouldn't being able to stay a citizen of that node while sieging it's parent help solve that contradiction? That way you get both loyal node citizens who stay citizens, and those who have to move because they just lost their node and are homeless now
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Wouldn't being able to stay a citizen of that node while sieging it's parent help solve that contradiction? That way you get both loyal node citizens who stay citizens, and those who have to move because they just lost their node and are homeless now
Nope. It is the other side of that contradiction that needs to be upheld - the notion that moving to a different node is normal and not a big deal.
As a general idea, this notion NEEDS to be set in the collective player psyche very early on (beta, realistically) in order for Ashes to have any chance of success at all. It's kind if like EVE's "dont fly what you cant afford to lose"thing. If players hadn't accepted that very early on, the game would have lasted perhaps 3 years.
I can see plenty of reasons players would want to move homes though, mostly unrelated to sieges.
Like there will be a limited number of high level crafting stations for your chosen profession, so you move to a node that has one available for it's citizens. Or closer access to certain players who have a specific Processing Station at their Freehold, or some node that has a higher Land Management Score for better Gathering. Maybe a specific node type popped up that you want to live in, or they have a certain relic with certain buffs, etc.
Whether players know it or not, I can already see why players might want to move nodes even without their home node being sieged down.
It's still the other side of that I'm personally worried about. A lack of node sieges happening later on in a server's life.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
I can see plenty of reasons players would want to move homes though, mostly unrelated to sieges.
And all of them are smaller issues than what ever would see a group of players reasonably want to displace a thousand other players in game.
That's the point, the original premise in this thread was loyalty to the node and a lack of desire to move on. That part needs to not be true. There needs to almost be a willingness for players to be searching for the best node for their circumstance. That includes leadership.
Again, in regards to sieges happening later on in the game, the material wealth that cam be obtained from a siege is in itself likely enough of a reason for rivals to want to siege nodes. This is one of the levers Intrepid can push or pull to adjust how willing people are to attempt to destroy a metropolis.
As kind of an aside, if vassal node citizens could participate on the attacking side of a siege against their parent node, wouldnt the meta defense be to fill the attacking side with players from vassals whom are quite content where they are?
That's the point, the original premise in this thread was loyalty to the node and a lack of desire to move on. That part needs to not be true. There needs to almost be a willingness for players to be searching for the best node for their circumstance. That includes leadership.
For your first point, I honestly think this just might be different ways to play? Like early on I'm sure I'm going to move nodes quite often as I'm leveling, gearing, lifeksilling etc. Going to wherever is most efficient. But after I'm maxed, and have some decent gear, and can trade for a lot of lifeskill mats I may need, I hope to be that loyal citizen type player. To stick with that same node even after it's been sieged down to nothing and has to start over again.
Again, in regards to sieges happening later on in the game, the material wealth that cam be obtained from a siege is in itself likely enough of a reason for rivals to want to siege nodes. This is one of the levers Intrepid can push or pull to adjust how willing people are to attempt to destroy a metropolis.
But what is that material wealth? Setting aside Relic Shards which can only be gained through Node Sieges, all of those other mats are very likely mats the attackers could have just gathered and processed themselves. Very likely they could have gathered them with much less effort than it'd take to prepare a siege, with much less cost than it does to prepare for one too. From what they've said, completed gear pieces won't even be lootable to the attackers, just the mats and gatherables. There aren't extra stuff to be looted there, just what was stored there by the citizens. Even the Relic Shards are only from Relics that were earned by the citizens over time, they aren't just sprinkled in as an extra reward. So I don't see what this lever would affect tbh.
As kind of an aside, if vassal node citizens could participate on the attacking side of a siege against their parent node, wouldnt the meta defense be to fill the attacking side with players from vassals whom are quite content where they are?
I feel like that would just be a discussion about limiting slots in Node Sieges in general tbh, which there are plenty of stuff like this you could pull, even unrelated to a vassal/parent node thing. Like who's to say a guild won't get a "friendly guild" to fill as many of the opposing Castle Siege slots as they can?
