Nikr that is how AoC works everything gets destroyed and part of it can be looted. Do you understand why my views on this whole node thing are so strong now with metros falling and such and how it all ties together in the system.
Like I said in my last comment, I'm fine when stuff gets destroyed by the attackers. I'm not ok if the storage capacity is directly linked to the sheer concept of citizenship.
If you simply need a home to have more storage - that's fine, because having it =/= being a citizen.
But like I said, if citizenship will make it so that your 100 storage slots are 120 instead, and then when you remove your citizenship the 20 items in those slots just poof - that's shit design imo.
Also, this would work against your "huge risks of becoming a hobo". You just move the extra stuff outside of your home to another storage and you're free to do whatever. So even if this IS the design - your point is still weak.
That is because you cant see the full picture and how it will work. My point is pretty strong since you guys have not really provided counters besides just saying you want to attack. There isn't exactly fast travel in the game so you aren't just suddenly putting things in a bunch of storages, or maybe the pricing of having to many houses / apartments might be taxing
End of the day the dev's can adjust things as much as they want until its the point of balance they want with loss, etc which isn't just limited to storage space.
But if someone wants to have Characters in "several, different Nodes/Places", this should be possible as well.
As currently stated you can only have one citizenship, so your alts would just be hobos, unless you decided to make them citizens of your main's node.
And it would only make Sense, now wouldn't it ?
Even if i would have with One of my Characters or my Main Character Citizenship in a Node -> why should all the other Characters automatically have it as well ?
This sounds weird. And unrealistic. Not immersive.
My point is pretty strong since you guys have not really provided counters besides just saying you want to attack.
I was talking about the point of "you risk more if you remove your citizenship before attacking the parent node, because you gotta move all your stuff".
The "all your stuff" will simply be the extra few slots/weight that citizenship might be giving you. Even if this requires a caravan, in this context, this caravan would be driven way before any declarations of a siege and would be driven by a big group of people all together, which means it's gonna be way safer.
The counter to your point is that there's more risk in your parent node knowing exactly who's attacking/rebelling against them. W/o a node citizenship you're just a random dude who decided to join the attack. With a vassal citizenship you're a rebellious peon who needs to be stomped out. The risk and rp value of that action is way higher than attacking as a hobo.
There isn't exactly fast travel in the game so you aren't just suddenly putting things in a bunch of storages, or maybe the pricing of having to many houses / apartments might be taxing
You won't need several homes. I'm 100% sure there'll be a general storage space in every node. So you'll just move those few extra items from your home to that storage (hell, let it even be several storages) and it'll be absolutely safe.
This would take a few hours at most, and even that would only be if you don't have a mount or if the general storage is fucking tiny for some unknown reason.
Also, I'm sure of those things because we can only become citizens of node3+, and Intrepid simply cannot expect us to carry all our shit until nodes reach that point. Nor can they expect newbie players in later stages of the game to carry their shit for days and days, simply because they can't yet afford a home (because prices have gone too high up).
Main point is that it's way riskier to be seen as a rebellious underling rather than a random hobo.
Again people can already rebel and have a huge effect on politics, mooooove to another NODE.
That's the most defeatist thing I've seen you write. "Have troubles? Just avoid them!" Why fight for your right to become better, when you can just "not"
It is important who owns the castle, if it is a friend or enemy to the metropolis
I'd assume those things have benefits for the guild itself, so all of them will be used by the majority of guilds that control the castles, so functionally there won't be that much difference for the plain node citizens.
I agree with NiKr, tht so defeatist
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
My point is pretty strong since you guys have not really provided counters besides just saying you want to attack.
I was talking about the point of "you risk more if you remove your citizenship before attacking the parent node, because you gotta move all your stuff".
The "all your stuff" will simply be the extra few slots/weight that citizenship might be giving you. Even if this requires a caravan, in this context, this caravan would be driven way before any declarations of a siege and would be driven by a big group of people all together, which means it's gonna be way safer.
The counter to your point is that there's more risk in your parent node knowing exactly who's attacking/rebelling against them. W/o a node citizenship you're just a random dude who decided to join the attack. With a vassal citizenship you're a rebellious peon who needs to be stomped out. The risk and rp value of that action is way higher than attacking as a hobo.
