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.
You literally just want to attack them for no actual reason.
Sounds to me like you don't have the PvP Mindset
It sounds to me like you are saying random things without understanding how everything works together because you just want to attack for no actual reason. There are more free form pvp games out there if you just want to attack everything without care for the heath of the game. Albion, Mortal online 2 are a few.
It sounds to me like you are saying random things without understanding how everything works together because you just want to attack for no actual reason.
The main reason is to change a big node on the map. That's the entire point of node sieges existing in the game.
The reason for vassals to want to attack (as we do) is if they drastically disagree with the current node setup, just as the other siegers do.
Right now, the only reason for why vassal citizens can't fight their parent node is "because Steven said so". And while he's saying that, the parent node is completely free to attack their vassals, for no apparent reason.
We disagree with that kind of design, which is the reason for this thread to exist (it's literally in the name).
It sounds to me like you are saying random things without understanding how everything works together because you just want to attack for no actual reason.
The main reason is to change a big node on the map. That's the entire point of node sieges existing in the game.
The reason for vassals to want to attack (as we do) is if they drastically disagree with the current node setup, just as the other siegers do.
Right now, the only reason for why vassal citizens can't fight their parent node is "because Steven said so". And while he's saying that, the parent node is completely free to attack their vassals, for no apparent reason.
We disagree with that kind of design, which is the reason for this thread to exist (it's literally in the name).
Plenty of other nodes can attack that doesn't need to be the vassals job, if you want to be able to attack move to another. node and PVP as intended.
Only part I agree is a larger node shouldn't be freely able to attack a smaller one as there should be different tiers of node wars. Generally top people will be in higher tier nodes or more selection of them atleast. Making it easier for them to win against a weaker node. Though this these attacks are only linked to vassal nodes and they make it so you can't attack other kingdoms nodes I'd be fine.
It be a way fort hem to control with politics and additional drama.
Though only situation i see they should be able to attack would solely be if they were attacked and defended successfully. Besides that i don't really agree with attacking just to attack, i prefer what they are going for and to see and test it.
I don't agree with general pvp warmongering type stuff either as that isn't the vibe AoC seems to be going for and are looking for wars to reduce pvp with rule sets. Else too many people would get scared off and the game would lose the population it needs to sustain itself in being an enjoyable playground.
Plenty of other nodes can attack that doesn't need to be the vassals job, if you want to be able to attack move to another. node and PVP as intended.
And we're not asking for it to be the vassal's job. We simply want to be able to join the attack, because we agree with the attacker side rather than the defender.
Again, signing up for the siege is a solo thing, so it would still not be "the vassal's job", even if we could join the attack as vassals, because not everyone would join the attack.
Though this these attacks are only linked to vassal nodes and they make it so you can't attack other kingdoms nodes I'd be fine.
So you're not ok with literal war between kingdoms, but ok with a bigger dude bullying a smaller dude, while the smaller dude CAN LITERALLY DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. Are all vassals meant to be Jesus, giving up their second cheek for the strike?
I don't agree with general pvp warmongering type stuff either as that isn't the vibe AoC seems to be going for and are looking for wars to reduce pvp with rule sets. Else too many people would get scared off and the game would lose the population it needs to sustain itself in being an enjoyable playground.
At this point I really agree with Tenguru at saying that you're moving away from a pvp mindset. It's a really interesting shift in your standpoint.
Politics-related pvp will comprise quite a bit of endgame content, this includes sieges/wars/caravans/pvx/ganking. That is literally what the game is going for. It's what it's built on and takes inspiration from.
List out all of the reasons why it'd be okay for a Parent Node to attack a Vassal Node, and you'll have a list of reasons why it should be the other way too.
The main ones I can see, as has been discussed here mostly by @Noaani, There are various political reasons a Parent Node might siege down one of it's Vassals, there are content reasons such as opening up a new dungeon or world boss in the region, I've said there could even be Land Management Score reasons you'd want lower level nodes to have precious resources within it's ZOI.
All of those reasons can apply to Parent Nodes just as easily.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Plenty of other nodes can attack that doesn't need to be the vassals job, if you want to be able to attack move to another. node and PVP as intended.
And we're not asking it to be the vassal's job. We simply want to be able to join the attack, because we agree with the attacker side rather than the defender.
Again, signing up for the siege is a solo thing, so it would still not be "the vassal's job", even if we could join the attack as vassals, because not everyone would join the attack.
Though this these attacks are only linked to vassal nodes and they make it so you can't attack other kingdoms nodes I'd be fine.
So you're not ok with literal war between kingdoms, but ok with a bigger dude bullying a smaller dude, while the smaller dude CAN LITERALLY DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. Are all vassals meant to be Jesus, giving up their second cheek for the strike?
I don't agree with general pvp warmongering type stuff either as that isn't the vibe AoC seems to be going for and are looking for wars to reduce pvp with rule sets. Else too many people would get scared off and the game would lose the population it needs to sustain itself in being an enjoyable playground.
At this point I really agree with Tenguru at saying that you're moving away from a pvp mindset. It's a really interesting shift in your standpoint.
