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.
Those mats don't just appear out of nowhere, they were put there by the citizens of that node. You can change what percentage of those become lootable or not after the siege, but they're not just tossing in new stuff that wasn't there before as a reward. There is an upper limit to how many mats the attackers can get.
The vast majority of those mats would just be stuff the attackers could have gathered and processed themselves too. For free, no siege needed. And the rare mats, the ones that are so rare make it all matter I guess, what's to stop someone from just storing those in a random freehold in a random node that no one suspects is holding rare mats? Or just traded to some alt who logs out until it's safe? How do you know what's in those warehouses will make the siege profitable against how much it cost to siege it in the first place?
Now if the gear were lootable I'd be singing a whole different tune, if you siege down a node and loot people's gear now we're talking about some real rewards.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
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.
The contradictions are within the players.
Servers with selfish players will be different from the ones with community oriented players.
Some servers could even be very close to PvE. All you need is a few very popular streamers who hate PvP to join the same server.
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.
20 items can go into an overflow buffer and you can be extract items but not introduce.
The increase and decrease with bonus slots should not happen instantly but should count how you lost citizenship, how log you was citizen... to allow transition to a new citizenship and to prevent becoming citizen for a day.
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?
You should not be loyal just to the node but to a group of nodes. All those nodes are yours. They need vassals with players who are... not like you.
You should not be loyal just to the node but to a group of nodes. All those nodes are yours. They need vassals with players who are... not like you.
Hey if my neighbors earn my loyalty they'll see me registering as a defender anytime they're getting dec'd. They shouldn't automatically require my loyalty just cus their node is higher than mine.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Those mats don't just appear out of nowhere, they were put there by the citizens of that node. You can change what percentage of those become lootable or not after the siege, but they're not just tossing in new stuff that wasn't there before as a reward. There is an upper limit to how many mats the attackers can get.
The material aspect you are talking about here is only from destroying the warehouse - and potentially housing.
Every other building in a node has the potential to have some reward associated with it. We know that the reliquary drops relic shards, we have an idea that a town hall may drop tax certificates and a stable may have mount certificates.
That is only four node service buildings. The fact that this is all we have heard about does not mean this is all there will be. Intrepid told us about these things to give us an idea of their general plan - that plan being that attackers of a successful siege loot the shit out of that node.
We have no idea at all as to what you could loot from any of the other builds available to all nodes, to social organisation buildings, or to node specific buildings. What we do know is that you will probably get something from them.
In a game with an economy like Ashes, I'm not sure why you are so adamant that raw materials are so worthless and easily traded, but gear made from raw materials is so highly valued and would change your entire outlook on the scenario.
Gear can be traded even easier than the materials used to make that gear.
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.
The contradictions are within the players.
There could well be, but there is also inherent contradiction within the games design.
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.
Does that not work both ways around?
The reason a vassal would want to siege a parent node is if the people in the region want a different city/metro level node. The only way to achieve that is to destroy the existing one and level up the desired one.
Why can it only be parent-to-vassal and not vassal-to-parent?
20 items can go into an overflow buffer and you can be extract items but not introduce.
The increase and decrease with bonus slots should not happen instantly but should count how you lost citizenship, how log you was citizen... to allow transition to a new citizenship and to prevent becoming citizen for a day.
If this was true then there'd literally be 0 risk at all in removing your citizenship before the attack, which would make Mag's point weaker yet.
tbh i think you should be able to rebel against the parent node in a way but it should be difficult to do and loosing carry a cost to the node like all tax income gets sent to the node you failed to seige for a month or something however winning will give you a huge boost in node level progression to allow for you to try and rank up to the level u were being blocked from due to higher node
But i do believe there should be a way to attempt to overthrow nodes higher than yours in your vassal system to allow for ur node to progress up to the next rank
it should be possible for your node to take there progression in their own hands rather than wait for some outside force to destroy a node stopping urs from progressing
20 items can go into an overflow buffer and you can be extract items but not introduce.