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Quite honestly, it doesn't matter (not right now, at least).
The point I made was that there is material wealth to be gained - this is a built in part of winning a siege.
What that then means is that Intrepid have a lever here. If there aren't enough sieges happening, increase the rewards that are possible via that material wealth that can be gained after a siege. If there are enough sieges on lower level nodes but not enough on higher level, then alter the rewards that are able to be picked up in the ruins of higher tier node buildings and such.
Imagine Intrepid have the goal of two successful siege of a metropolis level nodes per server, per year. If they are not getting that, all they need to do is decide if they want to increase the rewards from all sieges, or increase the rewards from metropolis only buildings.
All of a sudden, with those greater rewards come greater reason to siege those metropolis level nodes.
Imagine Intrepid have the goal of two successful siege of a metropolis level nodes per server, per year.
Honestly if it gets me at least 2 Metros knocked down on a server per year, I might be willing to accept the compromise. That's assuming Intrepid does actually have some sort of goal of how many sieges should be happening on a server in a given period of time.
As long as Metros are falling, and the world is constantly changing, and I get to participate in these sieges, I'm happy.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Imagine Intrepid have the goal of two successful siege of a metropolis level nodes per server, per year.
Honestly if it gets me at least 2 Metros knocked down on a server per year, I might be willing to accept the compromise. That's assuming Intrepid does actually have some sort of goal of how many sieges should be happening on a server in a given period of time.
As long as Metros are falling, and the world is constantly changing, and I get to participate in these sieges, I'm happy.
We don't know what kind of frequency Intrepid want.
What we know is that they have the tools on hand to hit what ever that frequency is.
What that means is that you have to assume the amount of metropolis nodes that are destroyed is about where Intrepid want it - unless the specifics of node rewards are constantly changing (a sign they are not happy with the frequency).
As such, suggesting changes to gameplay specifically to alter that rate is probably not going to happen, as there is no need to alter the design in order to achieve something they already have levers to control.
What you could do, if a few years in to the game you don't think there are enough of these events, is ask Intrepid to shift their target frequency - simply by using the levers they have in place.
I'm sure you've heard me mention before that Ashes is contradictory by design. One of those contradictions is that on the one hand they want loyalty to the node above guilds and such,but on the other hand they want us moving to new nodes somewhat often.
Oh, I totally agree. There's too many contradictions in the design. We're just on the different sides of how to approach this particular one.
I want loyalty to the node to be higher than any perceived push to move nodes. So I want people to choose their preferred node and stick to it for however long they want. And I want them to have an ability to directly influence the success of their node.
I think that having off-citizen alts would be a good solution. Choosing to rise up with your entire node would be a better solution imo, but I understand that it might not fit Intrepid's design goals (though we don't even know those).
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If big guilds don't see any incentives to siege down a Metro, they aren't going to unless some other big guild they want to meme on is there. But that's not always going to be the case, and sieging down a Metro will have a large cost associated with it. A cost that could be saved for a castle siege, or better spent on a siege of a weaker node they have a better chance of actually winning against, etc. Those people lack the "PvP mindset" that you have, but those are most people.
What?
Sieging a Metro is not limited to Guilds.. and especially is not limited to big Guilds.
Players can choose to Siege a Metro because they want the server to have Metro controlled by their Race (there are 9 Races but only 5 Metros per server).
Players can choose to Siege a Metro because they want the server to have one or more Metros with a specific Node Type (there are 4 Node Types but only 5 Metros per server).
Players can choose to Siege a Metro because they don't want the server to have a specific type of Metro Super Power.
There are Sieges associated with the Castles every week. 5 Castles so multiple Castle-related Sieges and multiple Caravan runs every week.
I'd think someone who has the PvP mindset would want what I want though, more chances to siege down a node, which is what I'm asking for here. Everyone keeps telling me letting vassals siege their parent nodes would be too chaotic, too unstable... but someone who has the PvP mindset wouldn't be afraid of that.