Politics-related pvp will comprise quite a bit of endgame content, this includes sieges/wars/caravans/pvx/ganking. That is literally what the game is going for. It's what it's built on and takes inspiration from.
Its not your job or your role as a vassal. If you want to attack move to another node its simple the option is there for you. If you refuse to do it than you will have no choice but to deal with your situation.
I'm for more interesting ways of politics and social interactions than a meathead approach on just attack everything. If you refuse to move nodes and you don't like your situation that is on you to forcing it upon yourself.
If i have a issue I would move nodes and attack, I just don't carry a casual mind set and prefer more complexity. His mind set is a casual that just wants to attack even knowing he won't be effective. And doesn't have the commitment to do what it takes to be effective. One of those few meaningless voices that will end up moving node to node wanting to attack a metro. And eventually moving to a metro and staying there thinking he will be important. But will just end up as a cog in someone else's machine.
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.
Banditry is just one of the methods to apply from within the node and is safer than being an outsider as there will be node wars with enemy nodes.
The ones in the metro will not necessarily be stronger and act as bullies. Bullies more likely will be the ones in the castles. The parent vassal relationship is a game rule, not a player made rule. The metropolises have no incentive to attack vassals.
If you and Tenguru insist to attack parent nodes, "moving out" is the only option.
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.
I have no idea. Maybe they will not move out. One cannot be both angry and friendly with a node. This is how Steven wants the game and I support this vision as opposed to vassals being able to siege metropolises.
Social games will have to chose, to stay with the community which stays or leave with the community which leaves. Or stay in the the node because buildings are nice.
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.
"You want to attack your parent node"
You want to force other players in your node to fight against their friends/guild members in the parent node.
You create anarchy within the economic region.
Siege is the ultimate action. The game does not need this in the hand of the vassals.
I don't understand how you do not see this. Maybe the game is not for you...
Its not your job or your role as a vassal. If you want to attack move to another node its simple the option is there for you. If you refuse to do it than you will have no choice but to deal with your situation.
Again, why is that the rule? The entire damn real world is built on revolutions and uprisings, exactly because the big dude at the top was shite. Yet for some unknown reason Ashes doesn't want that part of human interaction to be a thing.
I'm for more interesting ways of politics and social interactions than a meathead approach on just attack everything. If you refuse to move nodes and you don't like your situation that is on you to forcing it upon yourself.
As I've said before, pressing a button "I no longer want to be a citizen" has no damn "politics and social interactions". Literally none of them. Nothing fucking changes, except for the entire situation being more boring than the RP of "a fucking revolution".
If i have a issue I would move nodes and attack, I just don't carry a casual mind set and prefer more complexity. His mind set is a casual that just wants to attack even knowing he won't be effective. And doesn't have the commitment to do what it takes to be effective. One of those few meaningless voices that will end up moving node to node wanting to attack a metro. And eventually moving to a metro and staying there thinking he will be important. But will just end up as a cog in someone else's machine.
The entire damn point of vassals trying to fight upwards is to NOT be "a cog". It's literally fighting a bigger and stronger foe, which is the furthest thing from being a casual. And it's doing so with the explicit presentation of "fuck you, I won't do what The Man tells me".
I still can't comprehend what kind of thing you've made up in your mind and have decided to argue against here, that you call us casuals for wanting to fight against strong enemies.
The parent vassal relationship is a game rule, not a player made rule. The metropolises have no incentive to attack vassals.
If you and Tenguru insist to attack parent nodes, "moving out" is the only option.
So please tell me then, if the parent node "has no incentive to attack vassals", why can they? While vassals can definitely have incentive to attack parent nodes, but can't.
I have no idea. Maybe they will not move out. One cannot be both angry and friendly with a node. This is how Steven wants the game and I support this vision as opposed to vassals being able to siege metropolises.
Social games will have to chose, to stay with the community which stays or leave with the community which leaves. Or stay in the the node because buildings are nice.
I'm sorry for bringing in politics here, but let me give an example.
Putin and his cronies are abusing distant regions of russia. Would you agree that those people should be able to stand up against this abuse, or do you think they should "just move to a different country"?
Because this is the parallel I'm drawing between bad parent nodes and their vassals.
Loyal vassals would be loyal to THEIR node, not the parent node. It's the parent's node job to earn the vassals' trust and loyalty. I'm talking about situations where they have not only not done so, but even abused their relationship on top of that.
"You want to attack your parent node"
You want to force other players in your node to fight against their friends/guild members in the parent node.
You create anarchy within the economic region.
Siege is the ultimate action. The game does not need this in the hand of the vassals.
I don't understand how you do not see this. Maybe the game is not for you...
I want to do none of those things. I want the right to fight against a potential abuser. I'm not talking about "making people" do anything they don't want.
And I've said this in the past, if parent nodes couldn't attack vassals - I'd be totally fine with passive resistance. But right now parent nodes can freely attack a vassal, but the vassal can literally do nothing in return.
"You want to attack your parent node"
You want to force other players in your node to fight against their friends/guild members in the parent node.
You create anarchy within the economic region.
But it's ok for Parent Nodes to fight against their friends/guild members in the Vassal Node?
