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.
The Quest for the Silmarils: The wars fought over the Silmarils, the three jewels crafted by Fëanor, drive much of the history and politics of Middle-earth in "The Silmarillion." Feuds and conflicts arise among Elves, Men, Dwarves, and even the Valar due to their coveted nature, leading to centuries of strife.
The Fall of Gondolin and Nargothrond: The tales of Gondolin and Nargothrond in "The Silmarillion" depict the tragic consequences of political betrayal and the machinations of Morgoth. These great Elven realms fall due to internal strife and external invasion, highlighting the vulnerability of even the most powerful kingdoms to treachery and war.
The War of Wrath: The climactic conflict between the forces of Morgoth and the Valar at the end of the First Age represents a pivotal moment in the political history of Middle-earth. It marks the defeat and expulsion of Morgoth from the world but also leads to significant changes, such as the reshaping of continents and the departure of the Valar from direct involvement in the affairs of mortals.
The Siege of Minas Tirith: The siege of Minas Tirith by Sauron's forces in "The Return of the King" illustrates the intricate military and political strategies employed by both sides. Gondor's defense of its capital city requires not only military prowess but also diplomatic efforts to secure aid from Rohan and other allies.
The Role of Rohan's Nobility: The internal politics of Rohan, particularly the conflict between Théoden and his advisor Gríma Wormtongue, influence the nation's response to the threat of Sauron. Théoden's eventual liberation from Wormtongue's influence enables Rohan to fulfill its crucial role in the War of the Ring.
The Corsairs of Umbar: The Corsairs of Umbar, pirate lords who serve Sauron, present a maritime threat to Gondor and its allies. Their raids and blockade of Gondor's coast complicate efforts to maintain supply lines and reinforce the besieged city of Minas Tirith.
The Political Landscape of Mordor: Although primarily depicted as Sauron's domain, Mordor has its own internal politics and power struggles. The hierarchy of Sauron's servants, including the Witch-king of Angmar and the Mouth of Sauron, reflects the complex dynamics of allegiance and ambition within the Dark Lord's realm.
The Fall of Arnor: While not directly depicted in "The Lord of the Rings," the history of Arnor, the northern kingdom of the Dúnedain, involves political intrigue and conflict. The breakup of Arnor due to internal divisions and external threats from Angmar serves as a backdrop to the events of the War of the Ring.
The Kin-strife in Gondor: The Kin-strife, a civil war in Gondor, is briefly mentioned in "The Lord of the Rings" appendices. It represents a period of internal conflict within Gondor's ruling line, which weakens the realm and leaves it vulnerable to external threats.
The Quest for Erebor: In "The Hobbit," the quest for the Lonely Mountain (Erebor) involves political elements, including the reclaiming of Thorin Oakenshield's rightful inheritance and the political maneuvering of the various parties involved, such as Thorin's company, the Elvenking, and the Men of Lake-town.
The White Council's Actions: In "The Hobbit" and referenced in "The Lord of the Rings," the White Council's decision-making regarding the Necromancer (Sauron) in Dol Guldur demonstrates the political complexities of dealing with emerging threats in Middle-earth.
The Scouring of the Shire: This event occurs in the final chapters of "The Return of the King" and highlights the political aftermath of the War of the Ring. The hobbits return home to find their peaceful Shire under the control of Saruman's ruffians, leading to a confrontation that requires both military action and political resolution.
The Role of the Rangers: The Dúnedain Rangers, descendants of the ancient kingdom of Arnor, play a covert and strategic role in guarding the borders of the Free Peoples. Their existence reflects political dynamics concerning the defense of the realms of Men in Middle-earth.
The Numenorean Legacy: Throughout Tolkien's legendarium, the legacy of Númenor and its fall shapes the political landscape of Middle-earth. The tension between the descendants of the Númenorean exiles, such as the Dúnedain and the people of Gondor, and other races, reflects historical power dynamics and cultural influences.
The Council of Elrond: This gathering in Rivendell brings together representatives from various races and realms of Middle-earth to discuss the threat posed by Sauron and the One Ring. The council highlights the diplomatic challenges of rallying different factions to unite against a common enemy.
The Alliance against Sauron: The War of the Ring involves numerous alliances and political maneuvers. Gondor, Rohan, and the Free Peoples of Middle-earth must navigate alliances with Elves, Dwarves, and other races, as well as deal with internal politics and conflicts, such as the stewardship of Gondor or the leadership of Rohan.
Gondor's Stewardship Crisis: Gondor faces a political crisis due to the absence of a rightful king and the declining authority of its stewards. Denethor's rule is marked by paranoia and despair, which complicates efforts to unify the realm against Sauron's forces.
The Ents' Decision to Go to War: The Ents' involvement in the War of the Ring reflects their complex political dynamics. Initially reluctant to involve themselves in the affairs of other races, the Ents ultimately decide to march to war against Saruman in response to the destruction of their forests.
Saruman's Betrayal: Saruman's political maneuvering illustrates the complexities of alliances and betrayals. Once a member of the White Council and ostensibly an ally against Sauron, Saruman's lust for power leads him to betray his former allies and seek to dominate Middle-earth for himself.