Supposedly, Ashes is already designed as a PvX game (not a PvP-centric game) with plenty of opportunities for PvP...including The Open Seas.
I made a thread about this a while back and I largely agree with the op.
My main problem is still the fact that vassalization happens without any direct player action. The current system would make more sense if there was some sort of PvP event to vassalize a neighbour, but as it stands, the system is just weird.
In a game supposed to be all about bringing back player socialization and player agency, why are node chains formed automatically and then made unbreakble by everyone involved?
Really, why?
Worried people just stick to one node forever? Node destruction already forces moving. Why is it a problem that people would get invested in the first place?
Worried about stagnation? The current system causes a bunch of stagnation since people are prevented from changing the status quo!
Worried about stability? If nodes rise and fall too fast, the problem is that sieges are too easy and inexpensive. If node stability is an issue, it shouldn't be fixed by preventing players from doing the thing they want to do. The current system just breeds frustration towards the game, when it should be promoting friction between the players.
The only actual reason I can think of is to prevent EVE style large playermade alliances. People are risk averse, and large alliances tend to sit around and not risk anything. So how I see is that the current system is not really about forcing people to be friends, but rather ensuring that not everyone can be friends.
Here is a list of things that in my opinion would fix/mitigate some of this mess:
A rebellion system of any kind. Master nodes have a reason to keep vassals happy, vassals can now participate in politics. Huge amount of gameplay and drama potential is unlocked.
Make the vassal benefits really powerful, to the point where being vassalized by a metro is just as good as being citizen of a metro. Now everyone in an alliance will have a stake and the game works as intended.
Vassalization is a voluntary affair, but the node chain size is hard capped. Alliances are more powerful than single nodes, so eventually kingdoms will form by smashing the other nodes that can't do their politics right. The end-state is the same as the current system, but it has been formed by voluntary player choices.
Change the names! Vassalization as a term implices conquest/subjucation of sorts. If vassalization just happens and is supposed to be a good thing, then it should be renamed to something positive. This is almost as bad as naming an archetype after a role...
But in any case thanks for bringing this up @Tenguru !
Again people can already rebel and have a huge effect on politics, mooooove to another NODE.
I agree IS really needs to push in the betas for people to know a tool they can use to effect a node is moving. This mentality is linked to humans and not able to like or accept change (one can say its bloodline is even stronger in boomers).
I have no issue to node loyalty if its a spot you like you simply move back after the war. Or you rp it out and live at the node long enough to become the top after all the wars are done.
This just gives me the vibes of a few bottom feeders that won't have any impact or control on a node and disliking someone. Yelling at the mayor to attack people.
People out here MAKING THINGS UP saying stagnation because they personally don't want to move to another node lmao.
I do compare castle and motropolis stability.
Castles will be sieged every month and will have some PvP action every weekend.
Castle owners could change and come from any of the 5 metropolis ZoI.
No matter where the metropolises are, they should be more stable. I expect a metropolis to last at least 4-6 months. 6-8 months on average feels good for me.
A metro will probably be either involved in sieges or wars of their vassals (or even of themselves). And those can happen way more frequently. And wars imply constant pvp between sides (which might comprise thousands of people on the server btw).
But I personally don't see a castle changing hands as "change". Nothing changes about the castle, nothing changes about the stuff that it's influencing. Taxes might go up or down, but that's a fraction of the cost of smth in town, which is barely noticeable in day-to-day activities.
While even a stage5 node falling would be a huge deal that shifts relationships among several nodes.
In other words, we're just talking about different scales of stability here. Castles are monolith, while a Metro might get sieged as soon as it gets off of its level up protection (doubt that'll happen, but still).
It is important who owns the castle, if it is a friend or enemy to the metropolis:
Benefits of guild castles:
- Activate events and abilities that benefit node citizens under their rule
- Exert control and pressure over one of the five economic regions. https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Castle_nodes
Castles have the ability to allocate taxes collected from nodes under them toward certain benefits that go back to the node. Or they can be more selfishly governed that treasury more towards the guild that owns it and that obviously is going to have some political implications, because it could- if you're not using it for the benefit of the people in the region they might rise up and help take you out from that that position of owning that castle https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Taxes
Comments
You really don't get PvP mindset of players, im just going to make this post short. You are effectively trying to say 6000+ other people have no desire to pvp siege a node lol? Not even talking about what they could be getting as drops from raiding. People don't need some reward to attack. The reward is the pvp in destroying a whole city in itself is enough for a PvPer.