"Anarchy in the region" is this such a bad thing? For a region to undergo some growing pains? If the Parent Node didn't do a good job politically keeping peace in their region, that's on them. Maybe a shake up would introduce players who'd do a better job at it.
Siege is the ultimate action. The game does not need this in the hand of the vassals.
Just because they're a Vassal doesn't mean they've lost their right to siege at all, just against the Parent Node and it's vassals. They can still siege some other Metro if they wanted and you'd see the same things happen than if they sieged their own Parent Node, just in a diff region. Technically they could even siege other vassals under the same Parent Node as themselves if they wanted to, that'd also cause plenty of anarchy lol. Edit: Struck out the wrong bits
I don't understand how you do not see this. Maybe the game is not for you...
I'm honestly tired of this argument. No one here is suggesting this is such a huge deal that they won't play the game because of it. If things were the other way around I wouldn't be saying this just isn't the game for you.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Its not your job or your role as a vassal. If you want to attack move to another node its simple the option is there for you. If you refuse to do it than you will have no choice but to deal with your situation.
Again, why is that the rule? The entire damn real world is built on revolutions and uprisings, exactly because the big dude at the top was shite. Yet for some unknown reason Ashes doesn't want that part of human interaction to be a thing.
I'm for more interesting ways of politics and social interactions than a meathead approach on just attack everything. If you refuse to move nodes and you don't like your situation that is on you to forcing it upon yourself.
As I've said before, pressing a button "I no longer want to be a citizen" has no damn "politics and social interactions". Literally none of them. Nothing fucking changes, except for the entire situation being more boring than the RP of "a fucking revolution".
If i have a issue I would move nodes and attack, I just don't carry a casual mind set and prefer more complexity. His mind set is a casual that just wants to attack even knowing he won't be effective. And doesn't have the commitment to do what it takes to be effective. One of those few meaningless voices that will end up moving node to node wanting to attack a metro. And eventually moving to a metro and staying there thinking he will be important. But will just end up as a cog in someone else's machine.
The entire damn point of vassals trying to fight upwards is to NOT be "a cog". It's literally fighting a bigger and stronger foe, which is the furthest thing from being a casual. And it's doing so with the explicit presentation of "fuck you, I won't do what The Man tells me".
I still can't comprehend what kind of thing you've made up in your mind and have decided to argue against here, that you call us casuals for wanting to fight against strong enemies.
I've already mentioned this about pvp and AoC at this point only way for you to get a answer is to be on the dev team and understand their plans and how everything is interconnected.
Yes not being a citizen and them losing people in their node is going to have to have an effect. Im sure plenty of people can see and make some guesses on effects. I guess wait til alpha 2 so you can see what they are planning directly more.
Unsure where you are getting this from, but the actual definition and point of being a vassal is to be subservient to the greater being.
Told you I'm into more complex situations and games so you most likely won't understand. But its a casual mind set to reduce complexity and make things simple. What they are doing has a lot more depth to it, that is all there is to it.
Technically they could even siege other vassals under the same Parent Node as themselves if they wanted to, that'd also cause plenty of anarchy lol.
Nah, a node system is most likely all allied with itself, and allies can't register for the attacking side, so we can't attack horizontally either.
So far the only thing we know about alliances in the terms of node sieges and vassals is that a vassal is allied with it's Parent Node. The citizens of a Parent Node are not automatically defenders if it's vassal gets dec'd. For example if City A and City B both share the same Parent Node, those two Cities have no alliance by default. City A could siege City B if they wanted to from what we currently know.
Edit: I was wrong here, this ain't true.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Told you I'm into more complex situations and games so you most likely won't understand.
Do you not see how these two points of view contradict?
Your post comes from not understanding because you want simple straight forward systems.
Which again what you want
What AoC is going for
You want the brain dead path where you can attack whoever you want without care of complexity of the system and how things work together and are intended.
As i said before if you can't commit to leaving your own node to attack, you honestly don't deserve to be involved in influencing node pvp.
What I'm asking for would make political situations even more complex. Straight up denying vassal citizens to siege against the parent node simplifies the politics in the area.
If vassal citizens could siege the parent, the parent government would have to consider making better decisions and agreements that would not anger too many of their vassals. They'd make agreements like having certain nodes focus in certain areas of the economy, or have certain node types and buffs and relics and such that could work in the favor for both parties.
Without the option to fight back, all of those decision are one-way, from top-down... Simplified.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
What I'm asking for would make political situations even more complex. Straight up denying vassal citizens to siege against the parent node simplifies the politics in the area.
If vassal citizens could siege the parent, the parent government would have to consider making better decisions and agreements that would not anger too many of their vassals. They'd make agreements like having certain nodes focus in certain areas of the economy, or have certain node types and buffs and relics and such that could work in the favor for both parties.
Without the option to fight back, all of those decision are one-way, from top-down... Simplified.
You aren't asking for it to be more complex you are trying to get them to conform to you not wanting to leave your node.
You are asking for extra steps to be removed so you can settle things with war and make things less complex.
The moment you can settle things with violence there is no complexity or political complexity you just do pvp. And that PvP already exist since you can leave your node with your group and siege them.