The Role of Isengard: Isengard, initially a stronghold of Gondor, falls under the control of Saruman, who uses its resources to build his army and wage war against Rohan. The occupation of Isengard by Saruman's forces represents a strategic and political challenge for the Free Peoples.
The Role of Minas Morgul and Dol Guldur: These strongholds of Sauron represent political and military threats to Gondor and the other Free Peoples. The presence of the Witch-king in Minas Morgul and Sauron's influence in Dol Guldur complicate efforts to confront the Dark Lord's forces.
@Mag7spy Too long of a comment to use as a reply sry lol.
So earlier, when you were saying how letting a vassal attack it's parent "simplifies" their relationship. Does this logic not apply to how 2 Metros would interact with each other? 2 Metros can trade, make alliances, have their fancy lil airship go between them, etc. I assume there's a ton of stuff that could happen if 2 Metros were to cooperate.
If what you say about a vassal having the option to attack their parent simplifies all decisions down to just siege them, how does that same logic not apply to 2 Metros who can siege one another?
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Just as I thought, at least half of those weren't in the movies, but that's beside the point.
Even in your own copypasta from ChatGPT there's 6 separate examples of INTERNAL reasons for the conflict.
And out of all of these examples the single one that supports your point is Saruman's switch to the other side. But you wanna know a funny thing? THIS WOULD STILL HAPPEN IF OUR SUGGESTION WAS IMPLEMENTED.
So instead of properly explaining your point you just asked ChatGPT to try and do it for you, but you ended up proving our point instead. Letting vassals rebel against the parent node would lead to more political nuance during the entire siege period (pre-declaration, during declaration and post-siege). Majority of the examples in that post mention some form of "these dudes had some internal problems, which were then used by external forces".
In other words, this comment simply tells me that you've been discussing all of this from a point of blind belief in Intrepid and a lack of understanding what "complex politics" mean and comprise. I kinda guessed that several pages ago, but I really hoped you'd at least give your own proper opinion, whichever form it might've taken. But you ultimately resorted to avoiding proper conversation.
@Mag7spy Too long of a comment to use as a reply sry lol.
So earlier, when you were saying how letting a vassal attack it's parent "simplifies" their relationship. Does this logic not apply to how 2 Metros would interact with each other? 2 Metros can trade, make alliances, have their fancy lil airship go between them, etc. I assume there's a ton of stuff that could happen if 2 Metros were to cooperate.
If what you say about a vassal having the option to attack their parent simplifies all decisions down to just siege them, how does that same logic not apply to 2 Metros who can siege one another?
My comment is too long to reply to lol? Kind of hard to make short comments when we are talking about complex systems.
You are mixing up internal conflicts and external conflicts now with my previous post mentioning on reasons for more limited internal conflicts and controls on them to reduce down the amount of chaotic pvp.
Lets say it is straight forward to dec another metro though, by that element it would make it feel a lot more simple and a lot less strategy. But i doubt that will be true and it will be easy and straight forward to just walk to a metro dec and destroy it. The vassals nodes they have will most likely be in the way of making it a easy fight with support elements that it could provide the node in multiple avenues including defenses or money for them. And who says you won't have to do some other siege to get currencies mats, or whatever you will need to make a higher level siege scroll.
Plenty of reasons why you won't just be able to attack the metro and not have to worry about anything else if they want it to be like that. Which can add a lot of complexity tot he wars and strategy allowing large and small groups to feel useful for such important pvp events.
Looking into node wars alone on the wiki it seems I'm even right about this based on the vibe i felt the game was going for
Not only can you not siege but you can't do node war either. Clearly a intention to reduce as much inner pvp and make things again more focus on kingdom vrs kingdom. And not attempt to kill off their game from people that want to heavily PvP everything they see. In line with what they have said since the beginning want more PvP that is "meaningful".
Just as I thought, at least half of those weren't in the movies, but that's beside the point.
Even in your own copypasta from ChatGPT there's 6 separate examples of INTERNAL reasons for the conflict.
And out of all of these examples the single one that supports your point is Saruman's switch to the other side. But you wanna know a funny thing? THIS WOULD STILL HAPPEN IF OUR SUGGESTION WAS IMPLEMENTED.
So instead of properly explaining your point you just asked ChatGPT to try and do it for you, but you ended up proving our point instead. Letting vassals rebel against the parent node would lead to more political nuance during the entire siege period (pre-declaration, during declaration and post-siege). Majority of the examples in that post mention some form of "these dudes had some internal problems, which were then used by external forces".
In other words, this comment simply tells me that you've been discussing all of this from a point of blind belief in Intrepid and a lack of understanding what "complex politics" mean and comprise. I kinda guessed that several pages ago, but I really hoped you'd at least give your own proper opinion, whichever form it might've taken. But you ultimately resorted to avoiding proper conversation.
Like i said im not here to debate lotr based on a meme picture and start explaining lotr. That is a waste of time too much for even me.
You want to think what you want or want what you want so you are trying to look at things in any way that makes you feel right.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter how much you try its not complex to dec your own node you are a vassal to. Now to leave the node and cause damage to it and take as many people, nodes, guilds as possible with people that are stubborn and don't want to leave cause its their home. Is infinitely more difficult and complex than the dude bro mentality just go to war and we win and become the new metro.