You are trying to make up thin air and saying they have no reason not to attack which makes 0 sense, but even without a reason people will siege a node.
It is just that person is not you clearly.
I wanted to say that castles will take taxes from 2-3 metropolises, if not directly, then through their vassals.
I do compare castle and motropolis stability.
Castles will be sieged every month and will have some PvP action every weekend.
Castle owners could change and come from any of the 5 metropolis ZoI.
No matter where the metropolises are, they should be more stable. I expect a metropolis to last at least 4-6 months. 6-8 months on average feels good for me.
If big guilds don't see any incentives to siege down a Metro, they aren't going to unless some other big guild they want to meme on is there. But that's not always going to be the case, and sieging down a Metro will have a large cost associated with it. A cost that could be saved for a castle siege, or better spent on a siege of a weaker node they have a better chance of actually winning against, etc. Those people lack the "PvP mindset" that you have, but those are most people.
I'd think someone who has the PvP mindset would want what I want though, more chances to siege down a node, which is what I'm asking for here. Everyone keeps telling me letting vassals siege their parent nodes would be too chaotic, too unstable... but someone who has the PvP mindset wouldn't be afraid of that.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
100.000% agreed. Also you made it sound pretty cool.
This isn't personal lmao, I'm saying you are making things up that don't make sense.
Guilds / nodes don't need incentive to siege a place, and there is incentive to siege a place. so you are wrong on both fronts.
You are not changing your argument to their reason not winning and wanting to siege a smaller node so they can win. Winning or losing has nothing to do with this discussion, people will attack nodes we aren't trying to discussion what nodes are effect for them to attack or not. Nor do we have the slightest bit of information of balancing so anything thought process in regard to this is fully fabricated, and again had nothing to do with this current discussion.
If you want to siege a node stop being a vassal and move to the other kingdom and attack the node. THere is nothing in game that prevents you from doing that based on the cost or whatever set amount of time it takes to move.
Any pvper that wants to attack a node will move or do what they need to do if that is the case. There is not limits we know of to sieging a node because the dec cost which you would need to be part of a organized group for that anyway.
This is why I'm saying you are making things up since you try to make it sound like a person is stuck at a node forever and can do nothing against the node if they are a vassal.
A metro will probably be either involved in sieges or wars of their vassals (or even of themselves). And those can happen way more frequently. And wars imply constant pvp between sides (which might comprise thousands of people on the server btw).
But I personally don't see a castle changing hands as "change". Nothing changes about the castle, nothing changes about the stuff that it's influencing. Taxes might go up or down, but that's a fraction of the cost of smth in town, which is barely noticeable in day-to-day activities.
While even a stage5 node falling would be a huge deal that shifts relationships among several nodes.
In other words, we're just talking about different scales of stability here. Castles are monolith, while a Metro might get sieged as soon as it gets off of its level up protection (doubt that'll happen, but still).
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
In the latest update on the "you can be citizen of only one node" statement, Steven says that we can choose to not be a citizen even if we have housing. So, does that choice apply across the entire account or only for one character?
Cause if it's only one char, then we could simply declare the siege on our alt. This kinda makes me think that it's gonna be truly an account-wide decision, but then we go back to the "espionage" talk with guilds, so why not have smth similar with nodes?
So my question to others would be: Would you want your citizenship to be applicable to all chars separately or all together?
If Vassal citizens continue to not be able to siege Parent Nodes, I'd be ok with having a cheesy homeless alt character who can.
Beats having to deal with all the things I'd lose by dropping citizenship, or having to rely on some outsider merc group to do the fighting for me.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Actually you should that is how they are designing the game. If you want to be a ronin go for it, but the people that are attacking are going to be the guilds organizing it not random people that just want to pvp / destroy every node.