If people leave vassals territories and impact them that will make them need to make better decisions, if they know people can leave and attack them than they know they might have to make better choices. But that would have to be a significant large group of people to have any kind of influence. You are just a barking dog thinking you can bring about change and are fine with your own nodes destruction if you can attack (which wouldn't be the case if you are a casual you wouldn't be in a competitive group and 0 threat).
Like at this point i feel like you are presented with a bunch of options but are pouting crossing you arms wanting things in a simple way to benefit you. And most likely end up left behind by your guild that chooses to swap nodes to attack as you stay in the current one.
Your whole argument falls apart saying they will need to make better decisions since you are trying to go off vassal nodes will have 0 influence. If people leave the vassal nodes than the node they are a vassal to is only going to become weaker.
Also you aren't attack any NODES that are a vassal to the metro meaning you can only attack other kingdoms
Being a vassal gives you benefits but you are a vassal you are not the one in charge, bark all you want its not your role to be controlling the metro. If you don't like any of the benefits of that kingdom move to another one, if you dislike it move to another one and war it..
As i said before you just want to be warmongering on who ever, AoC is not going to be that kind of game so its economy can get trashed an excessive pvp ruining the overall flow of the game. They are going for again more meaningful pvp.
If its such a big issue you can't attack whatever nodes you want because you refuse to move to other ones. That is fully a you issue that will be solved when you are ready to paly the game as it is intended.
Like at this point i feel like you are presented with a bunch of options but are pouting crossing you arms wanting things in a simple way to benefit you.
This is the second time you use LotR as an example of "complex politics". Could you explain what exactly you are talking about when you're referencing it?
Cause iirc Sauron wanted to take over the lands through war. And then he was fought back through war. And all movies had direct confrontations between factions, rather than some super complex politicking.
I'm sure the proper deep lore might have some complex interactions between pre-Sauron factions, but posting a pic from the movies that are pretty much about "good vs evil" doesn't have the effect you seem to think it does.
So could you explain what you're referencing here exactly?
There is only one Reason this should be in the Game - and it's for Realism. It's for acknowledging the ingame Fantasy People having the Balls to do what whole Nations in Reallife are to cowardly for. . 😁
But if it WON'T. BE. - in the Game ... ... ... well, then ... ...
... ... we just have to suck it up and accept, that " Master-Nodes " need to protect their Vassal-Nodes, when People attack their whole Network for Conquest.
Like at this point i feel like you are presented with a bunch of options but are pouting crossing you arms wanting things in a simple way to benefit you.
Also you aren't attack any NODES that are a vassal to the metro meaning you can only attack other kingdoms
Do you have a source for this?
Its not about other options since u disregarded other options its just about attacking the node that is on top of your own kingdom, which doesn't even control your node on top of it....
You really need to increase how you view things and not just think about what you want, but what the game is being designed for with it being multiple kingdoms pretty much.
This is the second time you use LotR as an example of "complex politics". Could you explain what exactly you are talking about when you're referencing it?
Cause iirc Sauron wanted to take over the lands through war. And then he was fought back through war. And all movies had direct confrontations between factions, rather than some super complex politicking.
I'm sure the proper deep lore might have some complex interactions between pre-Sauron factions, but posting a pic from the movies that are pretty much about "good vs evil" doesn't have the effect you seem to think it does.
So could you explain what you're referencing here exactly?
You are looking to deep in it, the overall story and politics is complex. Where like i posted the dog meme where you two just wanting to attack which removes all the other politics out.
I'm not going to spell out every different plot going on in Lotr lmao. If LOTR boiled down to all politics removed and just one nation attacking another you would have what you want and that would have never been a good story.
You really need to increase how you view things and not just think about what you want, but what the game is being designed for with it being multiple kingdoms pretty much.
Forgot about the "or any of it's vassal nodes" line in there lol, I'll edit the previous posts to reflect that.
I don't think asking for vassal citizens to be able to attack their Parent Node goes against their overall vision. If my assumptions (yes, I admit, assumptions) are right though, the world will eventually stagnate. An unchanging world would not fit their vision, it'd go against the whole purpose for nodes existing in the first place.
Kingdoms are not monoliths, they had internal struggles and wars and politics, etc.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
I'm not going to spell out every different plot going on in Lotr lmao. If LOTR boiled down to all politics removed and just one nation attacking another you would have what you want and that would have never been a good story.
Give a single example of a complex interaction between the Sauron side and the fellowship side. Even Gandalf/Saruman interaction boiled down to a fight between mages.
You keep saying "it's all so deep and complex", but I'm yet to see a single proper example. Especially not a single one that's included in what we're asking for.
You really need to increase how you view things and not just think about what you want, but what the game is being designed for with it being multiple kingdoms pretty much.
Forgot about the "or any of it's vassal nodes" line in there lol, I'll edit the previous posts to reflect that.
I don't think asking for vassal citizens to be able to attack their Parent Node goes against their overall vision. If my assumptions (yes, I admit, assumptions) are right though, the world will eventually stagnate. An unchanging world would not fit their vision, it'd go against the whole purpose for nodes existing in the first place.