You can try to argue it as much as you want but its literally a fact it requires all the same things to convincing the node + more do to having to move to another node to attack. Not that simply attacking the node would be a easy task to begin with and there could be many other obstacles you have to get though to even attack the metro.
Lets say it is straight forward to dec another metro though, by that element it would make it feel a lot more simple and a lot less strategy. But i doubt that will be true and it will be easy and straight forward to just walk to a metro dec and destroy it.
Plenty of reasons why you won't just be able to attack the metro and not have to worry about anything else
This is what I've been saying about the costs and effort associated with sieging a Metro. I'm not asking for it to be easy, I want it to be expensive and a difficult task. If a Parent did get sieged down by it's vassals I'd like it to have been because of a larger effort between the citizens of multiple vassals coming together to cooperate and actually achieve that monumental task. And even inviting outsiders and mercs like you've been suggesting already if needed.
You are mixing up internal conflicts and external conflicts now with my previous post mentioning on reasons for more limited internal conflicts and controls on them to reduce down the amount of chaotic pvp.
In line with what they have said since the beginning want more PvP that is "meaningful".
A vassal knocking down it's parent node isn't 'meaningless'. Also just because a conflict is internal does not make it 'chaotic'... an outside invader could easily make your region fall into chaos with a string of sieges. Easier than you'd be able to as a vassal with much less access to numbers and mats than a foreign Metro would have available to them.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
+ more do to having to move to another node to attack.
This will be my final question to you. Where does it say that you need to move nodes to siege your ex-parent node?
Where does it say you can do it while not being part of a node, where does it say what will the draw backs be for refusing to be in a node in a game that wants players to be part of nodes.
It is not known to us is your answer like many things. We can only speculate based on the pattern and intent they have been showing with some of designs with the game.
Lets say it is straight forward to dec another metro though, by that element it would make it feel a lot more simple and a lot less strategy. But i doubt that will be true and it will be easy and straight forward to just walk to a metro dec and destroy it.
Plenty of reasons why you won't just be able to attack the metro and not have to worry about anything else
This is what I've been saying about the costs and effort associated with sieging a Metro. I'm not asking for it to be easy, I want it to be expensive and a difficult task. If a Parent did get sieged down by it's vassals I'd like it to have been because of a larger effort between the citizens of multiple vassals coming together to cooperate and actually achieve that monumental task. And even inviting outsiders and mercs like you've been suggesting already if needed.
You are mixing up internal conflicts and external conflicts now with my previous post mentioning on reasons for more limited internal conflicts and controls on them to reduce down the amount of chaotic pvp.
In line with what they have said since the beginning want more PvP that is "meaningful".
A vassal knocking down it's parent node isn't 'meaningless'. Also just because a conflict is internal does not make it 'chaotic'... an outside invader could easily make your region fall into chaos with a string of sieges. Easier than you'd be able to as a vassal with much less access to numbers and mats than a foreign Metro would have available to them.
At this point you have already been shown some facts, your intent and desires for a game do not match what IS is making. There are mmorpgs out there where you can just attack whoever Albion, Mortal online 2, throne and liberty (when that comes out with the current issues it is having with pvp)
I support and am looking forward what IS is doing and feel its the right call to ensure we have pvp and people aren't trying to destroy all nodes and ruing all the effort that goes into the systems. I will PvP by the rule sets placed in the game with plenty of nodes and metros to attack.
You can judge if the game is worth playing yourself, again i don't' agree with your points they aren't strong its just warmongering.
Where does it say you can do it while not being part of a node, where does it say what will the draw backs be for refusing to be in a node in a game that wants players to be part of nodes.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_sieges During the declaration period, individuals or guilds can register to attack or defend providing they meet the criteria.[18][19]
The player who originally declared the siege cannot exclude anyone from joining the attack.[18]
"Anyone" means anyone, which includes non-citizens.
As for cons of being a non-citizen, they ultimately don't matter because you'd only be that for a week max (and that's if you renounce citizenship before the declaration).
I'm sure people can live a week just fine w/o these
In other words, all that people need to do in your preferred design is to simply push the button "I no longer want to be a citizen". They'll keep their housing (which allows them to reacquire their citizenship asap after the siege), they'll keep their items (unless the thing we discussed is real, but there hasn't been a single indication of that), they'll keep farming in their preferred node so the XP will keep going to it (and, as a result, to the parent as well).
So nothing truly changes and there's no real complexity here. Just a minor pointless inconvenience. Of course you can hope and cope that Intrepid will unveil (or add) the features that you want, but then why wouldn't we do the same for our preferred changes
@Mag7spy Just weird to be called a warmonger by someone who was telling me I lack the PvP mindset the other day But yeah like I said, I don't feel like it'd go against their overall vision, or cause as much chaos and havoc as you and others seem to think it will. I still also very much look forward to playing Ashes, even without this.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Where does it say you can do it while not being part of a node, where does it say what will the draw backs be for refusing to be in a node in a game that wants players to be part of nodes.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_sieges During the declaration period, individuals or guilds can register to attack or defend providing they meet the criteria.[18][19]
The player who originally declared the siege cannot exclude anyone from joining the attack.[18]
"Anyone" means anyone, which includes non-citizens.
As for cons of being a non-citizen, they ultimately don't matter because you'd only be that for a week max (and that's if you renounce citizenship before the declaration).