Clearly the dev's want limit on things and don't want total destruction with the negative impact it have on the market a players. Rules and designs are there for a reason.
If your reason is simply you don't want to leave your node you don't have a strong enough reason to siege the other node clearly.
Yes you should.
Accepting the rule of the parent node is part of the deal of being a citizen of the vassal.
It's a package deal. If you dont like the deal, look for a new one.
This is a good Question, NiKr.
I can see Pro's and Con's for why that should be possible or not. It could save Time if someone wants to make like a handful of Characters for the same Node.
But if someone wants to have Characters in "several, different Nodes/Places", this should be possible as well. I can see People having to work to "register" themself as a Node Citizen with every single Character.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Keep in mind, the idea of moving to a different node is kind of central to the point of Ashes. Saying that you can take the deal or more to another node isnt "eat shit or die", but more "eat shit or do the thing the game wants you to often have to do".
I'm sure you've heard me mention before that Ashes is contradictory by design. One of those contradictions is that on the one hand they want loyalty to the node above guilds and such,but on the other hand they want us moving to new nodes somewhat often.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Nope. It is the other side of that contradiction that needs to be upheld - the notion that moving to a different node is normal and not a big deal.
As a general idea, this notion NEEDS to be set in the collective player psyche very early on (beta, realistically) in order for Ashes to have any chance of success at all. It's kind if like EVE's "dont fly what you cant afford to lose"thing. If players hadn't accepted that very early on, the game would have lasted perhaps 3 years.
Like there will be a limited number of high level crafting stations for your chosen profession, so you move to a node that has one available for it's citizens. Or closer access to certain players who have a specific Processing Station at their Freehold, or some node that has a higher Land Management Score for better Gathering. Maybe a specific node type popped up that you want to live in, or they have a certain relic with certain buffs, etc.
Whether players know it or not, I can already see why players might want to move nodes even without their home node being sieged down.
It's still the other side of that I'm personally worried about. A lack of node sieges happening later on in a server's life.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
And all of them are smaller issues than what ever would see a group of players reasonably want to displace a thousand other players in game.
That's the point, the original premise in this thread was loyalty to the node and a lack of desire to move on. That part needs to not be true. There needs to almost be a willingness for players to be searching for the best node for their circumstance. That includes leadership.
Again, in regards to sieges happening later on in the game, the material wealth that cam be obtained from a siege is in itself likely enough of a reason for rivals to want to siege nodes. This is one of the levers Intrepid can push or pull to adjust how willing people are to attempt to destroy a metropolis.
But what is that material wealth? Setting aside Relic Shards which can only be gained through Node Sieges, all of those other mats are very likely mats the attackers could have just gathered and processed themselves. Very likely they could have gathered them with much less effort than it'd take to prepare a siege, with much less cost than it does to prepare for one too. From what they've said, completed gear pieces won't even be lootable to the attackers, just the mats and gatherables. There aren't extra stuff to be looted there, just what was stored there by the citizens. Even the Relic Shards are only from Relics that were earned by the citizens over time, they aren't just sprinkled in as an extra reward. So I don't see what this lever would affect tbh.
I feel like that would just be a discussion about limiting slots in Node Sieges in general tbh, which there are plenty of stuff like this you could pull, even unrelated to a vassal/parent node thing. Like who's to say a guild won't get a "friendly guild" to fill as many of the opposing Castle Siege slots as they can?
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
The point I made was that there is material wealth to be gained - this is a built in part of winning a siege.
What that then means is that Intrepid have a lever here. If there aren't enough sieges happening, increase the rewards that are possible via that material wealth that can be gained after a siege. If there are enough sieges on lower level nodes but not enough on higher level, then alter the rewards that are able to be picked up in the ruins of higher tier node buildings and such.
Imagine Intrepid have the goal of two successful siege of a metropolis level nodes per server, per year. If they are not getting that, all they need to do is decide if they want to increase the rewards from all sieges, or increase the rewards from metropolis only buildings.
