Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Node Siege losses: De-ranking vs. Destruction & Related Questions
Mic
Member, Alpha Two
Happy to be here. tl;dr at the bottom.
As we know, Node Sieges are an important part of the server and regional gameplay loops, allowing for changes in the landscape of the world, most notably, changes in the available content in the world. Current design statements around Node Sieges state that they enable players to destroy Nodes at or above stage 3 (Village). Additionally, all vassal nodes of the sieged regent node are destroyed.
It is worth noting that nodes become vassals not by their choice, but by the higher ranking node's ZOI algorithm. (This is a related question: that it is precisely these enslaved vassal nodes that would most likely want to siege the higher regent node, but they would be destroyed in the process, a significant conflict of interest).
To the point at hand, the following scenario would be possible: a stage 6 Metropolis is sieged and loses. This stage 6 metropolis, as well as its two stage 5 cities, two stage 4 towns, four stage 3 villages, four stage 2 encampments, and four stage 1 expeditions also get destroyed.
This means that 17 nodes are fully destroyed. Potentially a thousand or more players would experience full loss of their investment.
The most intriguing aspect of this reality would be how earthshattering of a change it really would cause. An entire stage 6 ZOI is completed razed. Surrounding ZOIs push in, causing a totally different setup of node stages.
The most devastating aspect of this reality would be how many people will quit the game if this happens. This reality has been born out over every single territory control MMO.
I believe that MMOs with significant guild level loss should follow this simple reminder:
The more investment that went into creating something, the more painful its loss is. The more painful the loss is, the more likely players quit. As a corollary, the more significant the investment, the more imperative it is that the loss is not complete loss; recovery should feel possible.
I want to propose that losing a Node Siege should result in the sieged regent node to de-rank by 2 node stages, and its vassals de-ranking by 1 node stage, instead of experiencing full destruction.
In the above scenario, that would mean the following:
In many ways, this will be a similar shake-up to the server and that region, especially. The ZOI would shift significantly and a new race to stage 5 and stage 6 would begin.
A different scenario: a stage 4 node is sieged and loses.
This approach, where the sieged regent node loses 2 stages causes a similar reset of the world make-up, but not as severe. Further, it quickly energizes vassal nodes to engage even more because they have a legitimate opportunity to become the more influential node. This contrasts with the current design structure, with full destruction.
With this approach, it would be useful to allow vassal nodes to siege their regents, if they so choose. In this case, it could be adjusted so that the sieging vassal node and its vassals do not experience the stage loss, but the regent and all of its other vassals do (AKA a civil war).
Related questions:
*What does the vassal shuffling look like after a node siege? That is, how do vassal structures shift after a regent node is destroyed? This question is relevant under our current understanding or this proposed design.
*What are the ramifications of the current design with respect to node stage-gating? We know that vassal nodes must remain at a lower advancement stage than the regent node.
*How does the ZOI algorithm have the potential to change after a siege loss? It seems like an end-stage server with its 5 tier 6 nodes would not really be able to redraw ZOIs. The destroyed regent tier 6 node and all its vassals would still be a "ghost" ZOI. This is a mathematical reality that is not well-addressed. This proposed system would successfully navigate this reality. Note: Two simultaneously destroyed stage 6 nodes with bordering ZOIs could free up the world to be redrawn.
Anyway, I could go on, but I hope this sparks a useful conversation.
tl;dr the current design structure involves incredibly significant loss and resets. I believe the excitement of the full reset of the ZOI is overshadowed by the proportion of players who would quit after the significant loss of stage 6 or 5 to 0. I propose that a de-ranking hybrid destruction/reset is a better design for player retention.
As we know, Node Sieges are an important part of the server and regional gameplay loops, allowing for changes in the landscape of the world, most notably, changes in the available content in the world. Current design statements around Node Sieges state that they enable players to destroy Nodes at or above stage 3 (Village). Additionally, all vassal nodes of the sieged regent node are destroyed.
It is worth noting that nodes become vassals not by their choice, but by the higher ranking node's ZOI algorithm. (This is a related question: that it is precisely these enslaved vassal nodes that would most likely want to siege the higher regent node, but they would be destroyed in the process, a significant conflict of interest).
To the point at hand, the following scenario would be possible: a stage 6 Metropolis is sieged and loses. This stage 6 metropolis, as well as its two stage 5 cities, two stage 4 towns, four stage 3 villages, four stage 2 encampments, and four stage 1 expeditions also get destroyed.
This means that 17 nodes are fully destroyed. Potentially a thousand or more players would experience full loss of their investment.
The most intriguing aspect of this reality would be how earthshattering of a change it really would cause. An entire stage 6 ZOI is completed razed. Surrounding ZOIs push in, causing a totally different setup of node stages.
The most devastating aspect of this reality would be how many people will quit the game if this happens. This reality has been born out over every single territory control MMO.
I believe that MMOs with significant guild level loss should follow this simple reminder:
The more investment that went into creating something, the more painful its loss is. The more painful the loss is, the more likely players quit. As a corollary, the more significant the investment, the more imperative it is that the loss is not complete loss; recovery should feel possible.
I want to propose that losing a Node Siege should result in the sieged regent node to de-rank by 2 node stages, and its vassals de-ranking by 1 node stage, instead of experiencing full destruction.
In the above scenario, that would mean the following:
- The stage 6 node becomes stage 4**
- The two stage 5 vassal nodes become stage 4
- The two stage 4 vassal nodes become stage 3
- The four stage 3 vassal nodes become stage 2
- The four stage 2 vassal nodes become stage 1
- The four stage 1 vassal nodes destroy to wilderness stage 0
In many ways, this will be a similar shake-up to the server and that region, especially. The ZOI would shift significantly and a new race to stage 5 and stage 6 would begin.