Kingdoms are not monoliths, they had internal struggles and wars and politics, etc.
You are saying things are unchanging with 0 evidence to back it up than you just assuming it. And anything that tells you differently flies over your head.
Would will change at the intended pace they want. Would isn't going to be a chaotic mess with no market and everyone losing all their items constantly either from all nodes being destroyed. And cause casuals to quit.
I'm not going to spell out every different plot going on in Lotr lmao. If LOTR boiled down to all politics removed and just one nation attacking another you would have what you want and that would have never been a good story.
Give a single example of a complex interaction between the Sauron side and the fellowship side. Even Gandalf/Saruman interaction boiled down to a fight between mages.
You keep saying "it's all so deep and complex", but I'm yet to see a single proper example. Especially not a single one that's included in what we're asking for.
You are free to watch the movies, read the books and the lore. I'm not here to give examples on lotr from my meme picture.
You are free to watch the movies, read the books and the lore. I'm not here to give examples on lotr from my meme picture.
You used that picture to prove some kind of point. Please, give a single example of what that point meant in your reference.
If that story is full of "chess", I'm sure it's easy to give a single example of that being the case.
I've provided several parallels to try and prove my point. So far you've only said that we "don't understand the bigger picture and all the complexities of Ashes' LotR-like chess politics". So, please, give a single example of what you're referencing.
You are saying things are unchanging with 0 evidence to back it up than you just assuming it.And anything that tells you differently flies over your head.
Sorry if it feels that way to you, did not mean to make you feel ignored. From what they've told us, from the very little we know about the material economy and recipes and such, I have yet to see a big enough incentive to siege another "kingdom"'s nodes when you could get those rewards through other means with less cost. (Yes, yet another assumption about how much a siege would cost to the attackers)
Just like you say when I ask for the option to attack a Parent Node, you say having that option to just attack them removes any of the other options, but it doesn't. These Metros also have those other options with each other, they can setup trade agreements so that they aren't being sieged for their precious resources and whatnot. If they don't they probably risk being sieged by outsiders, but don't you see how both sides being able to siege one another makes these sort of choices feel like they actually matter, like they're important? I'm asking for the same dynamic between a Parent Node and it's Vassals.
Would will change at the intended pace they want. Would isn't going to be a chaotic mess with no market and everyone losing all their items constantly either from all nodes being destroyed. And cause casuals to quit.
I want to agree with you, I want to hope you're right about this, but IS has said nothing about what the endgame world would look like in this regard. That's mostly why I decided to make a forum post about this even though I avoid forums as much as I can, to try my best to make sure IS is thinking about these things early on.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
You are saying things are unchanging with 0 evidence to back it up than you just assuming it.And anything that tells you differently flies over your head.
Sorry if it feels that way to you, did not mean to make you feel ignored. From what they've told us, from the very little we know about the material economy and recipes and such, I have yet to see a big enough incentive to siege another "kingdom"'s nodes when you could get those rewards through other means with less cost. (Yes, yet another assumption about how much a siege would cost to the attackers)
Just like you say when I ask for the option to attack a Parent Node, you say having that option to just attack them removes any of the other options, but it doesn't. These Metros also have those other options with each other, they can setup trade agreements so that they aren't being sieged for their precious resources and whatnot. If they don't they probably risk being sieged by outsiders, but don't you see how both sides being able to siege one another makes these sort of choices feel like they actually matter, like they're important? I'm asking for the same dynamic between a Parent Node and it's Vassals.
Would will change at the intended pace they want. Would isn't going to be a chaotic mess with no market and everyone losing all their items constantly either from all nodes being destroyed. And cause casuals to quit.
I want to agree with you, I want to hope you're right about this, but IS has said nothing about what the endgame world would look like in this regard. That's mostly why I decided to make a forum post about this even though I avoid forums as much as I can, to try my best to make sure IS is thinking about these things early on.
I don't feel ignored you are missing the point....IT has nothing to do with me but everything to do with you refusing to accept anything else but what you want. The game is being designed different clearly with their intentions for wars and the effects including the economy.
You have been told multiple times IS can control the gain and desire for it, you have been told people will go to war to do so for the sake of pvp or politics, you have been told too many times on there will be warring in the game based on how often IS wants.
And you continue to talk about nothing making up reasons saying people won't fight because you are stating a non fact about it isn't worth it for them. Stop sing this as a reason to debate you and making random crap up this isn't a argument point.
You are a vassal, you aren't going to get a even dynamic. It doesn't mean for whoever is mayor they can't do whatever they want with their node and working with other nodes. You are trying to make some weird argument up like the node you are a vassal to is your mayor that controls your node. That isn't he case your mayor of your own node controls what is going on.
Legit tired of these same points made up by air repeated without any factual evidence backing them than you think it will happen without a shred of proof. On top of you not understanding how pvpers will be in the game and politics will work with wars.
Yes they don't say every single detail but if you look at the game and the rules of pvp, what they are aiming for you can start to paint a picture....
1 easy example would be if all the cities were some how sieged and most destroyed. The whole economy of the game would tank with limited resources going around and people struggling to get what they need. And having to rebuild all their material banks up or even have to get new gear if it was lost in storages. That is a huge effect that would impact players and cause some people to leave or casuals if they felt they lost a lot.