The increase and decrease with bonus slots should not happen instantly but should count how you lost citizenship, how log you was citizen... to allow transition to a new citizenship and to prevent becoming citizen for a day.
If this was true then there'd literally be 0 risk at all in removing your citizenship before the attack, which would make Mag's point weaker yet.
You keep talking about making my point weaker, based on how many items and what you can do with them. When the point is IS can make anything as restrictive as possible to achieve any goals they want.
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.
Does that not work both ways around?
The reason a vassal would want to siege a parent node is if the people in the region want a different city/metro level node. The only way to achieve that is to destroy the existing one and level up the desired one.
Why can it only be parent-to-vassal and not vassal-to-parent?
Not really, a vassal probably shouldn't be making decisions on behalf of the parent node - that is kind of the point of a vassal/parent relationship.
20 items can go into an overflow buffer and you can be extract items but not introduce.
The increase and decrease with bonus slots should not happen instantly but should count how you lost citizenship, how log you was citizen... to allow transition to a new citizenship and to prevent becoming citizen for a day.
If this was true then there'd literally be 0 risk at all in removing your citizenship before the attack, which would make Mag's point weaker yet.
I didn't checked properly what you and him was arguing. But the bonus slot concept I like.
But that's why I also said "but should count how you lost citizenship".
Before (or after siege if your node is destroyed) you should not get any mercy. Defenders must care.
The buffer should exist as a citizenship benefit, to encourage players to stay citizens longer time, instead of changing often from a node to another one. Players who change often should have no bonus slots or buffer.
The buffer should exist as a citizenship benefit, to encourage players to stay citizens longer time, instead of changing often from a node to another one. Players who change often should have no bonus slots or buffer.
The context is "if you want to remove a parent node - renounce your citizenship and then attack the parent node. That renouncement is riskier than not doing so".
Extra storage slots was a supposed benefit to citizenship (this has not been stated as a feature anywhere btw).
In this context there'd no do siege declaration or anything of the sort. People would simply renounce their citizenship, then declare the siege and then go back to their node as a citizen.
Mag said that moving stuff due to losing your citizenship would have high risks related to it, which is why its riskier to do the "attack the parent node" thing this way. I said that staying a citizen of a vassal would be riskier because your parent node would know exactly who to retaliate against (which in turn means that all your shit in the vassal node would now be in danger).
The buffer you mentioned means that you wouldn't even need to move your stuff. Though again, even the "moving" part was just a supposition and not a stated feature.
Since then Mag has moved his argument to "either way, Intrepid can always control what risks they want players to have", which has been obvious from the start. Except whichever risk are present, would still be present even if vassals could fight their parent node directly. Well, unless Intrepid go out of their way to make it riskier to declare a siege as a non-citizen, but right now I see no logical reason for them to do that.
The buffer should exist as a citizenship benefit, to encourage players to stay citizens longer time, instead of changing often from a node to another one. Players who change often should have no bonus slots or buffer.
The context is "if you want to remove a parent node - renounce your citizenship and then attack the parent node. That renouncement is riskier than not doing so".
Extra storage slots was a supposed benefit to citizenship (this has not been stated as a feature anywhere btw).
In this context there'd no do siege declaration or anything of the sort. People would simply renounce their citizenship, then declare the siege and then go back to their node as a citizen.
Mag said that moving stuff due to losing your citizenship would have high risks related to it, which is why its riskier to do the "attack the parent node" thing this way. I said that staying a citizen of a vassal would be riskier because your parent node would know exactly who to retaliate against (which in turn means that all your shit in the vassal node would now be in danger).
The buffer you mentioned means that you wouldn't even need to move your stuff. Though again, even the "moving" part was just a supposition and not a stated feature.
Since then Mag has moved his argument to "either way, Intrepid can always control what risks they want players to have", which has been obvious from the start. Except whichever risk are present, would still be present even if vassals could fight their parent node directly. Well, unless Intrepid go out of their way to make it riskier to declare a siege as a non-citizen, but right now I see no logical reason for them to do that.