There isn't exactly fast travel in the game so you aren't just suddenly putting things in a bunch of storages, or maybe the pricing of having to many houses / apartments might be taxing
You won't need several homes. I'm 100% sure there'll be a general storage space in every node. So you'll just move those few extra items from your home to that storage (hell, let it even be several storages) and it'll be absolutely safe.
This would take a few hours at most, and even that would only be if you don't have a mount or if the general storage is fucking tiny for some unknown reason.
Also, I'm sure of those things because we can only become citizens of node3+, and Intrepid simply cannot expect us to carry all our shit until nodes reach that point. Nor can they expect newbie players in later stages of the game to carry their shit for days and days, simply because they can't yet afford a home (because prices have gone too high up).
Main point is that it's way riskier to be seen as a rebellious underling rather than a random hobo.
How things work together i don't feel like explaining everything right now though, its already been partly mentioned in previous post I'd just b half repeating.
There is plenty of risk as there would be a lot of planning going into this attack of a metro. They would also be able to attack the node that is attacking them. So you moving puts you in risk as there is clearly conflict with both sides.
You are still rebellious either way, you can have a perception they aren't known and a random. Than they clearly did not get many citizens to their cause and they don't really need to be stamped out as a single or few random people that want to pvp. I don't view this a counter point as its not really countering anything. No one is really that worried about a few people not liking things, that is part of life.
If a lot of the node is truly rebellious its going to be clear something is going on and with them being at a new node it will be easy to stamp them out or atleast retaliate.
And that storage can be tied tot he node and increased based on citizenship down the road. Moving your stuff to a bunch of random nodes as positives and drawbacks. It will be a viable but time consuming and annoying strategy at times. Most will do it as it will be good to have a back up just in case. But you will still have your main places you craft with most your stuff.
If you lose the race to be a higher level node just move on or wait till the time you can become one. Kingdom war thing they have is good and something that people will accept once they start playing it rather than it just being chaotic and more free for all.
I don't see this more risky to be seen as rebellious as a reason for any kind of gameplay. Anything can be risky it doesn't mean its good for the game. They want pvp to be meaningful and not everyone decing any node or any guild and this most likely ties into it.
Anyway its simple just go by the rules of the game leave the node and attack to kill the metro if u hate it that badly. If you win return to your node, if you don't do what you want.
I also really don't want to see giant nodes destroying all smaller level nodes.
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).
While I am fairly sure you understand my reasoning here, I'll explain it for others reading.
If players place all their loyalty, all their wealth, all their gameplay in a node, when that node is destroyed, a good percentage (perhaps as high as 25% of that node) will just leave the game. This same thing can be seen in every MMO I've ever played when guilds fall apart - some players stay in the game, but many do not.
If the idea of the game is that loyalty to your node is king, then people will leave the game when that node is destroyed.
On the other hand, if the game is based around the notion that you will need to uproot yourself at times, and so limit the loyalty (and gameplay) you have with one node, then more people will see their node being destroyed as a setback as opposed to being game over.
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.
Open world gameplay is that event to "vassalize" a neighbour.
You and your node are in direct competition with nearby nodes to see who becomes the parent and who becomes the vassal. If your node becomes a vassal, it is because they lost this competition.
Again people can already rebel and have a huge effect on politics, mooooove to another NODE.
That's the most defeatist thing I've seen you write. "Have troubles? Just avoid them!" Why fight for your right to become better, when you can just "not"
In order for the game to have political intrigue, there needs to be situations that can not be solved by PvP.
In order for the game to have political intrigue, there needs to be situations that can not be solved by PvP.
I mean, there's always the path of "go become a citizen of that metro instead and try to topple it from the inside", but that's just not the discussion we're having in this thread.
And outside of that, I don't really see how you'd remove/replace a metro w/o pvp. I guess you could persuade literal hundreds (if not potentially thousands) of people to stop doing ANYTHING in the ZOI of said metro, but that's even less viable than trying to go fight against a bigger foe.
Open world gameplay is that event to "vassalize" a neighbour.
You and your node are in direct competition with nearby nodes to see who becomes the parent and who becomes the vassal. If your node becomes a vassal, it is because they lost this competition.