This more so being a thing if it was a often occurrence where storages were suddenly not consistent. Which would have a negative impact on the game. There is high risk but they aren't trying to make a game people feel they are constantly struggling and losing everything all the time..
That and you loko at the corruption system, you see what they are doing the nodes trying to have pvp but more kingdom vrs kingdom kind of thing. Which can be used as a way to limit what nodes you can dec and ensuring the pvp doesn't become overbearing and general people can enjoy the game that aren't as keen on pvp.
There will still be some chaotic elements because it is pvp after all but with the proper breaks it will feel more fair and not cause people to just quit from getting pk'd.
Comments
It sounds to me like you are saying random things without understanding how everything works together because you just want to attack for no actual reason. There are more free form pvp games out there if you just want to attack everything without care for the heath of the game. Albion, Mortal online 2 are a few.
The reason for vassals to want to attack (as we do) is if they drastically disagree with the current node setup, just as the other siegers do.
Right now, the only reason for why vassal citizens can't fight their parent node is "because Steven said so". And while he's saying that, the parent node is completely free to attack their vassals, for no apparent reason.
We disagree with that kind of design, which is the reason for this thread to exist (it's literally in the name).
Plenty of other nodes can attack that doesn't need to be the vassals job, if you want to be able to attack move to another. node and PVP as intended.
Only part I agree is a larger node shouldn't be freely able to attack a smaller one as there should be different tiers of node wars. Generally top people will be in higher tier nodes or more selection of them atleast. Making it easier for them to win against a weaker node. Though this these attacks are only linked to vassal nodes and they make it so you can't attack other kingdoms nodes I'd be fine.
It be a way fort hem to control with politics and additional drama.
Though only situation i see they should be able to attack would solely be if they were attacked and defended successfully. Besides that i don't really agree with attacking just to attack, i prefer what they are going for and to see and test it.
I don't agree with general pvp warmongering type stuff either as that isn't the vibe AoC seems to be going for and are looking for wars to reduce pvp with rule sets. Else too many people would get scared off and the game would lose the population it needs to sustain itself in being an enjoyable playground.
Again, signing up for the siege is a solo thing, so it would still not be "the vassal's job", even if we could join the attack as vassals, because not everyone would join the attack.
So you're not ok with literal war between kingdoms, but ok with a bigger dude bullying a smaller dude, while the smaller dude CAN LITERALLY DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. Are all vassals meant to be Jesus, giving up their second cheek for the strike?
At this point I really agree with Tenguru at saying that you're moving away from a pvp mindset. It's a really interesting shift in your standpoint.
Politics-related pvp will comprise quite a bit of endgame content, this includes sieges/wars/caravans/pvx/ganking. That is literally what the game is going for. It's what it's built on and takes inspiration from.
The main ones I can see, as has been discussed here mostly by @Noaani, There are various political reasons a Parent Node might siege down one of it's Vassals, there are content reasons such as opening up a new dungeon or world boss in the region, I've said there could even be Land Management Score reasons you'd want lower level nodes to have precious resources within it's ZOI.
All of those reasons can apply to Parent Nodes just as easily.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Its not your job or your role as a vassal. If you want to attack move to another node its simple the option is there for you. If you refuse to do it than you will have no choice but to deal with your situation.
I'm for more interesting ways of politics and social interactions than a meathead approach on just attack everything. If you refuse to move nodes and you don't like your situation that is on you to forcing it upon yourself.
If i have a issue I would move nodes and attack, I just don't carry a casual mind set and prefer more complexity. His mind set is a casual that just wants to attack even knowing he won't be effective. And doesn't have the commitment to do what it takes to be effective. One of those few meaningless voices that will end up moving node to node wanting to attack a metro. And eventually moving to a metro and staying there thinking he will be important. But will just end up as a cog in someone else's machine.
Banditry is just one of the methods to apply from within the node and is safer than being an outsider as there will be node wars with enemy nodes.
The ones in the metro will not necessarily be stronger and act as bullies. Bullies more likely will be the ones in the castles. The parent vassal relationship is a game rule, not a player made rule. The metropolises have no incentive to attack vassals.
If you and Tenguru insist to attack parent nodes, "moving out" is the only option.
I have no idea. Maybe they will not move out. One cannot be both angry and friendly with a node. This is how Steven wants the game and I support this vision as opposed to vassals being able to siege metropolises.
Social games will have to chose, to stay with the community which stays or leave with the community which leaves. Or stay in the the node because buildings are nice.
"You want to attack your parent node"
You want to force other players in your node to fight against their friends/guild members in the parent node.
You create anarchy within the economic region.
Siege is the ultimate action. The game does not need this in the hand of the vassals.
I don't understand how you do not see this. Maybe the game is not for you...
As I've said before, pressing a button "I no longer want to be a citizen" has no damn "politics and social interactions". Literally none of them. Nothing fucking changes, except for the entire situation being more boring than the RP of "a fucking revolution".