Thank you for the patience to summarize.
Wiki states that
"Sieging will require a similar amount of resources and time to what it took to develop the node being sieged"
So players must be sure they have supporters behind them.
We know that:
"Siege scrolls are specific to the node that is named on the scroll"
And the scroll will require time and materials to be obtained:
"The questing that is incorporated as part of attaining that particular scroll is very particular to the type of scroll you're attempting to acquire and that is inclusive not just of the materials required as part of that questing but also the time associated with completing that quest, because we want there to be a reciprocal relationship between how much time it takes to stand up a node of the particular size and the types of quests that are required in order to attain the siege scroll."
So for sure angry players from a vassal node will have first to move to another node from a different economic region before they can start creating the siege scroll.
While doing whatever quests are needed, it can happen that their node becomes a vassal of that node and their effort will be canceled.
Such cases will happen often because when large nodes fall, vassal players might see themselves suddenly in enemy territory. Some players will leave, some will stay to sabotage from within as bandits attacking the caravans. Some will embrace change and look forward to the new game content which comes from the metropolis area and could also retain some bonus slots in their storage if that becomes a feature.
So for sure angry players from a vassal node will have first to move to another node from a different economic region before they can start creating the siege scroll.
Why exactly would they have to move?
What part of the system makes them move (obviously outside of the current "you can't do shit if you're a vassal)?
Such cases will happen often because when large nodes fall, vassal players might see themselves suddenly in enemy territory.
What makes you say this? If you're talking early on on a server's life sure, but after 5 Metros are up, their ZOIs stretched to their limits I'd think. A City's not going to be absorbed into the ZOI of a Metro that already has 2 Cities under it.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
So for sure angry players from a vassal node will have first to move to another node from a different economic region before they can start creating the siege scroll.
Why exactly would they have to move?
What part of the system makes them move (obviously outside of the current "you can't do shit if you're a vassal)?
To not end up fighting against former allied guilds or even against your own guild members. Guilds are not bound to a node.
If I got used to a tavern in the nearby node which was destroyed and the owner moves I might decide to follow. Social bonds.
To not end up fighting against former allied guilds or even against your own guild members. Guilds are not bound to a node.
The main discussion here is that parent nodes can siege their vassals whenever they want, yet vassals can't do that against parents.
Those parent nodes might have guildies in both nodes as well, but that won't stop them from sieging a vassal if they see that as beneficial.
This is why some of us are asking why exactly can't vassals "rise up".
Also, moving to another node with the explicit purpose of being able to siege the previous parent node would still mean that you're gonna fight against your guildies.
Such cases will happen often because when large nodes fall, vassal players might see themselves suddenly in enemy territory.
What makes you say this? If you're talking early on on a server's life sure, but after 5 Metros are up, their ZOIs stretched to their limits I'd think. A City's not going to be absorbed into the ZOI of a Metro that already has 2 Cities under it.
"So if you had maximum five metropolises form in a world, you will have a number about 20 nodes that can live alongside those metropolis networks; and when or if a metropolis falls, that extra cushion of nodes around the five metropolis structures allows for the map to be redistricted in a way that is unique. It doesn't mean that one of the fives is just going to pick up where the last six left off and form the same exact metropolis structure" https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_simulation
Level 5 nodes will fall more often than metropolises. Their vassals might end up outside a metropolis economic area and might later become part of another metropolis. On some servers PvP might be more frequent than on others.
Honestly this just seems like yet another scenario that a vassal should have the option to rebel against it's Parent Node. If you former Parent Node goes down, and you actually had a good deal worked out with them, maybe they had specific crafting stations that needed goods from your node or w/e. Now you're a vassal under some foreign Parent Node who does not care about any of that. I'd want the option to rise up and say something about it at least.
Also I love watching the exact scenario you mentioned in the video on that page btw, the red City that goes down near the end of the video at the bottom right, and half of it's vassals get absorbed while the other half just become independent cus they can't be absorbed by the other vassal networks lol.. Gonna be some funny situations happening in this game.