I'm sure people can live a week just fine w/o these
In other words, all that people need to do in your preferred design is to simply push the button "I no longer want to be a citizen". They'll keep their housing (which allows them to reacquire their citizenship asap after the siege), they'll keep their items (unless the thing we discussed is real, but there hasn't been a single indication of that), they'll keep farming in their preferred node so the XP will keep going to it (and, as a result, to the parent as well).
So nothing truly changes and there's no real complexity here. Just a minor pointless inconvenience. Of course you can hope and cope that Intrepid will unveil (or add) the features that you want, but then why wouldn't we do the same for our preferred changes
Strange argument to make saying its cope with a game in active development where we don't know everything not adding new features? Like the node changes for example like those were not new or something.
Guess we will see what they will be doing all we have is the information they give us and I'm looking forward to finding out more
@Mag7spy Just weird to be called a warmonger by someone who was telling me I lack the PvP mindset the other day But yeah like I said, I don't feel like it'd go against their overall vision, or cause as much chaos and havoc as you and others seem to think it will. I still also very much look forward to playing Ashes, even without this.
You don't understand what I'm saying, its funny you think you have a pvp mindset based on that comment. Casuals be casuals i guess.
Strange argument to make saying its cope with a game in active development where we don't know everything not adding new features? Like the node changes for example like those were not new or something.
And yet you were just done telling Tengu that the game might not be for them
Strange argument to make saying its cope with a game in active development where we don't know everything not adding new features? Like the node changes for example like those were not new or something.
And yet you were just done telling Tengu that the game might not be for them
Guess we will see what they will be doing all we have is the information they give us and I'm looking forward to finding out more
Same here. I'm just giving them feedback on the currently presented information. If/when that info changes - I'll give more feedback.
If someone wants a game where they can free pvp everyone and don't know a lot about aoc and that is what they are interested in. You are right it might not be for them. They also thought they could star attacking any other node to.
Well their current showing leads to what I was talking about so its all goood. The more rules they have in place the more pvp we will get instead of pvp all ending up removed like T&L
The more rules they have in place the more pvp we will get
I'm confused, first you tell me there are rules in place to prevent 'chaotic pvp' crashing everyone's nodes and scaring away the casuals.
But now you're saying more rules actually means we get more pvp?
I feel like i need to explain everything i cant be the only one that knows these things....
PvP without rules = people can get scared off higher chance for casuals. The more pvp the more it effects them since its "unwanted" Which leads to games toning down pvp to remove it all together.
T&L did this, BDO has removed Guild war decs all together (other guidls won't dec and can grief you out of a spot)
Without people playing the game the game can't be supported. Restrictions are created because open pvp has a big effect. Old rules clearly were not enough so restrictions of tightened in games over time as they try to find a good spot that allows for pvp.
Ashes of creation seems to be creating multiple layers of pvp, with rules in place to allow to peopel to war with each other in place of the rules and such. But reduce elements of unwanted pvp from happening as much while still allowing people to fight. So you have 5 different kingdoms around and multiple nodes so wars become layered so people not related tot he war won't be affected by it. Unless they so choose.
Else the other reality is pvp is too intrusive and the only chance the game has to be successful is to pull back the pvp or take other measures.
With less people playing the game and less people on the server there is less pvp around for people.
Just as I thought, at least half of those weren't in the movies, but that's beside the point.
Even in your own copypasta from ChatGPT there's 6 separate examples of INTERNAL reasons for the conflict.
LotR is actually a fairly apt example of what Intrepid seem to want for Ashes politics.
Your statement that 6 of the examples are due to internal struggle and therefore that supports your position here doesn't quite work. Those examples would be more akin to different patron guilds within a nodes leadership having conflict with each other.
Now, if Bree were ever sieged by Hobbits, then I'd agree that this supports your point.
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 reason;
They won.
The vassal didn't win, that loss removes the right to siege that node without leaving their own node first.
The vassal didn't win, that loss removes the right to siege that node without leaving their own node first.
They "won" nothing, they just happened to get to a higher level first. They didn't then use that new found level to conquer and subjugate my node, they didn't work out some deal with my node's government... they just went +1 and now for some reason my node's a vassal.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
You make a guild with your friends. You level up your guildhall and get members.
But oh no! Your rival guild outleveled you! Your guild is now a slave to them. Your guild keeps getting taxed and everything you do benefits the other people.
Oh well, you can just leave guild
It's very clear the current system is being defended because it's the current system. If things were the other way, none of you would be asking for IS to revoke vassals from joining sieges on their masters.
Leveling a node - especially at the start of any given server - is a race.
That race is the competition to see who is the parent and who is the vassal.
And you don't think the vassal citizens should have a say in that relationship?
You'll say their options are to accept it or drop citizenship. After dropping citizenship they'll either find a new home, or somehow mount some sort of effort to siege down the parent node that just vassalized them as homeless outsiders.
I'm not disagreeing that those are reasonable options to accept, and to most players those will be the options they decide between.
All I ask is that to the groups of vassal citizen who want the chance to refuse that vassalization have the chance. They'll likely fail sure. There will be some destruction and loss, as is the case with any node siege that is successful. But even in defeat it would make it very clear who actually won. They can be sore losers all they want, but they'd still actually be losers, they would have actually lost in some contest between those two nodes.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
You make a guild with your friends. You level up your guildhall and get members.