The entire damn point of vassals trying to fight upwards is to NOT be "a cog". It's literally fighting a bigger and stronger foe, which is the furthest thing from being a casual. And it's doing so with the explicit presentation of "fuck you, I won't do what The Man tells me".
I still can't comprehend what kind of thing you've made up in your mind and have decided to argue against here, that you call us casuals for wanting to fight against strong enemies.
Why is it a "game rule" here?
I'm sorry for bringing in politics here, but let me give an example.
Putin and his cronies are abusing distant regions of russia. Would you agree that those people should be able to stand up against this abuse, or do you think they should "just move to a different country"?
Because this is the parallel I'm drawing between bad parent nodes and their vassals.
Loyal vassals would be loyal to THEIR node, not the parent node. It's the parent's node job to earn the vassals' trust and loyalty. I'm talking about situations where they have not only not done so, but even abused their relationship on top of that.
I want to do none of those things. I want the right to fight against a potential abuser. I'm not talking about "making people" do anything they don't want.
And I've said this in the past, if parent nodes couldn't attack vassals - I'd be totally fine with passive resistance. But right now parent nodes can freely attack a vassal, but the vassal can literally do nothing in return.
But it's ok for Parent Nodes to fight against their friends/guild members in the Vassal Node?
"Anarchy in the region" is this such a bad thing? For a region to undergo some growing pains? If the Parent Node didn't do a good job politically keeping peace in their region, that's on them. Maybe a shake up would introduce players who'd do a better job at it.
Just because they're a Vassal doesn't mean they've lost their right to siege at all, just against the Parent Node and it's vassals. They can still siege some other Metro if they wanted and you'd see the same things happen than if they sieged their own Parent Node, just in a diff region. Technically they could even siege other vassals under the same Parent Node as themselves if they wanted to, that'd also cause plenty of anarchy lol.
Edit: Struck out the wrong bits
I'm honestly tired of this argument. No one here is suggesting this is such a huge deal that they won't play the game because of it. If things were the other way around I wouldn't be saying this just isn't the game for you.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
I've already mentioned this about pvp and AoC at this point only way for you to get a answer is to be on the dev team and understand their plans and how everything is interconnected.
Yes not being a citizen and them losing people in their node is going to have to have an effect. Im sure plenty of people can see and make some guesses on effects. I guess wait til alpha 2 so you can see what they are planning directly more.
Unsure where you are getting this from, but the actual definition and point of being a vassal is to be subservient to the greater being.
Told you I'm into more complex situations and games so you most likely won't understand. But its a casual mind set to reduce complexity and make things simple. What they are doing has a lot more depth to it, that is all there is to it.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Edit: I was wrong here, this ain't true.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Your post comes from not understanding because you want simple straight forward systems.
Which again what you want
What AoC is going for
You want the brain dead path where you can attack whoever you want without care of complexity of the system and how things work together and are intended.
As i said before if you can't commit to leaving your own node to attack, you honestly don't deserve to be involved in influencing node pvp.
If vassal citizens could siege the parent, the parent government would have to consider making better decisions and agreements that would not anger too many of their vassals. They'd make agreements like having certain nodes focus in certain areas of the economy, or have certain node types and buffs and relics and such that could work in the favor for both parties.
Without the option to fight back, all of those decision are one-way, from top-down... Simplified.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
You aren't asking for it to be more complex you are trying to get them to conform to you not wanting to leave your node.
You are asking for extra steps to be removed so you can settle things with war and make things less complex.
The moment you can settle things with violence there is no complexity or political complexity you just do pvp. And that PvP already exist since you can leave your node with your group and siege them.
If people leave vassals territories and impact them that will make them need to make better decisions, if they know people can leave and attack them than they know they might have to make better choices. But that would have to be a significant large group of people to have any kind of influence. You are just a barking dog thinking you can bring about change and are fine with your own nodes destruction if you can attack (which wouldn't be the case if you are a casual you wouldn't be in a competitive group and 0 threat).
Like at this point i feel like you are presented with a bunch of options but are pouting crossing you arms wanting things in a simple way to benefit you. And most likely end up left behind by your guild that chooses to swap nodes to attack as you stay in the current one.
Your whole argument falls apart saying they will need to make better decisions since you are trying to go off vassal nodes will have 0 influence. If people leave the vassal nodes than the node they are a vassal to is only going to become weaker.
Also you aren't attack any NODES that are a vassal to the metro meaning you can only attack other kingdoms
Being a vassal gives you benefits but you are a vassal you are not the one in charge, bark all you want its not your role to be controlling the metro. If you don't like any of the benefits of that kingdom move to another one, if you dislike it move to another one and war it..
As i said before you just want to be warmongering on who ever, AoC is not going to be that kind of game so its economy can get trashed an excessive pvp ruining the overall flow of the game. They are going for again more meaningful pvp.
If its such a big issue you can't attack whatever nodes you want because you refuse to move to other ones. That is fully a you issue that will be solved when you are ready to paly the game as it is intended.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Cause iirc Sauron wanted to take over the lands through war. And then he was fought back through war. And all movies had direct confrontations between factions, rather than some super complex politicking.