Edit:
Actually after a closer rewatch, none of those nodes become a vassal under the neighbors lol... So those networks are already at the capacity of vassals they can have. Which just goes to show how rare it would actually be for your node to fall under new management
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
To not end up fighting against former allied guilds or even against your own guild members. Guilds are not bound to a node.
The main discussion here is that parent nodes can siege their vassals whenever they want, yet vassals can't do that against parents.
Those parent nodes might have guildies in both nodes as well, but that won't stop them from sieging a vassal if they see that as beneficial.
This is why some of us are asking why exactly can't vassals "rise up".
The current design encourages cooperation and fight between the 5 big economic regions with possibility to infiltrate vassals and be a bandit.
The parent node must be able to purge vassal nodes overtaken by bandits constantly attacking caravans.
If you would allow vassals to be able to siege parent nodes then you could easily end up with just a sandbox of 85 nodes. Steven would have to change things he thought out long time ago. Would have to somehow ensure that weaker nodes have access to PvE content to still be able to call the game a PvX. And PvE content for 85 nodes is harder to offer than for only 5 of them. Also players will see some good sides when the PvE is different because the metropolis changes.
Also, moving to another node with the explicit purpose of being able to siege the previous parent node would still mean that you're gonna fight against your guildies.
Depends on guild type. Some will thrive being part of multiple economic regions, driving caravans or having access to different crafting benches.
Is not all PvP in this game.
Honestly this just seems like yet another scenario that a vassal should have the option to rebel against it's Parent Node. If you former Parent Node goes down, and you actually had a good deal worked out with them, maybe they had specific crafting stations that needed goods from your node or w/e. Now you're a vassal under some foreign Parent Node who does not care about any of that. I'd want the option to rise up and say something about it at least.
Also I love watching the exact scenario you mentioned in the video on that page btw, the red City that goes down near the end of the video at the bottom right, and half of it's vassals get absorbed while the other half just become independent cus they can't be absorbed by the other vassal networks lol.. Gonna be some funny situations happening in this game.
Edit:
Actually after a closer rewatch, none of those nodes become a vassal under the neighbors lol... So those networks are already at the capacity of vassals they can have. Which just goes to show how rare it would actually be for your node to fall under new management
That video is old, before the 20 node buffer was announced. Initially were 105 nodes.
You will have your place in the game too. But Steven will not change this rule. He will enjoy watching what you do in game.
Wouldn't the 20 buffer nodes make swapping parent nodes like you said even rarer though? The lvl 4 Village would be even further away from the foreign City node, with even more nodes inbetween it'd vassalize first
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
When the point is IS can make anything as restrictive as possible to achieve any goals they want.
No one here is saying they can't do what they want with their own game. I'm just asking they consider making a small change.
You are quoting me while not understanding what I'm talking about and bringing up a completely different topic....
Not a small change first off, second i don't agree that needs to be changed you don't have a strong reason other than wanting the most easy path to attack. While making it based off you losing the race because they plan more than you / are better than you.
You literally just want to attack them for no actual reason. other than it being a metro not caring if they destroy you after since you got to attack. This isn't a mind set people are going to have, this is little little bro trying to fight big bro cause he is big.
As usual with open development everyone thinks things, but its up to the devs to stick to their goal and filter through the more unhelpful feedback.
Wouldn't the 20 buffer nodes make swapping parent nodes like you said even rarer though? The lvl 4 Village would be even further away from the foreign City node, with even more nodes inbetween it'd vassalize first
If Steven wants to make the world dynamic and less predictable to players who want to game the system, I can imagine the distance to a vassal will not be the main criteria to decide this relationship.
I wouldn't rule out even that he will wake up and edit some file after flipping a coin.
Alpha 2 might serve as a test for his intentions too as we get more and more nodes into the map.
You really don't get PvP mindset of players... 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.
...
It is just that person is not you clearly.
The current design encourages cooperation and fight between the 5 big economic regions with possibility to infiltrate vassals and be a bandit.