But oh no! Your rival guild outleveled you! Your guild is now a slave to them. Your guild keeps getting taxed and everything you do benefits the other people.
Oh well, you can just leave guild
It's very clear the current system is being defended because it's the current system. If things were the other way, none of you would be asking for IS to revoke vassals from joining sieges on their masters.
To add to this thought expirement - now imagine that this system is nodes rather than guilds, you still have your guild that you created with your friends and are in no danger of losing that, and you knew the deal with all of the above going in to leveling this node.
That last point is the most important. You know what the deal is with a node. You know it's a race, you know what happens if you lose.
You know it's a race, you know what happens if you lose.
You do realize this is only at server start right? Like 1% of a server's life, so much you want decided and written in stone based on the first 1% of a server's life. I'm concerned with the rest of it, when we're all endgame, when we've all come to the same end of the perpetual grind for slightly better gear, what else is there to do?
After the Metros are up it is no longer a race. Your node will hit it's maximum exp, and send anything it has above atrophy level to it's Parent Node, as will your node's vassals, and your Parent Node. It stops being a race for exp and starts being who sieges who.
I don't understand why you care so much about this race that will only exist in the first couple months of a server being up. Especially when the entire rest of that server's life will be based on sieges.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
As we have already demonstrated in this thread, a parent node wants a healthy population in it's vassals.
Which it can still very well do with my suggestion. The Parent Node government could just as easily work out some agreement with the Vassal Node that is favorable for both parties, and preferable to some civil war.
And in doing so, trigger the siege immunity for the node, preventing a potential real challenge being mounted.
I think you and I both know this could be abused even by people who live in the Parent Node itself. Probably a discussion better had in a different thread lol.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
To add to this thought expirement - now imagine that this system is nodes rather than guilds, you still have your guild that you created with your friends and are in no danger of losing that, and you knew the deal with all of the above going in to leveling this node.
That last point is the most important. You know what the deal is with a node. You know it's a race, you know what happens if you lose.
The trick is - don't lose.
By dodging the comparison you are already acknowledging how silly the system is. Also, nodes are supposed to be open soft communities that get people involved into the game. Nodes and guilds both share the community aspect. If the solution to a problem facing the community is to leave the community, we are in some rough waters here.
Also, it will absolutely not be a race past the first few months of the game, as stated earlier. After half a year, nobody is winning or losing anything, just the game deciding things randomly who belongs in which vassal chain. You're not playing kingdoms, you are playing random matchmaking.
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.
They're not making the decision on behalf of the parent node. They're making the decision for their own node. They want to be the parent.
The most likely scenario that I can see for a parent-vassal relationship is that both nodes are trying their best to be the parent, and one of them beats the other there. It's not likely to be a pre-determined thing, cos why would you want your own node to be the vassal?
There are plenty of examples from history of civil wars where the vassal-type group has risen up to attack the parent-type group. Some of them even succeeded. I don't see why Ashes vassals shouldn't have the same choice. It's a game of choices, after all.
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.
They're not making the decision on behalf of the parent node. They're making the decision for their own node. They want to be the parent.
The most likely scenario that I can see for a parent-vassal relationship is that both nodes are trying their best to be the parent, and one of them beats the other there. It's not likely to be a pre-determined thing, cos why would you want your own node to be the vassal?
There are plenty of examples from history of civil wars where the vassal-type group has risen up to attack the parent-type group. Some of them even succeeded. I don't see why Ashes vassals shouldn't have the same choice. It's a game of choices, after all.
Because that is not what the design is intended for, pvp conflict is mainly meant for other kingdoms not in fighting. This is not real life nor America this i a game they are trying to design in a certain way...
I don't know what people are talking about the parent node making decisions for you. The mayor is what makes the decisions of your own node a parent has no control over your node and what the mayor does with it....
The most you get as a vassal is benefits in whatever buff its going to be.
The game is again clearly going based off different kingdoms fighting against each other for the main element of pvp. While they can decide on fights, your own node can still dec as well.
People are trying to over convolute this and reaching to say anything to muddy the whole point of it as much as possible to create a issue where there really is none.
Comments
The Quest for the Silmarils: The wars fought over the Silmarils, the three jewels crafted by Fëanor, drive much of the history and politics of Middle-earth in "The Silmarillion." Feuds and conflicts arise among Elves, Men, Dwarves, and even the Valar due to their coveted nature, leading to centuries of strife.
The Fall of Gondolin and Nargothrond: The tales of Gondolin and Nargothrond in "The Silmarillion" depict the tragic consequences of political betrayal and the machinations of Morgoth. These great Elven realms fall due to internal strife and external invasion, highlighting the vulnerability of even the most powerful kingdoms to treachery and war.
The War of Wrath: The climactic conflict between the forces of Morgoth and the Valar at the end of the First Age represents a pivotal moment in the political history of Middle-earth. It marks the defeat and expulsion of Morgoth from the world but also leads to significant changes, such as the reshaping of continents and the departure of the Valar from direct involvement in the affairs of mortals.
The Siege of Minas Tirith: The siege of Minas Tirith by Sauron's forces in "The Return of the King" illustrates the intricate military and political strategies employed by both sides. Gondor's defense of its capital city requires not only military prowess but also diplomatic efforts to secure aid from Rohan and other allies.