And this does not sound extremely dumb to you? Imagine if castle ownership was decided by who farms mobs the best! Something as serious as vassalization should not be a passive pve event. Also, most of the xp is not going to be generated by focused effort, but rather random casuals who just level in a node. In most cases there is no "competition", there is just node popularity.
Also, you are only thinking of server start. Imagine what happens after a year into the game. A town will be swapped between masters like a football player, until randomly some day every large node around it is destroyed. There is no strategy to growing a vassalized node, just whatever the world manager gives you. There is no competition, no interraction. Only defending the node from sieges until randomly it's your turn.
While I am fairly sure you understand my reasoning here, I'll explain it for others reading.
If players place all their loyalty, all their wealth, all their gameplay in a node, when that node is destroyed, a good percentage (perhaps as high as 25% of that node) will just leave the game. This same thing can be seen in every MMO I've ever played when guilds fall apart - some players stay in the game, but many do not.
If the idea of the game is that loyalty to your node is king, then people will leave the game when that node is destroyed.
On the other hand, if the game is based around the notion that you will need to uproot yourself at times, and so limit the loyalty (and gameplay) you have with one node, then more people will see their node being destroyed as a setback as opposed to being game over.
If this is the reason, the current vassal system does nothing to fix it.
People will quit over having their first caravan raided.
People will quit over being ganked in pvp.
People will quit when they can't get a freehold.
People will quit when their freehold gets raided.
People will quit when their enchant poofs.
People will also quit just the same when their metropolis gets sieged and they lose all their benefits.
The game is full of filters for the unaware normies. If attachment to nodes is too much then that ship has already sailed and nobody will be left to play the game anyway. Only thing we've gained is that now people will also quit when they realize they have to wait half a year for a chance at node advancement.
If players place all their loyalty, all their wealth, all their gameplay in a node, when that node is destroyed, a good percentage (perhaps as high as 25% of that node) will just leave the game. This same thing can be seen in every MMO I've ever played when guilds fall apart - some players stay in the game, but many do not.
I'm fine with this tbh, you'll see the same exact thing with caravans. Someone will load their caravan up to the max limit cus they don't think they'll really get jumped, they'll lose it all, and then complain that the game has bad design and quit lol. Same as the EVE motto, don't take it out if you can't afford to lose it.
Those aren't the people I'm afraid of losing, it's the people who want endgame loops like Node Sieges/Node Progression that I don't want to lose. If there's only 2 Metros goin down a year, maybe double that for City Nodes, etc. I hope that the averages for that work out to be enough to keep an endgame player occupied when they log in each day.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
And outside of that, I don't really see how you'd remove/replace a metro w/o pvp.
It wouldn't.
PvP would still be involved, it just isn't involved for the people in that vassal node if they want to stay in said node. Their path is a political one - finding people willing to siege that parent node once it's three week immunity timer is up - assuming it's next timer hasn't kicked in by then (it probably would have).
The way I see it, this situation is only an issue at the start of the game when all nodes are level 0. At this point, the race to level up your node is a fair and even race. Everyone has the same tools.
If you lose that race, then the reprocussions for that are that your node is a vassal node, and your choices are to stay or leave.
PvP would still be involved, it just isn't involved for the people in that vassal node if they want to stay in said node. Their path is a political one - finding people willing to siege that parent node once it's three week immunity timer is up - assuming it's next timer hasn't kicked in by then (it probably would have).
The way I see it, this situation is only an issue at the start of the game when all nodes are level 0. At this point, the race to level up your node is a fair and even race. Everyone has the same tools.
If you lose that race, then the reprocussions for that are that your node is a vassal node, and your choices are to stay or leave.
Which is boring. You worked for weeks with your fellow citizens to get this node up to it's max, just to abandon it cus you can't go any further. Why do any of that at all just to drop citizenship and move to the node that beat you anyways?
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Which is boring. You worked for weeks with your fellow citizens to get this node up to it's max, just to abandon it cus you can't go any further. Why do any of that at all just to drop citizenship and move to the node that beat you anyways?
You would only drop your citizenship and move to the node that beat you if being in a metropolis was the most important thing to you.
If you want the node type you picked, you can stay. If you want the location you picked, you can stay. If you want to fight the node that made you a vassal, you can leave and go somewhere else.
You have actual options, an actual decision to make. If you could stay put and then siege the parent node, you wouldn't have a decision to make at all.