The parent node must be able to purge vassal nodes overtaken by bandits constantly attacking caravans.
If you would allow vassals to be able to siege parent nodes then you could easily end up with just a sandbox of 85 nodes. Steven would have to change things he thought out long time ago. Would have to somehow ensure that weaker nodes have access to PvE content to still be able to call the game a PvX. And PvE content for 85 nodes is harder to offer than for only 5 of them. Also players will see some good sides when the PvE is different because the metropolis changes.
Banditry doesn't require you to become a citizen of the node you want to do said banditry in. If anything that'll simply stand in your way. Hell, it might even be linked to the Enemy of the State system, though we know too little about that to say either way.
Also, for it to become "a sandbox of 85 nodes" literally everyone in the game would need to want to rebel, which will never be the case.
Participation in sieges is a solo decision (unless your GL signs up your guild that is), so even if vassals could in fact attack their parent - not everyone from the vassal nodes would join the attacking side.
If anything, the ability of vassals to rebel against shitty parent nodes would increase the push for said parent nodes to do their best when it comes to cooperation and good rule. But under the current design the stronger bullies who managed to get themselves a metro can continue being bullies w/o direct retaliation.
One could says that "moving out" is an intended result of that situation, but this only affects the hardcore social gamers who care about these kinds of politics. And I'd imagine that quite a lot of those players would be exactly the ones who'd prefer to have node loyalty and work with their community.
Casual players would most likely not even know about "bullying" from the top and randoes doing things in the parent node's ZOI would never even care, which ultimately results in the social gamers leaving their preferred node and community simply because there's no other way for them to stand up against the injustices.
Imo that seems like an antisocial design rather than a social one.
Depends on guild type. Some will thrive being part of multiple economic regions, driving caravans or having access to different crafting benches.
Is not all PvP in this game.
Again, I'm talking in the context of "you wanna do smth about your shitty parent node". One of your arguments against vassals attacking parents was that there might be guildies fighting each other. But moving out of the vassal node does not change that fact.
Comments
The vast majority of those mats would just be stuff the attackers could have gathered and processed themselves too. For free, no siege needed. And the rare mats, the ones that are so rare make it all matter I guess, what's to stop someone from just storing those in a random freehold in a random node that no one suspects is holding rare mats? Or just traded to some alt who logs out until it's safe? How do you know what's in those warehouses will make the siege profitable against how much it cost to siege it in the first place?
Now if the gear were lootable I'd be singing a whole different tune, if you siege down a node and loot people's gear now we're talking about some real rewards.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
The contradictions are within the players.
Servers with selfish players will be different from the ones with community oriented players.
Some servers could even be very close to PvE. All you need is a few very popular streamers who hate PvP to join the same server.
20 items can go into an overflow buffer and you can be extract items but not introduce.
The increase and decrease with bonus slots should not happen instantly but should count how you lost citizenship, how log you was citizen... to allow transition to a new citizenship and to prevent becoming citizen for a day.
You should not be loyal just to the node but to a group of nodes. All those nodes are yours. They need vassals with players who are... not like you.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Every other building in a node has the potential to have some reward associated with it. We know that the reliquary drops relic shards, we have an idea that a town hall may drop tax certificates and a stable may have mount certificates.
That is only four node service buildings. The fact that this is all we have heard about does not mean this is all there will be. Intrepid told us about these things to give us an idea of their general plan - that plan being that attackers of a successful siege loot the shit out of that node.
We have no idea at all as to what you could loot from any of the other builds available to all nodes, to social organisation buildings, or to node specific buildings. What we do know is that you will probably get something from them.
In a game with an economy like Ashes, I'm not sure why you are so adamant that raw materials are so worthless and easily traded, but gear made from raw materials is so highly valued and would change your entire outlook on the scenario.
Gear can be traded even easier than the materials used to make that gear.
Does that not work both ways around?
The reason a vassal would want to siege a parent node is if the people in the region want a different city/metro level node. The only way to achieve that is to destroy the existing one and level up the desired one.