The Role of Rohan's Nobility: The internal politics of Rohan, particularly the conflict between Théoden and his advisor Gríma Wormtongue, influence the nation's response to the threat of Sauron. Théoden's eventual liberation from Wormtongue's influence enables Rohan to fulfill its crucial role in the War of the Ring.
The Corsairs of Umbar: The Corsairs of Umbar, pirate lords who serve Sauron, present a maritime threat to Gondor and its allies. Their raids and blockade of Gondor's coast complicate efforts to maintain supply lines and reinforce the besieged city of Minas Tirith.
The Political Landscape of Mordor: Although primarily depicted as Sauron's domain, Mordor has its own internal politics and power struggles. The hierarchy of Sauron's servants, including the Witch-king of Angmar and the Mouth of Sauron, reflects the complex dynamics of allegiance and ambition within the Dark Lord's realm.
The Fall of Arnor: While not directly depicted in "The Lord of the Rings," the history of Arnor, the northern kingdom of the Dúnedain, involves political intrigue and conflict. The breakup of Arnor due to internal divisions and external threats from Angmar serves as a backdrop to the events of the War of the Ring.
The Kin-strife in Gondor: The Kin-strife, a civil war in Gondor, is briefly mentioned in "The Lord of the Rings" appendices. It represents a period of internal conflict within Gondor's ruling line, which weakens the realm and leaves it vulnerable to external threats.
The Quest for Erebor: In "The Hobbit," the quest for the Lonely Mountain (Erebor) involves political elements, including the reclaiming of Thorin Oakenshield's rightful inheritance and the political maneuvering of the various parties involved, such as Thorin's company, the Elvenking, and the Men of Lake-town.
The White Council's Actions: In "The Hobbit" and referenced in "The Lord of the Rings," the White Council's decision-making regarding the Necromancer (Sauron) in Dol Guldur demonstrates the political complexities of dealing with emerging threats in Middle-earth.
The Scouring of the Shire: This event occurs in the final chapters of "The Return of the King" and highlights the political aftermath of the War of the Ring. The hobbits return home to find their peaceful Shire under the control of Saruman's ruffians, leading to a confrontation that requires both military action and political resolution.
The Role of the Rangers: The Dúnedain Rangers, descendants of the ancient kingdom of Arnor, play a covert and strategic role in guarding the borders of the Free Peoples. Their existence reflects political dynamics concerning the defense of the realms of Men in Middle-earth.
The Numenorean Legacy: Throughout Tolkien's legendarium, the legacy of Númenor and its fall shapes the political landscape of Middle-earth. The tension between the descendants of the Númenorean exiles, such as the Dúnedain and the people of Gondor, and other races, reflects historical power dynamics and cultural influences.
The Council of Elrond: This gathering in Rivendell brings together representatives from various races and realms of Middle-earth to discuss the threat posed by Sauron and the One Ring. The council highlights the diplomatic challenges of rallying different factions to unite against a common enemy.
The Alliance against Sauron: The War of the Ring involves numerous alliances and political maneuvers. Gondor, Rohan, and the Free Peoples of Middle-earth must navigate alliances with Elves, Dwarves, and other races, as well as deal with internal politics and conflicts, such as the stewardship of Gondor or the leadership of Rohan.
Gondor's Stewardship Crisis: Gondor faces a political crisis due to the absence of a rightful king and the declining authority of its stewards. Denethor's rule is marked by paranoia and despair, which complicates efforts to unify the realm against Sauron's forces.
The Ents' Decision to Go to War: The Ents' involvement in the War of the Ring reflects their complex political dynamics. Initially reluctant to involve themselves in the affairs of other races, the Ents ultimately decide to march to war against Saruman in response to the destruction of their forests.
Saruman's Betrayal: Saruman's political maneuvering illustrates the complexities of alliances and betrayals. Once a member of the White Council and ostensibly an ally against Sauron, Saruman's lust for power leads him to betray his former allies and seek to dominate Middle-earth for himself.
The Role of Isengard: Isengard, initially a stronghold of Gondor, falls under the control of Saruman, who uses its resources to build his army and wage war against Rohan. The occupation of Isengard by Saruman's forces represents a strategic and political challenge for the Free Peoples.
The Role of Minas Morgul and Dol Guldur: These strongholds of Sauron represent political and military threats to Gondor and the other Free Peoples. The presence of the Witch-king in Minas Morgul and Sauron's influence in Dol Guldur complicate efforts to confront the Dark Lord's forces.
So earlier, when you were saying how letting a vassal attack it's parent "simplifies" their relationship. Does this logic not apply to how 2 Metros would interact with each other? 2 Metros can trade, make alliances, have their fancy lil airship go between them, etc. I assume there's a ton of stuff that could happen if 2 Metros were to cooperate.
If what you say about a vassal having the option to attack their parent simplifies all decisions down to just siege them, how does that same logic not apply to 2 Metros who can siege one another?
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Even in your own copypasta from ChatGPT there's 6 separate examples of INTERNAL reasons for the conflict.
And out of all of these examples the single one that supports your point is Saruman's switch to the other side. But you wanna know a funny thing? THIS WOULD STILL HAPPEN IF OUR SUGGESTION WAS IMPLEMENTED.