That is what would be boring - taking actual viable options off the table due to including an obviously always better option. This is why if it was changed so that players could siege their parent node, there would need to be a serious cost to it - it needs to be bought in line with the above options.
If this is the reason, the current vassal system does nothing to fix it.
People will quit over having their first caravan raided.
People will quit over being ganked in pvp.
People will quit when they can't get a freehold.
People will quit when their freehold gets raided.
People will quit when their enchant poofs.
People will also quit just the same when their metropolis gets sieged and they lose all their benefits.
The game is full of filters for the unaware normies. If attachment to nodes is too much then that ship has already sailed and nobody will be left to play the game anyway. Only thing we've gained is that now people will also quit when they realize they have to wait half a year for a chance at node advancement.
The greater the loss, the more likely people are to leave. You may have a handful of people leave the game over the above things (I've talked about this in the past), but you will have many hundreds of people leave every time a metropolis node is successfully sieged.
This isn't a "normie" thing. This exact phenomonon is evident in EVE - the game with the most hardcore MMO players. After every major battle in that game, the population drops by a fairly large amount, and then crawls back up a portion of that way over time - but it never gets back to where it was.
You have actual options, an actual decision to make. If you could stay put and then siege the parent node, you wouldn't have a decision to make at all.
That is what would be boring - taking actual viable options off the table due to including an obviously always better option. This is why if it was changed so that players could siege their parent node, there would need to be a serious cost to it - it needs to be bought in line with the above options.
I'm not saying you shouldn't have those decisions, I'm simply suggesting you have another option. It's only an "obviously always better option" if you actually have the ability to successfully siege that node down, which most won't.
You'll be faced with that exact same situation once you're the Parent Node with Vassals looking up at you. You too will have to decide to play the politics game and make agreements with them or else be sieged down or lose all of your vassal citizens. If anything the threat of siege is what makes the politics actually mean something, because if you fail at the politics your node gets sieged down, so you better actually work on a real compromise.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
I'm not saying you shouldn't have those decisions, I'm simply suggesting you have another option. It's only an "obviously always better option" if you actually have the ability to successfully siege that node down, which most won't.
No, it's an always better option regardless.
If you are in the situation where your node has just been made a vassal of another, and one of the options you have is to stay where you are and participate in a siege on that node when it's 3 week immunity timer is up (assuming the next timer hasn't started by then), then that is the best option.
Without that option, there were basically four scenarios. There was that you wanted the node you were in because of the type of node it was, there was the that you wanted the node you were in for it's location, there was that you wanted a metropolis, or that you wanted to fight back against that node specifically.
If the option to stay in your node and fight the parent existed, that becomes the path you would take for three out of four of those scenarios. The only one it wouldn't is if you wanted a metropolis above all else - but if this is the case you would probably have left your node as soon as you saw it was falling behind (ie, you would have made the decision to leave a while ago).
You'll be faced with that exact same situation once you're the Parent Node with Vassals looking up at you.
Nope.
If vassal citizens have the option of stay or leave, politics matter. If they have the option to siege the parent node, it shifts over to being as much about revenge/being butthurt as it is about anything else.
If vassal citizens have the option of stay or leave, politics matter. If they have the option to siege the parent node, it shifts over to being as much about revenge/being butthurt as it is about anything else.
So politics only matter if the Parent gets to siege the Vassal? And not the other way around?
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Which is boring. You worked for weeks with your fellow citizens to get this node up to it's max, just to abandon it cus you can't go any further. Why do any of that at all just to drop citizenship and move to the node that beat you anyways?
What?
What entails "can't go any further"?
After max vertical progression, there is still prolific horizontal progression.
Only Metro and Cities can have Grandmaster level Crafting Stations, Metros 2 and Cities 1. This would be a situation where your node might want to make a GM Crafting Station that isn't available in the region yet, but they can't because there's a City/Metro above them.
I'm not saying ignore the other options, like move to a City/Metro that does have that station, or move to one of your City/Metro nodes and try to convince them why they should pick your Artisan type for a station and not the one they already chose. Those are good options too. Probably preferable options to a siege, and much easier with less effort. But I still think the option to siege one of those Parent Nodes down should be on the table if they refuse.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
If vassal citizens have the option of stay or leave, politics matter. If they have the option to siege the parent node, it shifts over to being as much about revenge/being butthurt as it is about anything else.