All of a sudden, with those greater rewards come greater reason to siege those metropolis level nodes.
As long as Metros are falling, and the world is constantly changing, and I get to participate in these sieges, I'm happy.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
We don't know what kind of frequency Intrepid want.
What we know is that they have the tools on hand to hit what ever that frequency is.
What that means is that you have to assume the amount of metropolis nodes that are destroyed is about where Intrepid want it - unless the specifics of node rewards are constantly changing (a sign they are not happy with the frequency).
As such, suggesting changes to gameplay specifically to alter that rate is probably not going to happen, as there is no need to alter the design in order to achieve something they already have levers to control.
What you could do, if a few years in to the game you don't think there are enough of these events, is ask Intrepid to shift their target frequency - simply by using the levers they have in place.
I want loyalty to the node to be higher than any perceived push to move nodes. So I want people to choose their preferred node and stick to it for however long they want. And I want them to have an ability to directly influence the success of their node.
I think that having off-citizen alts would be a good solution. Choosing to rise up with your entire node would be a better solution imo, but I understand that it might not fit Intrepid's design goals (though we don't even know those).
Sieging a Metro is not limited to Guilds.. and especially is not limited to big Guilds.
Players can choose to Siege a Metro because they want the server to have Metro controlled by their Race (there are 9 Races but only 5 Metros per server).
Players can choose to Siege a Metro because they want the server to have one or more Metros with a specific Node Type (there are 4 Node Types but only 5 Metros per server).
Players can choose to Siege a Metro because they don't want the server to have a specific type of Metro Super Power.
There are Sieges associated with the Castles every week. 5 Castles so multiple Castle-related Sieges and multiple Caravan runs every week.
Supposedly, Ashes is already designed as a PvX game (not a PvP-centric game) with plenty of opportunities for PvP...including The Open Seas.
My main problem is still the fact that vassalization happens without any direct player action. The current system would make more sense if there was some sort of PvP event to vassalize a neighbour, but as it stands, the system is just weird.
In a game supposed to be all about bringing back player socialization and player agency, why are node chains formed automatically and then made unbreakble by everyone involved?
Really, why?
Worried people just stick to one node forever? Node destruction already forces moving. Why is it a problem that people would get invested in the first place?
Worried about stagnation? The current system causes a bunch of stagnation since people are prevented from changing the status quo!
Worried about stability? If nodes rise and fall too fast, the problem is that sieges are too easy and inexpensive. If node stability is an issue, it shouldn't be fixed by preventing players from doing the thing they want to do. The current system just breeds frustration towards the game, when it should be promoting friction between the players.
The only actual reason I can think of is to prevent EVE style large playermade alliances. People are risk averse, and large alliances tend to sit around and not risk anything. So how I see is that the current system is not really about forcing people to be friends, but rather ensuring that not everyone can be friends.
Here is a list of things that in my opinion would fix/mitigate some of this mess:
But in any case thanks for bringing this up @Tenguru !
I agree IS really needs to push in the betas for people to know a tool they can use to effect a node is moving. This mentality is linked to humans and not able to like or accept change (one can say its bloodline is even stronger in boomers).
I have no issue to node loyalty if its a spot you like you simply move back after the war. Or you rp it out and live at the node long enough to become the top after all the wars are done.
This just gives me the vibes of a few bottom feeders that won't have any impact or control on a node and disliking someone. Yelling at the mayor to attack people.
People out here MAKING THINGS UP saying stagnation because they personally don't want to move to another node lmao.
Benefits of guild castles:
- Activate events and abilities that benefit node citizens under their rule
- Exert control and pressure over one of the five economic regions.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Castle_nodes
Castles have the ability to allocate taxes collected from nodes under them toward certain benefits that go back to the node. Or they can be more selfishly governed that treasury more towards the guild that owns it and that obviously is going to have some political implications, because it could- if you're not using it for the benefit of the people in the region they might rise up and help take you out from that that position of owning that castle
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Taxes