Why can it only be parent-to-vassal and not vassal-to-parent?
But i do believe there should be a way to attempt to overthrow nodes higher than yours in your vassal system to allow for ur node to progress up to the next rank
it should be possible for your node to take there progression in their own hands rather than wait for some outside force to destroy a node stopping urs from progressing
You keep talking about making my point weaker, based on how many items and what you can do with them. When the point is IS can make anything as restrictive as possible to achieve any goals they want.
Not really, a vassal probably shouldn't be making decisions on behalf of the parent node - that is kind of the point of a vassal/parent relationship.
But that's why I also said "but should count how you lost citizenship".
Before (or after siege if your node is destroyed) you should not get any mercy. Defenders must care.
"Players that renounce their citizenship during a node siege declaration period may incur penalties."
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Citizenship
The buffer should exist as a citizenship benefit, to encourage players to stay citizens longer time, instead of changing often from a node to another one. Players who change often should have no bonus slots or buffer.
Extra storage slots was a supposed benefit to citizenship (this has not been stated as a feature anywhere btw).
In this context there'd no do siege declaration or anything of the sort. People would simply renounce their citizenship, then declare the siege and then go back to their node as a citizen.
Mag said that moving stuff due to losing your citizenship would have high risks related to it, which is why its riskier to do the "attack the parent node" thing this way. I said that staying a citizen of a vassal would be riskier because your parent node would know exactly who to retaliate against (which in turn means that all your shit in the vassal node would now be in danger).
The buffer you mentioned means that you wouldn't even need to move your stuff. Though again, even the "moving" part was just a supposition and not a stated feature.
Since then Mag has moved his argument to "either way, Intrepid can always control what risks they want players to have", which has been obvious from the start. Except whichever risk are present, would still be present even if vassals could fight their parent node directly. Well, unless Intrepid go out of their way to make it riskier to declare a siege as a non-citizen, but right now I see no logical reason for them to do that.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Thank you for the patience to summarize.
Wiki states that
"Sieging will require a similar amount of resources and time to what it took to develop the node being sieged"
So players must be sure they have supporters behind them.
We know that:
"Siege scrolls are specific to the node that is named on the scroll"
And the scroll will require time and materials to be obtained:
"The questing that is incorporated as part of attaining that particular scroll is very particular to the type of scroll you're attempting to acquire and that is inclusive not just of the materials required as part of that questing but also the time associated with completing that quest, because we want there to be a reciprocal relationship between how much time it takes to stand up a node of the particular size and the types of quests that are required in order to attain the siege scroll."
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Siege_declarations
So for sure angry players from a vassal node will have first to move to another node from a different economic region before they can start creating the siege scroll.
While doing whatever quests are needed, it can happen that their node becomes a vassal of that node and their effort will be canceled.
Such cases will happen often because when large nodes fall, vassal players might see themselves suddenly in enemy territory. Some players will leave, some will stay to sabotage from within as bandits attacking the caravans. Some will embrace change and look forward to the new game content which comes from the metropolis area and could also retain some bonus slots in their storage if that becomes a feature.
This is the game I payed for.
What part of the system makes them move (obviously outside of the current "you can't do shit if you're a vassal)?
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
To not end up fighting against former allied guilds or even against your own guild members. Guilds are not bound to a node.
If I got used to a tavern in the nearby node which was destroyed and the owner moves I might decide to follow. Social bonds.
Those parent nodes might have guildies in both nodes as well, but that won't stop them from sieging a vassal if they see that as beneficial.
This is why some of us are asking why exactly can't vassals "rise up".
Also, moving to another node with the explicit purpose of being able to siege the previous parent node would still mean that you're gonna fight against your guildies.
That's a whole different conversation, separate from node sieges, or at the very least separate from this topic.