So politics only matter if the Parent gets to siege the Vassal? And not the other way around?
The parent sieging the vassal would be political. The only reason a parent has to do that is if the people in the region want a different town or city level node. The only way to achieve that is to destroy the existing one and level up the desired one.
As such, parent nodes need to be able to siege vassals - unless another means of node destruction is introduced.
Well, atrophy is another but that'd probably take too long lol... And might get weird depending on if the node you want to atrophy has vassals under it keeping it filled with XP. Another situation you might want to siege down a Parent Node, to move the Metro somewhere else to open up some other kind of content or w/e
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
But I still think the option to siege one of those Parent Nodes down should be on the table if they refuse.
How would this work when you consider that a metropolis would be getting these requests for all crafting station types?
A metropolis shouldn't be concerning itself with the desires of any one person - the mayor included. The metropolis should have a much greater plan.
Perhaps the metropolis (or the larger guilds within) are planning on building up a navy. If that is the case, the metripolis would want crafting benches to best suit that. Perhaps they are expecting a siege, or want to gear up characters better. These are the things that a metropolis should be making decisions on - not on some random player in one of their vassals shaking their fist saying "you better do what I want, or else!".
So the larger guilds in the Metro get their stuff the way they want it and now what? The ZOI is just at their whim? Either suck it up or leave?
So you leave to a ZOI more favorable to your needs. And that's that. No one ever needs to siege anyone, there's enough Metros and Cities for everyone to get their respective Crafting Stations. Just trade each other for the rare mats, siege down your weaker Vassal Nodes if you want Relic Shards, and nothing ever changes. Got it.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Well, atrophy is another but that'd probably take too long lol... And might get weird depending on if the node you want to atrophy has vassals under it keeping it filled with XP. Another situation you might want to siege down a Parent Node, to move the Metro somewhere else to open up some other kind of content or w/e
To your first point, node atrophy doesn't destroy nodes.
To your second, since this is something that impacts the entire server, it is probably something you would want to involve people outside of the node in. Keep in mind, with a plan like this, there will probably still be enough people in the metropolis that haven't bought in to the idea to put up a fight - so this would be a real siege rather than just a formality.
To your second, since this is something that impacts the entire server, it is probably something you would want to involve people outside of the node in. Keep in mind, with a plan like this, there will probably still be enough people in the metropolis that haven't bought in to the idea to put up a fight - so this would be a real siege rather than just a formality.
Honestly this sounds so fun to me. Having a siege to decide if we get to unlock some World Boss or whatever. This honestly sounds like fun lol.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
To your first point, node atrophy doesn't destroy nodes.
"at which point when it reaches a certain atrophy point then the node would just disappear." - Steven
True, they did keep in the disapearing aspect, just got rid of the deleveling that they originally had. That is still a lot of atrophy - but that also makes the notion of people leaving a node if they are not happy with the parent a more powerful path to take.
To your second, since this is something that impacts the entire server, it is probably something you would want to involve people outside of the node in. Keep in mind, with a plan like this, there will probably still be enough people in the metropolis that haven't bought in to the idea to put up a fight - so this would be a real siege rather than just a formality.
Honestly this sounds so fun to me. Having a siege to decide if we get to unlock some World Boss or whatever. This honestly sounds like fun lol.[/quote]
That is something that will happen - content shifting based on node state. The thing is, it isn't a thing just within a metropolis. It will be people coming from other metropolis nodes trying to siege yours.
Like, that is already built in to the game, it's kind of a major part of the game.
There are plenty of other reasons to siege a node.
Later on in a server's life, after 5 Metros are already settled on, what are those reasons?
If it's mats/gatherables they can just trade, or like you keep saying move and get those mats yourself, which might even be cheaper than a siege against a Metro who knows. Would even play into the trade alliance options, or airships too maybe. (Which sounds like real politics to me, two nodes deciding between trading or sieging each other for their rare mats)
If it's Relic Shards there are easier nodes within their own Vassal network they could hit.
Not like you can loot their gear so that's out.
The content unlocking stuff sounds neat but that's more of like an agreement than an actual siege. Things like moving where major nodes are to get better roads along a specific path, or to keep Land Management Scores low in certain areas, or to unlock certain dungeons etc.