So instead of properly explaining your point you just asked ChatGPT to try and do it for you, but you ended up proving our point instead. Letting vassals rebel against the parent node would lead to more political nuance during the entire siege period (pre-declaration, during declaration and post-siege). Majority of the examples in that post mention some form of "these dudes had some internal problems, which were then used by external forces".
In other words, this comment simply tells me that you've been discussing all of this from a point of blind belief in Intrepid and a lack of understanding what "complex politics" mean and comprise. I kinda guessed that several pages ago, but I really hoped you'd at least give your own proper opinion, whichever form it might've taken. But you ultimately resorted to avoiding proper conversation.
My comment is too long to reply to lol? Kind of hard to make short comments when we are talking about complex systems.
You are mixing up internal conflicts and external conflicts now with my previous post mentioning on reasons for more limited internal conflicts and controls on them to reduce down the amount of chaotic pvp.
Lets say it is straight forward to dec another metro though, by that element it would make it feel a lot more simple and a lot less strategy. But i doubt that will be true and it will be easy and straight forward to just walk to a metro dec and destroy it. The vassals nodes they have will most likely be in the way of making it a easy fight with support elements that it could provide the node in multiple avenues including defenses or money for them. And who says you won't have to do some other siege to get currencies mats, or whatever you will need to make a higher level siege scroll.
Plenty of reasons why you won't just be able to attack the metro and not have to worry about anything else if they want it to be like that. Which can add a lot of complexity tot he wars and strategy allowing large and small groups to feel useful for such important pvp events.
Looking into node wars alone on the wiki it seems I'm even right about this based on the vibe i felt the game was going for
Not only can you not siege but you can't do node war either. Clearly a intention to reduce as much inner pvp and make things again more focus on kingdom vrs kingdom. And not attempt to kill off their game from people that want to heavily PvP everything they see. In line with what they have said since the beginning want more PvP that is "meaningful".
Like i said im not here to debate lotr based on a meme picture and start explaining lotr. That is a waste of time too much for even me.
You want to think what you want or want what you want so you are trying to look at things in any way that makes you feel right.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter how much you try its not complex to dec your own node you are a vassal to. Now to leave the node and cause damage to it and take as many people, nodes, guilds as possible with people that are stubborn and don't want to leave cause its their home. Is infinitely more difficult and complex than the dude bro mentality just go to war and we win and become the new metro.
You can try to argue it as much as you want but its literally a fact it requires all the same things to convincing the node + more do to having to move to another node to attack. Not that simply attacking the node would be a easy task to begin with and there could be many other obstacles you have to get though to even attack the metro.
This is what I've been saying about the costs and effort associated with sieging a Metro. I'm not asking for it to be easy, I want it to be expensive and a difficult task. If a Parent did get sieged down by it's vassals I'd like it to have been because of a larger effort between the citizens of multiple vassals coming together to cooperate and actually achieve that monumental task. And even inviting outsiders and mercs like you've been suggesting already if needed.
A vassal knocking down it's parent node isn't 'meaningless'. Also just because a conflict is internal does not make it 'chaotic'... an outside invader could easily make your region fall into chaos with a string of sieges. Easier than you'd be able to as a vassal with much less access to numbers and mats than a foreign Metro would have available to them.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Where does it say you can do it while not being part of a node, where does it say what will the draw backs be for refusing to be in a node in a game that wants players to be part of nodes.
It is not known to us is your answer like many things. We can only speculate based on the pattern and intent they have been showing with some of designs with the game.
At this point you have already been shown some facts, your intent and desires for a game do not match what IS is making. There are mmorpgs out there where you can just attack whoever Albion, Mortal online 2, throne and liberty (when that comes out with the current issues it is having with pvp)
I support and am looking forward what IS is doing and feel its the right call to ensure we have pvp and people aren't trying to destroy all nodes and ruing all the effort that goes into the systems. I will PvP by the rule sets placed in the game with plenty of nodes and metros to attack.
You can judge if the game is worth playing yourself, again i don't' agree with your points they aren't strong its just warmongering.
During the declaration period, individuals or guilds can register to attack or defend providing they meet the criteria.[18][19]
The player who originally declared the siege cannot exclude anyone from joining the attack.[18]
"Anyone" means anyone, which includes non-citizens.
As for cons of being a non-citizen, they ultimately don't matter because you'd only be that for a week max (and that's if you renounce citizenship before the declaration).
I'm sure people can live a week just fine w/o these
In other words, all that people need to do in your preferred design is to simply push the button "I no longer want to be a citizen". They'll keep their housing (which allows them to reacquire their citizenship asap after the siege), they'll keep their items (unless the thing we discussed is real, but there hasn't been a single indication of that), they'll keep farming in their preferred node so the XP will keep going to it (and, as a result, to the parent as well).
So nothing truly changes and there's no real complexity here. Just a minor pointless inconvenience. Of course you can hope and cope that Intrepid will unveil (or add) the features that you want, but then why wouldn't we do the same for our preferred changes
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
Strange argument to make saying its cope with a game in active development where we don't know everything not adding new features? Like the node changes for example like those were not new or something.
Guess we will see what they will be doing all we have is the information they give us and I'm looking forward to finding out more
You don't understand what I'm saying, its funny you think you have a pvp mindset based on that comment. Casuals be casuals i guess.