"So if you had maximum five metropolises form in a world, you will have a number about 20 nodes that can live alongside those metropolis networks; and when or if a metropolis falls, that extra cushion of nodes around the five metropolis structures allows for the map to be redistricted in a way that is unique. It doesn't mean that one of the fives is just going to pick up where the last six left off and form the same exact metropolis structure"
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_simulation
Level 5 nodes will fall more often than metropolises. Their vassals might end up outside a metropolis economic area and might later become part of another metropolis. On some servers PvP might be more frequent than on others.
Also I love watching the exact scenario you mentioned in the video on that page btw, the red City that goes down near the end of the video at the bottom right, and half of it's vassals get absorbed while the other half just become independent cus they can't be absorbed by the other vassal networks lol.. Gonna be some funny situations happening in this game.
Edit:
Actually after a closer rewatch, none of those nodes become a vassal under the neighbors lol... So those networks are already at the capacity of vassals they can have. Which just goes to show how rare it would actually be for your node to fall under new management
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
I had no idea how far "outside" I am allowed to move.
The current design encourages cooperation and fight between the 5 big economic regions with possibility to infiltrate vassals and be a bandit.
The parent node must be able to purge vassal nodes overtaken by bandits constantly attacking caravans.
If you would allow vassals to be able to siege parent nodes then you could easily end up with just a sandbox of 85 nodes. Steven would have to change things he thought out long time ago. Would have to somehow ensure that weaker nodes have access to PvE content to still be able to call the game a PvX. And PvE content for 85 nodes is harder to offer than for only 5 of them. Also players will see some good sides when the PvE is different because the metropolis changes.
Depends on guild type. Some will thrive being part of multiple economic regions, driving caravans or having access to different crafting benches.
Is not all PvP in this game.
That video is old, before the 20 node buffer was announced. Initially were 105 nodes.
You will have your place in the game too. But Steven will not change this rule. He will enjoy watching what you do in game.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
You are quoting me while not understanding what I'm talking about and bringing up a completely different topic....
Not a small change first off, second i don't agree that needs to be changed you don't have a strong reason other than wanting the most easy path to attack. While making it based off you losing the race because they plan more than you / are better than you.
You literally just want to attack them for no actual reason. other than it being a metro not caring if they destroy you after since you got to attack. This isn't a mind set people are going to have, this is little little bro trying to fight big bro cause he is big.
As usual with open development everyone thinks things, but its up to the devs to stick to their goal and filter through the more unhelpful feedback.
I wouldn't rule out even that he will wake up and edit some file after flipping a coin.
Alpha 2 might serve as a test for his intentions too as we get more and more nodes into the map.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Sounds to me like you don't have the PvP Mindset
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Moving out for any other reason is fine, because it's a separate topic.
Banditry doesn't require you to become a citizen of the node you want to do said banditry in. If anything that'll simply stand in your way. Hell, it might even be linked to the Enemy of the State system, though we know too little about that to say either way.
Also, for it to become "a sandbox of 85 nodes" literally everyone in the game would need to want to rebel, which will never be the case.
Participation in sieges is a solo decision (unless your GL signs up your guild that is), so even if vassals could in fact attack their parent - not everyone from the vassal nodes would join the attacking side.
If anything, the ability of vassals to rebel against shitty parent nodes would increase the push for said parent nodes to do their best when it comes to cooperation and good rule. But under the current design the stronger bullies who managed to get themselves a metro can continue being bullies w/o direct retaliation.
One could says that "moving out" is an intended result of that situation, but this only affects the hardcore social gamers who care about these kinds of politics. And I'd imagine that quite a lot of those players would be exactly the ones who'd prefer to have node loyalty and work with their community.
Casual players would most likely not even know about "bullying" from the top and randoes doing things in the parent node's ZOI would never even care, which ultimately results in the social gamers leaving their preferred node and community simply because there's no other way for them to stand up against the injustices.
Imo that seems like an antisocial design rather than a social one.
Again, I'm talking in the context of "you wanna do smth about your shitty parent node". One of your arguments against vassals attacking parents was that there might be guildies fighting each other. But moving out of the vassal node does not change that fact.