Those are all situations where you could honestly just talk to the target node people and let them move their stuff out and they'll make it easier for you to siege down the node. Might even drop citizenship and help cus they'd want the new content too. So, although I'm sure like you said there will be pushback, it's not going to be a node's worth of pushback, instead of a node full of people defending their home... it's just some leftovers who refuse to be talked out. Which sound like me tbh lol
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
There are plenty of other reasons to siege a node.
Later on in a server's life, after 5 Metros are already settled on, what are those reasons?
As has been pointed out already in this thread, the fact that Intrepid have set up material rewards for successful sieges in a way where they can act as a lever says that they can encourage or discourage people to siege nodes at a frequency they are comfortable with.
Thus, sieges will happen roughly as often as Intrepid want them to happen.
The whole question of if sieges will ever happen is a non-question.
Comments
That is because you cant see the full picture and how it will work. My point is pretty strong since you guys have not really provided counters besides just saying you want to attack. There isn't exactly fast travel in the game so you aren't just suddenly putting things in a bunch of storages, or maybe the pricing of having to many houses / apartments might be taxing
End of the day the dev's can adjust things as much as they want until its the point of balance they want with loss, etc which isn't just limited to storage space.
And it would only make Sense, now wouldn't it ?
Even if i would have with One of my Characters or my Main Character Citizenship in a Node -> why should all the other Characters automatically have it as well ?
This sounds weird. And unrealistic. Not immersive.
And if you're not talking about that, then do tell what is the "full picture" here.
I was talking about the point of "you risk more if you remove your citizenship before attacking the parent node, because you gotta move all your stuff".
The "all your stuff" will simply be the extra few slots/weight that citizenship might be giving you. Even if this requires a caravan, in this context, this caravan would be driven way before any declarations of a siege and would be driven by a big group of people all together, which means it's gonna be way safer.
The counter to your point is that there's more risk in your parent node knowing exactly who's attacking/rebelling against them. W/o a node citizenship you're just a random dude who decided to join the attack. With a vassal citizenship you're a rebellious peon who needs to be stomped out. The risk and rp value of that action is way higher than attacking as a hobo.
You won't need several homes. I'm 100% sure there'll be a general storage space in every node. So you'll just move those few extra items from your home to that storage (hell, let it even be several storages) and it'll be absolutely safe.
This would take a few hours at most, and even that would only be if you don't have a mount or if the general storage is fucking tiny for some unknown reason.
Also, I'm sure of those things because we can only become citizens of node3+, and Intrepid simply cannot expect us to carry all our shit until nodes reach that point. Nor can they expect newbie players in later stages of the game to carry their shit for days and days, simply because they can't yet afford a home (because prices have gone too high up).
Main point is that it's way riskier to be seen as a rebellious underling rather than a random hobo.
I agree with NiKr, tht so defeatist
How things work together i don't feel like explaining everything right now though, its already been partly mentioned in previous post I'd just b half repeating.
There is plenty of risk as there would be a lot of planning going into this attack of a metro. They would also be able to attack the node that is attacking them. So you moving puts you in risk as there is clearly conflict with both sides.
You are still rebellious either way, you can have a perception they aren't known and a random. Than they clearly did not get many citizens to their cause and they don't really need to be stamped out as a single or few random people that want to pvp. I don't view this a counter point as its not really countering anything. No one is really that worried about a few people not liking things, that is part of life.
If a lot of the node is truly rebellious its going to be clear something is going on and with them being at a new node it will be easy to stamp them out or atleast retaliate.
And that storage can be tied tot he node and increased based on citizenship down the road. Moving your stuff to a bunch of random nodes as positives and drawbacks. It will be a viable but time consuming and annoying strategy at times. Most will do it as it will be good to have a back up just in case. But you will still have your main places you craft with most your stuff.
If you lose the race to be a higher level node just move on or wait till the time you can become one. Kingdom war thing they have is good and something that people will accept once they start playing it rather than it just being chaotic and more free for all.
I don't see this more risky to be seen as rebellious as a reason for any kind of gameplay. Anything can be risky it doesn't mean its good for the game. They want pvp to be meaningful and not everyone decing any node or any guild and this most likely ties into it.