I'm sure the proper deep lore might have some complex interactions between pre-Sauron factions, but posting a pic from the movies that are pretty much about "good vs evil" doesn't have the effect you seem to think it does.
So could you explain what you're referencing here exactly?
There is only one Reason this should be in the Game - and it's for Realism. It's for acknowledging the ingame Fantasy People having the Balls to do what whole Nations in Reallife are to cowardly for.
But if it WON'T. BE. - in the Game ... ... ... well, then ... ...
... ... we just have to suck it up and accept, that " Master-Nodes " need to protect their Vassal-Nodes, when People attack their whole Network for Conquest.
Its not about other options since u disregarded other options its just about attacking the node that is on top of your own kingdom, which doesn't even control your node on top of it....
You really need to increase how you view things and not just think about what you want, but what the game is being designed for with it being multiple kingdoms pretty much.
https://ashesofcreation.com/news/2019-03-16-know-your-nodes-the-basics
You are looking to deep in it, the overall story and politics is complex. Where like i posted the dog meme where you two just wanting to attack which removes all the other politics out.
I'm not going to spell out every different plot going on in Lotr lmao. If LOTR boiled down to all politics removed and just one nation attacking another you would have what you want and that would have never been a good story.
I don't think asking for vassal citizens to be able to attack their Parent Node goes against their overall vision. If my assumptions (yes, I admit, assumptions) are right though, the world will eventually stagnate. An unchanging world would not fit their vision, it'd go against the whole purpose for nodes existing in the first place.
Kingdoms are not monoliths, they had internal struggles and wars and politics, etc.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Give a single example of a complex interaction between the Sauron side and the fellowship side. Even Gandalf/Saruman interaction boiled down to a fight between mages.
You keep saying "it's all so deep and complex", but I'm yet to see a single proper example. Especially not a single one that's included in what we're asking for.
You are saying things are unchanging with 0 evidence to back it up than you just assuming it. And anything that tells you differently flies over your head.
Would will change at the intended pace they want. Would isn't going to be a chaotic mess with no market and everyone losing all their items constantly either from all nodes being destroyed. And cause casuals to quit.
You are free to watch the movies, read the books and the lore. I'm not here to give examples on lotr from my meme picture.
If that story is full of "chess", I'm sure it's easy to give a single example of that being the case.
I've provided several parallels to try and prove my point. So far you've only said that we "don't understand the bigger picture and all the complexities of Ashes' LotR-like chess politics". So, please, give a single example of what you're referencing.
Just like you say when I ask for the option to attack a Parent Node, you say having that option to just attack them removes any of the other options, but it doesn't. These Metros also have those other options with each other, they can setup trade agreements so that they aren't being sieged for their precious resources and whatnot. If they don't they probably risk being sieged by outsiders, but don't you see how both sides being able to siege one another makes these sort of choices feel like they actually matter, like they're important? I'm asking for the same dynamic between a Parent Node and it's Vassals.
I want to agree with you, I want to hope you're right about this, but IS has said nothing about what the endgame world would look like in this regard. That's mostly why I decided to make a forum post about this even though I avoid forums as much as I can, to try my best to make sure IS is thinking about these things early on.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
I don't feel ignored you are missing the point....IT has nothing to do with me but everything to do with you refusing to accept anything else but what you want. The game is being designed different clearly with their intentions for wars and the effects including the economy.
You have been told multiple times IS can control the gain and desire for it, you have been told people will go to war to do so for the sake of pvp or politics, you have been told too many times on there will be warring in the game based on how often IS wants.
And you continue to talk about nothing making up reasons saying people won't fight because you are stating a non fact about it isn't worth it for them. Stop sing this as a reason to debate you and making random crap up this isn't a argument point.
You are a vassal, you aren't going to get a even dynamic. It doesn't mean for whoever is mayor they can't do whatever they want with their node and working with other nodes. You are trying to make some weird argument up like the node you are a vassal to is your mayor that controls your node. That isn't he case your mayor of your own node controls what is going on.
Legit tired of these same points made up by air repeated without any factual evidence backing them than you think it will happen without a shred of proof. On top of you not understanding how pvpers will be in the game and politics will work with wars.
Yes they don't say every single detail but if you look at the game and the rules of pvp, what they are aiming for you can start to paint a picture....
1 easy example would be if all the cities were some how sieged and most destroyed. The whole economy of the game would tank with limited resources going around and people struggling to get what they need. And having to rebuild all their material banks up or even have to get new gear if it was lost in storages. That is a huge effect that would impact players and cause some people to leave or casuals if they felt they lost a lot.
This more so being a thing if it was a often occurrence where storages were suddenly not consistent. Which would have a negative impact on the game. There is high risk but they aren't trying to make a game people feel they are constantly struggling and losing everything all the time..
That and you loko at the corruption system, you see what they are doing the nodes trying to have pvp but more kingdom vrs kingdom kind of thing. Which can be used as a way to limit what nodes you can dec and ensuring the pvp doesn't become overbearing and general people can enjoy the game that aren't as keen on pvp.
There will still be some chaotic elements because it is pvp after all but with the proper breaks it will feel more fair and not cause people to just quit from getting pk'd.