Same here. I'm just giving them feedback on the currently presented information. If/when that info changes - I'll give more feedback.
If someone wants a game where they can free pvp everyone and don't know a lot about aoc and that is what they are interested in. You are right it might not be for them. They also thought they could star attacking any other node to.
Well their current showing leads to what I was talking about so its all goood. The more rules they have in place the more pvp we will get instead of pvp all ending up removed like T&L
But now you're saying more rules actually means we get more pvp?
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
I feel like i need to explain everything i cant be the only one that knows these things....
PvP without rules = people can get scared off higher chance for casuals. The more pvp the more it effects them since its "unwanted" Which leads to games toning down pvp to remove it all together.
T&L did this, BDO has removed Guild war decs all together (other guidls won't dec and can grief you out of a spot)
Without people playing the game the game can't be supported. Restrictions are created because open pvp has a big effect. Old rules clearly were not enough so restrictions of tightened in games over time as they try to find a good spot that allows for pvp.
Ashes of creation seems to be creating multiple layers of pvp, with rules in place to allow to peopel to war with each other in place of the rules and such. But reduce elements of unwanted pvp from happening as much while still allowing people to fight. So you have 5 different kingdoms around and multiple nodes so wars become layered so people not related tot he war won't be affected by it. Unless they so choose.
Else the other reality is pvp is too intrusive and the only chance the game has to be successful is to pull back the pvp or take other measures.
With less people playing the game and less people on the server there is less pvp around for people.
Not explaining any more of that.
Your statement that 6 of the examples are due to internal struggle and therefore that supports your position here doesn't quite work. Those examples would be more akin to different patron guilds within a nodes leadership having conflict with each other.
Now, if Bree were ever sieged by Hobbits, then I'd agree that this supports your point.
They won.
The vassal didn't win, that loss removes the right to siege that node without leaving their own node first.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
No, they won.
Leveling a node - especially at the start of any given server - is a race.
That race is the competition to see who is the parent and who is the vassal.
You make a guild with your friends. You level up your guildhall and get members.
But oh no! Your rival guild outleveled you! Your guild is now a slave to them. Your guild keeps getting taxed and everything you do benefits the other people.
Oh well, you can just leave guild
It's very clear the current system is being defended because it's the current system. If things were the other way, none of you would be asking for IS to revoke vassals from joining sieges on their masters.
You'll say their options are to accept it or drop citizenship. After dropping citizenship they'll either find a new home, or somehow mount some sort of effort to siege down the parent node that just vassalized them as homeless outsiders.
I'm not disagreeing that those are reasonable options to accept, and to most players those will be the options they decide between.
All I ask is that to the groups of vassal citizen who want the chance to refuse that vassalization have the chance. They'll likely fail sure. There will be some destruction and loss, as is the case with any node siege that is successful. But even in defeat it would make it very clear who actually won. They can be sore losers all they want, but they'd still actually be losers, they would have actually lost in some contest between those two nodes.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
That last point is the most important. You know what the deal is with a node. You know it's a race, you know what happens if you lose.
The trick is - don't lose.
As we have already demonstrated in this thread, a parent node wants a healthy population in it's vassals.
And in doing so, trigger the siege immunity for the node, preventing a potential real challenge being mounted.
After the Metros are up it is no longer a race. Your node will hit it's maximum exp, and send anything it has above atrophy level to it's Parent Node, as will your node's vassals, and your Parent Node. It stops being a race for exp and starts being who sieges who.
I don't understand why you care so much about this race that will only exist in the first couple months of a server being up. Especially when the entire rest of that server's life will be based on sieges.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
I'll tend to the flame, you can worship the ashes.
By dodging the comparison you are already acknowledging how silly the system is. Also, nodes are supposed to be open soft communities that get people involved into the game. Nodes and guilds both share the community aspect. If the solution to a problem facing the community is to leave the community, we are in some rough waters here.
Also, it will absolutely not be a race past the first few months of the game, as stated earlier. After half a year, nobody is winning or losing anything, just the game deciding things randomly who belongs in which vassal chain. You're not playing kingdoms, you are playing random matchmaking.
They're not making the decision on behalf of the parent node. They're making the decision for their own node. They want to be the parent.
The most likely scenario that I can see for a parent-vassal relationship is that both nodes are trying their best to be the parent, and one of them beats the other there. It's not likely to be a pre-determined thing, cos why would you want your own node to be the vassal?
There are plenty of examples from history of civil wars where the vassal-type group has risen up to attack the parent-type group. Some of them even succeeded. I don't see why Ashes vassals shouldn't have the same choice. It's a game of choices, after all.
Because that is not what the design is intended for, pvp conflict is mainly meant for other kingdoms not in fighting. This is not real life nor America this i a game they are trying to design in a certain way...
I don't know what people are talking about the parent node making decisions for you. The mayor is what makes the decisions of your own node a parent has no control over your node and what the mayor does with it....
The most you get as a vassal is benefits in whatever buff its going to be.
The game is again clearly going based off different kingdoms fighting against each other for the main element of pvp. While they can decide on fights, your own node can still dec as well.
People are trying to over convolute this and reaching to say anything to muddy the whole point of it as much as possible to create a issue where there really is none.