Anyway its simple just go by the rules of the game leave the node and attack to kill the metro if u hate it that badly. If you win return to your node, if you don't do what you want.
I also really don't want to see giant nodes destroying all smaller level nodes.
While I am fairly sure you understand my reasoning here, I'll explain it for others reading.
If players place all their loyalty, all their wealth, all their gameplay in a node, when that node is destroyed, a good percentage (perhaps as high as 25% of that node) will just leave the game. This same thing can be seen in every MMO I've ever played when guilds fall apart - some players stay in the game, but many do not.
If the idea of the game is that loyalty to your node is king, then people will leave the game when that node is destroyed.
On the other hand, if the game is based around the notion that you will need to uproot yourself at times, and so limit the loyalty (and gameplay) you have with one node, then more people will see their node being destroyed as a setback as opposed to being game over.
You and your node are in direct competition with nearby nodes to see who becomes the parent and who becomes the vassal. If your node becomes a vassal, it is because they lost this competition.
And outside of that, I don't really see how you'd remove/replace a metro w/o pvp. I guess you could persuade literal hundreds (if not potentially thousands) of people to stop doing ANYTHING in the ZOI of said metro, but that's even less viable than trying to go fight against a bigger foe.
And this does not sound extremely dumb to you? Imagine if castle ownership was decided by who farms mobs the best! Something as serious as vassalization should not be a passive pve event. Also, most of the xp is not going to be generated by focused effort, but rather random casuals who just level in a node. In most cases there is no "competition", there is just node popularity.
Also, you are only thinking of server start. Imagine what happens after a year into the game. A town will be swapped between masters like a football player, until randomly some day every large node around it is destroyed. There is no strategy to growing a vassalized node, just whatever the world manager gives you. There is no competition, no interraction. Only defending the node from sieges until randomly it's your turn.
If this is the reason, the current vassal system does nothing to fix it.
People will quit over having their first caravan raided.
People will quit over being ganked in pvp.
People will quit when they can't get a freehold.
People will quit when their freehold gets raided.
People will quit when their enchant poofs.
People will also quit just the same when their metropolis gets sieged and they lose all their benefits.
The game is full of filters for the unaware normies. If attachment to nodes is too much then that ship has already sailed and nobody will be left to play the game anyway. Only thing we've gained is that now people will also quit when they realize they have to wait half a year for a chance at node advancement.
I'm fine with this tbh, you'll see the same exact thing with caravans. Someone will load their caravan up to the max limit cus they don't think they'll really get jumped, they'll lose it all, and then complain that the game has bad design and quit lol. Same as the EVE motto, don't take it out if you can't afford to lose it.
Those aren't the people I'm afraid of losing, it's the people who want endgame loops like Node Sieges/Node Progression that I don't want to lose. If there's only 2 Metros goin down a year, maybe double that for City Nodes, etc. I hope that the averages for that work out to be enough to keep an endgame player occupied when they log in each day.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
PvP would still be involved, it just isn't involved for the people in that vassal node if they want to stay in said node. Their path is a political one - finding people willing to siege that parent node once it's three week immunity timer is up - assuming it's next timer hasn't kicked in by then (it probably would have).
The way I see it, this situation is only an issue at the start of the game when all nodes are level 0. At this point, the race to level up your node is a fair and even race. Everyone has the same tools.
If you lose that race, then the reprocussions for that are that your node is a vassal node, and your choices are to stay or leave.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
If you want the node type you picked, you can stay. If you want the location you picked, you can stay. If you want to fight the node that made you a vassal, you can leave and go somewhere else.
You have actual options, an actual decision to make. If you could stay put and then siege the parent node, you wouldn't have a decision to make at all.
That is what would be boring - taking actual viable options off the table due to including an obviously always better option. This is why if it was changed so that players could siege their parent node, there would need to be a serious cost to it - it needs to be bought in line with the above options.
The greater the loss, the more likely people are to leave. You may have a handful of people leave the game over the above things (I've talked about this in the past), but you will have many hundreds of people leave every time a metropolis node is successfully sieged.
This isn't a "normie" thing. This exact phenomonon is evident in EVE - the game with the most hardcore MMO players. After every major battle in that game, the population drops by a fairly large amount, and then crawls back up a portion of that way over time - but it never gets back to where it was.
