Vassal resentment
Kyskei
Member
after today's podcast. I am 100% one of the petty & vindictive people that won't accept being a vassal no matter what the reward structure looks like. the thought of someone else being in an inherently better position than me (if not mechanically then prestige wise) is something I tend to act in resentment of. I would rather do everything to tear down the owning node than join it in any capacity.
there are absolutely going to be people like that in the game.
now that being said. we have not actually tried the vassal system at all. but what are the community's initial view on it?
it seems to me that a lot of people are having a gut reaction to immediately want to rebel but are there some who see this in a more optimistic light?
there are absolutely going to be people like that in the game.
now that being said. we have not actually tried the vassal system at all. but what are the community's initial view on it?
it seems to me that a lot of people are having a gut reaction to immediately want to rebel but are there some who see this in a more optimistic light?
3
Comments
I definitely hope we get to test a "siege your parent function" at some point in A2.
Idea some people just want to destroy everything would be a issue for the game, without infighting there is already going to be more than enough of that to begin with.
Oh hey, a contradiction!
I have a whole collection of these...
If your node is a vassal of another node, it is because you lost.
This isn't like losing in a PvP match, where it is 5 minutes of investment. Rather, this is months of investment.
If you lose and your node becomes a vassal instead of a parent, you should find yourself at a disadvantage in some way.
However, if your plan is to get back at that parent node, the first and most important thing you will need to do is leave your current node.
Fact is, that node already lost to the parent node, and as your node is now limited in grown, it will probably lose people. On top of that, the parent node that you lost to is now going to attract more people. So, you already lost with your node which is now getting smaller, to the parent node that is now getting bigger. If you want revenge against that node, it is not going to happen for you where you are.
It's basically a choice between sticking with your node and hoping for better circumstances, or acting on that desire for revenge. Both are long term commitments.
This is why I asked the question as I am not really sure the idea of “Node loyalty” and just “move Nodes” marry up. I did take on board what Steven said about the architectural design concerns and the ability to dial rewards. I think it would be really beneficial to test how sieging Parent Nodes would play out.
I understand the argument of you lost the race etc but it just seems a little counterintuitive to say Nodes are where player loyalties lie but then don't allow players the self-determination to progress their Node within the vassal system and well you should just move Nodes then. To me it reduces the importance of Node loyalty.
If my node is now set at Level X in its’ vassal structure and it can’t continue to develop then there is no real reason for people to stay as citizens to that Node. Even with all the benefits, most will just flock to the higher level Nodes because that’s where the higher level crafting stations will be, presumably more trading etc so I foresee most people just going to which Node is higher.
Nodes do not belong to players.
Vassal nodes should not rebel against parent nodes. It is a game mechanic. You are just a pawn on the map who happens to be in that node.
The game design is better as it is now.
I am curious, and this goes for @Ludullu_(NiKr) as well, is there no reward structure that would have you be happy living in a vassal node?
Let's say you get access to all the services of your parent node anyway, even if for a few of them you have to travel 5 minutes to get there, and you get an extra 5% boost to XP and gold that the parent citizens don't get. Just as an example where game-mechanically you are better off in the vassal node than if you were to make that node the parent node.
Is there any point where you would be happy being the vassal? Or does the pride aspect mean more than anything else?
Though, now that I write all of that out - I want that
Less living space creates higher prices, which funnels stronger players to it, which can then result in higher amounts of wars, cause those stronger players would be more likely to have strong enemies.
And as I've said before, I dislike this design.
Castle can be retaken, mobs/bosses/locations can be fought over, guilds/nodes can be wardecced, caravans attacked - all support a "loser" (as Noaani puts it) having the ability to try and stand up against someone who won against them in the past. But for some reason nodes do not support that.
History is full of people rising up against "The Man" for one reason or the other. And quite a lot of those reasons are very politically motivated, with external influences included. So why shouldn't Ashes have the same kind of scheming and interactions?
Also, I 100% foresee metros being run by despots and tyrants, but none of the vassals being able to do anything about that, because they can't rise up, so their choice is either "go live somewhere else" (while it's unknown if you even can move w/o downshifting) or "suck it up".
Also I do not see the drive to 'test' such a child/parent war. If their are no restrictions that make that war initiation or conclusion different from any other then their is nothing special to test. Only if their is a whole 'special' system of permissions and consequences for such an event would it need testing. For example if a child node defeats a parent will cause it to automatically aquire parenthood over it's old siblings in a way that it would not have had the parent node been defeated by an outside group, that would obviously need a test.
But I guess if every player wants to be king, then perhaps this isn’t the game for them.
For obtaining power I assume the elections for scientific nodes are limited to the citizens of the liege node. But other node types rely on different methods where vassal nodes can have greater influence. In fact, garnering support from vassal nodes may be critical for potential mayors, and there’s opportunity for the vassal nodes to have some leverage.
For maintaining power, just as the major of the liege node requires voluntary support from citizens of the node, the liege node would require voluntary support from vassal nodes. Tyrants tend to get weeded out pretty quickly.
The vassal node also has a benefit in having a more advanced node with interest in maintaining the vassal node. Whether that be from PVP or decay.
Despots and tyrants can be the players. But the parent node becomes parent as the result of some game mechanics which Steven tries to hide from players so that they don't game the system.
And you will not be better than them. You do not deserve to become parent node if you cannot also cooperate as a vassal node.
If you want scheming, do that witch what the game offers to you. First you will try that against other node chains and if that is your game-play style, you might relocate to undermine them from inside.
You can say what you want now but Steven was right that a change would have big impact onto the game dynamic. And he will make it work during alpha.
It not as damaging to the loosing node since u only rank down instead of getting destroyed but it does allow some change in node vasalistion structure.
oh yeah I'd leave immediately to find a node that could and would lay siege to the parent node.
not even if the vassal node has more benefits than the parent node.