A different scenario: a stage 4 node is sieged and loses.
- The stage 4 node becomes stage 2**
- The stage 3 vassal becomes stage 2
- The stage 2 vassal becomes stage 1
- The stage 1 vassal destroys to wilderness stage 0
This approach, where the sieged regent node loses 2 stages causes a similar reset of the world make-up, but not as severe. Further, it quickly energizes vassal nodes to engage even more because they have a legitimate opportunity to become the more influential node. This contrasts with the current design structure, with full destruction.
With this approach, it would be useful to allow vassal nodes to siege their regents, if they so choose. In this case, it could be adjusted so that the sieging vassal node and its vassals do not experience the stage loss, but the regent and all of its other vassals do (AKA a civil war).
Related questions:
*What does the vassal shuffling look like after a node siege? That is, how do vassal structures shift after a regent node is destroyed? This question is relevant under our current understanding or this proposed design.
*What are the ramifications of the current design with respect to node stage-gating? We know that vassal nodes must remain at a lower advancement stage than the regent node.
*How does the ZOI algorithm have the potential to change after a siege loss? It seems like an end-stage server with its 5 tier 6 nodes would not really be able to redraw ZOIs. The destroyed regent tier 6 node and all its vassals would still be a "ghost" ZOI. This is a mathematical reality that is not well-addressed. This proposed system would successfully navigate this reality. Note: Two simultaneously destroyed stage 6 nodes with bordering ZOIs could free up the world to be redrawn.
Anyway, I could go on, but I hope this sparks a useful conversation.
tl;dr the current design structure involves incredibly significant loss and resets. I believe the excitement of the full reset of the ZOI is overshadowed by the proportion of players who would quit after the significant loss of stage 6 or 5 to 0. I propose that a de-ranking hybrid destruction/reset is a better design for player retention.
0
Comments
Really nice to know. I never expect to get what I envision as stated, but the highest imperative of an MMO is player retention, so I wanted to voice an opinion on what I see as the biggest threat to player retention after "not working" and "not fun," which is loss.
Edit: If you could help me find where this might have been discussed publicly (if it has been), that would be most appreciated.
Dwarven Guild est. 1996. Hammers High!
Vassalised level 2 and 1 nodes get destroyed when their level 3 node is destroyed.
Destroying a level 6 does not destroy its vassals, destroying a 5 does not destroy its vassals, and destroying a 4 does not destroy its vassals - perhaps unless they have direct vassals that happen to be below level 3 at that time, which should be decently rare, and would entail that no one's losing much in those nodes either way.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but Steven pretty clearly calls this siege dynamic between nodes under level 3 and their faux-regent an "exception" at 1:08:10 here:
So, I don't thoroughly disagree with you, I do think some additional tools here could be fun. Maybe allow vassalised nodes to support neighbouring nodes in destroying their regent somehow.
But this concern has been directly addressed for years, and most recently in the node wars stream where Steven very directly clarified that he wants vassals to be encouraged to cooperate with their regents as much as possible, and so far the method for this is restricting them from resisting, and this might be decently final, so you'd probably need to acknowledge that and come up with solutions that work within this framework.
Uh yeah, you've lost me. Ashes isn't for people who can't handle losing the fruit of their achievements, and it won't pander to them, because that would ruin the underlying pillars of the game for those who actually like those concepts. Get up, adjust your crown, and move on.
So we have to be okay with those players leaving, because otherwise we get a mediocre game that satisfies no one in the attempt of being the least offensive to as much of the mainstream as possible, and WoW already exists.
And essentially the core of the ideology is:
If you care so much about the loss that you think you deserve to keep what you built...
you should probably have invested a more effective effort into your diplomacy and defence strategy in order to avoid losing it. And if other people invested more effort, you need to be able to be okay with that result and find a more realistic goal and strategy next time.
I think you misunderstood.
The quote from wiki is:
This vassal mode structure tells you what it looks like for a sovereign at a level six metropolis stage; and what it can control at a maximum vassal network is two level five nodes, of which a level five node can control one level four and one level three as direct vassals; and then the four can control a three; and every three can control a one or a two. Now if the three gets removed through siege, the one or the two is removed as well. So that's an important distinction between the three's vassals, which technically isn't really a vassal relationship because there's no citizenships possible. Those vassals don't exist between three and X, but they do exist between four and three, five and four, and six and five. And what this also allows is that because there are 85 nodes that are within the world, we have a buffer zone of about 20 nodes that lives in a max server state. So if you had maximum five metropolises form in a world, you will have a number about 20 nodes that can live alongside those metropolis networks; and when or if a metropolis falls, that extra cushion of nodes around the five metropolis structures allows for the map to be redistricted in a way that is unique. It doesn't mean that one of the fives is just going to pick up where the last six left off and form the same exact metropolis structure. From a territory perspective it has ancillary nodes to play with and expand towards that redistricts the map, so that if a metropolis falls there's a significant difference in the layout of the world and the layout of these almost nation-like territories.[71] – Steven Sharif
It says that vassal nodes of the destroyed node are removed from the vassal network of the metropolis.
They are not destroyed.
And if the metropolis is destroyed by a siege, then the 2 level 5 nodes will compete with other nodes from those 20 to become a metropolis.
Dwarven Guild est. 1996. Hammers High!
Thanks very much, I've dived into the wiki and the livestreams, and I appreciate your help.
Dwarven Guild est. 1996. Hammers High!