You'll be faced with that exact same situation once you're the Parent Node with Vassals looking up at you. You too will have to decide to play the politics game and make agreements with them or else be sieged down or lose all of your vassal citizens. If anything the threat of siege is what makes the politics actually mean something, because if you fail at the politics your node gets sieged down, so you better actually work on a real compromise.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
If you are in the situation where your node has just been made a vassal of another, and one of the options you have is to stay where you are and participate in a siege on that node when it's 3 week immunity timer is up (assuming the next timer hasn't started by then), then that is the best option.
Without that option, there were basically four scenarios. There was that you wanted the node you were in because of the type of node it was, there was the that you wanted the node you were in for it's location, there was that you wanted a metropolis, or that you wanted to fight back against that node specifically.
If the option to stay in your node and fight the parent existed, that becomes the path you would take for three out of four of those scenarios. The only one it wouldn't is if you wanted a metropolis above all else - but if this is the case you would probably have left your node as soon as you saw it was falling behind (ie, you would have made the decision to leave a while ago).
Nope.
If vassal citizens have the option of stay or leave, politics matter. If they have the option to siege the parent node, it shifts over to being as much about revenge/being butthurt as it is about anything else.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
What entails "can't go any further"?
After max vertical progression, there is still prolific horizontal progression.
I'm not saying ignore the other options, like move to a City/Metro that does have that station, or move to one of your City/Metro nodes and try to convince them why they should pick your Artisan type for a station and not the one they already chose. Those are good options too. Probably preferable options to a siege, and much easier with less effort. But I still think the option to siege one of those Parent Nodes down should be on the table if they refuse.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
The parent sieging the vassal would be political. The only reason a parent has to do that is if the people in the region want a different town or city level node. The only way to achieve that is to destroy the existing one and level up the desired one.
As such, parent nodes need to be able to siege vassals - unless another means of node destruction is introduced.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
A metropolis shouldn't be concerning itself with the desires of any one person - the mayor included. The metropolis should have a much greater plan.
Perhaps the metropolis (or the larger guilds within) are planning on building up a navy. If that is the case, the metripolis would want crafting benches to best suit that. Perhaps they are expecting a siege, or want to gear up characters better. These are the things that a metropolis should be making decisions on - not on some random player in one of their vassals shaking their fist saying "you better do what I want, or else!".
So you leave to a ZOI more favorable to your needs. And that's that. No one ever needs to siege anyone, there's enough Metros and Cities for everyone to get their respective Crafting Stations. Just trade each other for the rare mats, siege down your weaker Vassal Nodes if you want Relic Shards, and nothing ever changes. Got it.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
To your first point, node atrophy doesn't destroy nodes.
To your second, since this is something that impacts the entire server, it is probably something you would want to involve people outside of the node in. Keep in mind, with a plan like this, there will probably still be enough people in the metropolis that haven't bought in to the idea to put up a fight - so this would be a real siege rather than just a formality.
Basically, yeah. There are plenty of other reasons to siege a node.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
That is something that will happen - content shifting based on node state. The thing is, it isn't a thing just within a metropolis. It will be people coming from other metropolis nodes trying to siege yours.
Like, that is already built in to the game, it's kind of a major part of the game.
If it's mats/gatherables they can just trade, or like you keep saying move and get those mats yourself, which might even be cheaper than a siege against a Metro who knows. Would even play into the trade alliance options, or airships too maybe. (Which sounds like real politics to me, two nodes deciding between trading or sieging each other for their rare mats)
If it's Relic Shards there are easier nodes within their own Vassal network they could hit.
Not like you can loot their gear so that's out.
The content unlocking stuff sounds neat but that's more of like an agreement than an actual siege. Things like moving where major nodes are to get better roads along a specific path, or to keep Land Management Scores low in certain areas, or to unlock certain dungeons etc.
Those are all situations where you could honestly just talk to the target node people and let them move their stuff out and they'll make it easier for you to siege down the node. Might even drop citizenship and help cus they'd want the new content too. So, although I'm sure like you said there will be pushback, it's not going to be a node's worth of pushback, instead of a node full of people defending their home... it's just some leftovers who refuse to be talked out. Which sound like me tbh lol
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Thus, sieges will happen roughly as often as Intrepid want them to happen.
The whole question of if sieges will ever happen is a non-question.