Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alliances in node wars.
Nerror
Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
@StevenSharif had this to say about alliances in node wars:
I think that is a good starting point, but I would like to see it fleshed out more.
From the attacker side, declaring a node war that automatically flags their allies as well is a ballsy move if they don't clear it with the allied mayors first. I think it should still happen upon declaration, but the allied mayors should be able to break the alliance after the declaration is made. This unflags that node, breaks the alliance immediately, and it puts a big negative dent in the inter-node relationship between those two former allies, who are now on a path towards being able to declare war on each other. So it's something to do very cautiously.
On the defender side of things, if they are the target of a node war that includes allies, their allies should also be able opt out of the war, breaking the alliance with the defending node, with all the negative consequences that entails.
If the defenders are the target of a node war that doesn't automatically include allies, and the defending mayor deems the war unwinnable alone, they should be able to push the big, red "CALL ALLIES FOR HELP" button. However, should they do that, the attacking node will also get that button activated for their side, allowing the mayor to decide if they should push it.
When this button is pushed, there are two ways to go about it.
For the sake of variety, I would prefer option 1 I think, where it's an opt-in system by the allied nodes.
Thoughts?
I believe that the position we're in now from a design perspective is that certain war scrolls and war types will induct alliances as participants of the declared war, but not all wars will, so that is predicated on the war scroll used.
I think that is a good starting point, but I would like to see it fleshed out more.
From the attacker side, declaring a node war that automatically flags their allies as well is a ballsy move if they don't clear it with the allied mayors first. I think it should still happen upon declaration, but the allied mayors should be able to break the alliance after the declaration is made. This unflags that node, breaks the alliance immediately, and it puts a big negative dent in the inter-node relationship between those two former allies, who are now on a path towards being able to declare war on each other. So it's something to do very cautiously.
On the defender side of things, if they are the target of a node war that includes allies, their allies should also be able opt out of the war, breaking the alliance with the defending node, with all the negative consequences that entails.
If the defenders are the target of a node war that doesn't automatically include allies, and the defending mayor deems the war unwinnable alone, they should be able to push the big, red "CALL ALLIES FOR HELP" button. However, should they do that, the attacking node will also get that button activated for their side, allowing the mayor to decide if they should push it.
When this button is pushed, there are two ways to go about it.
- It's opt-in for the allies. They can choose to ignore the call to arms, but while not joining the war won't break the alliance, it should still hurt the inter-node reputation by some amount.
- Allies are joined automatically, and they can then break the alliance as if they were forcibly joined from the beginning.
For the sake of variety, I would prefer option 1 I think, where it's an opt-in system by the allied nodes.
Thoughts?
5
Comments
meh I hope that no one who doesn't belong to any of the 2 warring nodes cant even enter those nodes during a war xD
Griefing how exactly?
Why? It's a war, not a siege. The citizens are at war, but the fighting isn't necessarily taking place inside the walls or anything. And even if it does for some node war types, it doesn't make the node closed off.
that's not griefing. that's fair game.
because you could buy victory T_T
How? Walk me through it please.
Body blocking quest npcs shouldnt be a thing as there should be a non aggressive way to walk past people if you aren't fight.
Just because there is a war going on doesn't mean other people can't farm the mobs area isn't dedicated to you and kicking everyone else out.
Training mobs shouldnt be a real issue, if anything that makes it easier for you if a random trains mobs so you can kill them with your large amount of people.
1. Non aggression - they are not committed to defense but have agreed not to aggress or grief. Won't get a call to arms. Can't join.
2. Regular alliance, will get a call to arms and can opt in like @Nerror describes.
3. NATO style alliance, where they are fully committed to defending each other. No call to arms, you are in automatically.
Obviously they would have to add in benefits and drawbacks to each. Not sure offhand exactly what those should be.
I think this would give nodes more options when choosing how to interact with their neighbors.
because you can pay guilds with gold or $_$ to come obliterate your enemies.
on one hand, it will be interesting to see what alliances are formed and destroyed by asking third parties for help. on the other hand, the node war outcome should be decided by the citizens of the warring nodes.
I'm pretty sure we're explicitly supposed to be able to buy victory.
if that's the intent, then so be it. everything is a trade off ;3
So, mercenary guilds won't be a thing for node wars in terms of an ingame mercenary system support, but a work-around is to pay them to become citizens for the duration of the war. I think that is fair game though.
Outside of that, I don't really see mercenaries working well. You can't declare a guild war on a node. You can declare guild war on the bigger guilds, and that might help indirectly. Again, I see no problem with that. It's part of the intended gameplay, and both nodes have that option, but it will be from personal funds, not node funds.
Yeah we definitely need more info on the intended alliance system. I like if we get different types too. Some more focused on trade, some on defense, etc.
well, the mercenaries for hire could be a thing, but remember there is a cooldown period for changing citizens. i think its 2 weeks? so one group of mercenaries might not be able to participate in all node wars, but mercenaries across the board will.
I'm okay with that since they will be citizens of the node (even if temporarily), and that will be their preferred gameplay. but what I meant was just regular citizens of other nodes interfering without an official alliance system.
I am pretty sure Steven said no to mercenaries for node wars in the Q&A section, either directly after the video, or at the end of the stream. And as for non-affiliated people trying to help a side, they'll suffer corruption unless they do a bunch of guild wars. If they kill the NPCs in the event area, that affects both sides, but I suppose technically they could have a small impact.
Without a proper ingame system for mercenaries, I think the only way outsiders can seriously affect a node war is if they actually join the node.
I prefer if they expand the alliance system more, with opt-ins and such.
- This could be a playercount balancing factor, where if node A has many more players than node B, the cost to complete the commission could be greater for allies trying to join node A than allies trying to join node B.
- This could create a tactical consideration, where a node feels a strong need to gain ground early before their enemy's allies can complete their war commission.
- This could create a snowballing effect on the size of the war,. similar to what you see in real life with wars ballooning in size as allies join.
Thoughts?
I think he said no to mercenaries as some form of in game system for hiring them. but the mercenary type of player could just become citizens of the node and then leave after the war.
i don't really care too much for it anyways xD. porbs better if they couldn't so they don't jump from node to node just getting rewards and the PVP fun without any effort.
I think this is the bingo /endthread. With the number of war types shown, it makes sense for there to be at least as many alliance types to express different inter-nodal relationships. These could create quasi-RPS-type relationships between war types and alliance types.... maybe it wouldn't make as much sense declaring economic war against a non-economic node, because there isn't as much potential benefit.