I don't want that chance to be high or methods easy. I want it to be hard, expensive and most likely require help from outside of your node. But I want that chance to be there. Right now it's not there.
Don't worry.
They will be like on Reddit and everywhere else. Powerless, barking - insignificant. Sometimes maybe getting a good, fatherly, loving smacking by the hands of their Masters. (lol)
Okay joking aside. Hopefully it will not be as toxic as i just wrote.
This is the best thing on the Vassal System. The subdued Ones will probably not being able to do anything against it.
You can't stand your Place ? Join the superior Node. You will realise quickly how worthless your Pride is, if You don't love the beautiful Lands around your own Node and don't want to stay at them no matter what.
As long as these People don't hold any significant Power against those who actually can get things done and "actually" manage to make Nodes into the best Metropolisses(<- correct Word or not?) that their Nodes could be,
i have nothing against that.
Makes me wonder if we should include a "lashing Sub/Inferior-kind-of/Slave-Nodes"-System for those who try to rebel against their Masters. 😞 hahahahahahahahah. Damn. Evil thoughts begone. 😆
At this Point it is a waste of time to talk about it.
-> We know nothing,
-> we will CONTINUE to know nothing,
-> until dear Sir Steven and Intrepid will give the green Light in the Alpha Two - to finally test it.
I personally hope it will work. Alone for all the "political Drama" ingame.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
In Asheron's Call the whole guild system was Patron and Vassal.
Currently it is indeed a "Yes" and "No" respectively, which I also find to be a strange turn given how the rest of the Ashes world state is meant to function.
Vassals should have a method of usurping even if its a very taxing, difficult method, because the Node progression system is (as it's been showcased so far) will very quickly lock other nodes out of progress just because some people were farming here instead of over there. Maybe it'll play out differently since the nodes are static and already typed in the base state, but getting change to happen is going to be such a hassle.
I also really like the suggestion of making a successful vassal uprising less damaging for the original regent node than a proper node siege. Feels like the perfect middle ground solution.
It also means that the original vassal will be stuck with their original leaders as their first vassals for a while, which means they'll still have to figure out how to get along with each other.
I think this is absolutely a desire that will have to be accounted for.
However, I also think that "the best it can be" shouldn't have to mean reaching metropolis in my own node:
If I agree with the politics and dominant alliances of my regent nodes, and if the server realm as a whole isn't stagnant, I'll gladly accept being in a level 4-5 node; perhaps even 3 in some situations.
And I think the options vassals get should encourage them to look for that type of tolerable status quo first (e.g. by campaigning to get someone else on the throne in the regent node), before opting for indefinite resistance.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Divine_nodes
Divine nodes at Metropolis (stage 6) may unlock a procedurally built "mega catacomb" dungeon beneath it that connects to its divine vassal nodes. These may house unique bosses with unique drop tables.[3]
And if there is a Divine metro somewhere on the map - I'd need to go there to farm these catacombs, which would also be giving them node xp, which goes directly against my desire to dominate all nodes in wars.
And this is w/o even considering that these node super powers might have limitations for the vassal citizens. And I definitely expect them to, cause otherwise why would players not just minmax the hell out of nodes on their server to have the best superpowers combo.
Yes, in this case your "best it can be" for your node might not be fulfilled as long as you're controlled by that regent node.
And in such situations it would be nice if you were given the agency to institute a rebellion.
Though I will add: I do think you're taking the node pride thing a bit too far.
My take on balanced node pride is that, even if you're a player with strong ideals who wants to write their personal lore as the result of their history in the game, you shouldn't pledge unconditional allegiance to the first node that catches your eye.
You can give it your best shot, see how it develops, and if after a few months you disapprove of developments and community decisions in the area, you should probably be reasonable enough to go find a new forever home in a different node with higher potential, where people have similar priorities as you. Then if the conditions break down at your new home node again, at least you know it's possible to bring back the state of glory the node was in when you first joined it. So even if you're being dominated by a new regent you disapprove of, at least you'll know it's possible to wait for things to go back the way they were when you joined, if you play the long game and wait for an external siege against your metropolis to be successful.
I mean. Some server realms definitely will have that.
For most of them it just won't be possible to coordinate, because too many players will have vastly different priorities on what constitutes a min-maxed node configuration for themselves and the rest of the map. Not to mention the entropy of random player interactions and random sieges resetting planning efforts regularly.
That's the obvious cold take answer. The full truth is simply that we need to be able to trust that each node will have something to offer at level 6 or 5 that will make them sufficiently beneficial to be worth considering. Otherwise, yes, min-maxing will happen and some nodes will be doomed to be level 4s and lower on every realm.
But that's a symptom of node type balancing, and vassal agency isn't a big part of that.
What you're talking about really doesn't work in the "node alliance" system that they want. Steven has talked vaguely about patron benefits flowing downhill (I take this to mean a patron node uses resources to build a 3 day economic buff that is shared with vassals), even while some percentage of vassal node taxes/goods flow uphill. I imagine that vassal buffs might also go uphill too? Also, they really need to protect a node against the issue of 1 month with a bad mayor who has enough active friends to get enough support tickets to declare war against a parent.
It's nice that you want to stay loyal to your node. But it entitled of you to think that "your node" is the one that deserves to be on top, and should have multiple chanced to get there.
I'd guess that the node map is going to become very fixed about 6-10 months (population dependent) in as nodes relationship structures finally settle. And these won't change much from what we've seen about node mechanics for war and vassal/patron rules. Each server will be different!
But… I’d have to test it to know for sure.
(During release, I don’t plan to join a Node, so ultimately won’t impact my gameplay goals.)