Vassal resentment

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ludullu

I'm also one of people who want MY node to be the parent, so if it got vassaled instead - I'm gonna do all I can to change that. And Steven saying "well, just go change your node" goes directly against his desire for people to have allegiances to nodes that are somehow stronger than guild allegiances.

I definitely hope we get to test a "siege your parent function" at some point in A2.

Dimitraeos

Killer clown anarchists and wreckers WILL be crushed in Verra.

Naibres

I mean such was life, it was the same in real life, if you know history, you know empires had control over states and often the hierarchy did change (also there will always be someone above you, if its not the vessel system, there will be players who "MATTER" more and are more important than you within your own node) But some people DID do what you describe and I think that will simply add to the game, i love those aspects and drama, that is exactly why i think AoC will be great, those dynamics and players making the "lore" of the world essentially, will be what makes this game great IMO...

Mag7spy

System is needed to control amount of pvp and ensure the world can grow then people sieging every single node everywhere.

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.

Noaani

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

And Steven saying "well, just go change your node" goes directly against his desire for people to have allegiances to nodes that are somehow stronger than guild allegiances.

Oh hey, a contradiction!

I have a whole collection of these...

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

Oh hey, a contradiction!

I have a whole collection of these...

Noaani

Kyskei wrote: »

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?

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.

Shabooey

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

I'm also one of people who want MY node to be the parent, so if it got vassaled instead - I'm gonna do all I can to change that. And Steven saying "well, just go change your node" goes directly against his desire for people to have allegiances to nodes that are somehow stronger than guild allegiances.

I definitely hope we get to test a "siege your parent function" at some point in A2.

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.

Otr

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

I'm also one of people who want MY node to be the parent, so if it got vassaled instead - I'm gonna do all I can to change that. And Steven saying "well, just go change your node" goes directly against his desire for people to have allegiances to nodes that are somehow stronger than guild allegiances.

I definitely hope we get to test a "siege your parent function" at some point in A2.

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.

Nerror

Kyskei wrote: »

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?

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?

Ludullu

Nerror wrote: »

Is there any point where you would be happy being the vassal? Or does the pride aspect mean more than anything else?

If there was a chance where mechanically vasals are better - I do think I'd give in and accept the life in a vassal node. But that will never happen, cause why in the hell would anyone who doesn't care about their node all that much choose to live at a Metro. And if the metro doesn't have enough people - it dies, which then changes vassals, which then removes the benefits, which then cascades to the point of the entire landscape changing completely.

Though, now that I write all of that out - I want that

the current design definitely seems like something that's gonna be quite static (with all the siege lockouts and stuff), but vassals having more benefits would bring more interest to the politics and player movement.

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.

Otr wrote: »

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.

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".

Lodrig

I think the pertinent questions are "Is a node barred from warring with your parent node"? and "Can a node break its vassalization by any means OTHER then a war with the parent node?" It would be unacceptable for the answers to be Yes and No respectivly. But if the first answer is No then the second question could be anything, though it would be NICE to have alternatives even if the only option is to become a vassal of a DIFFRENT node that is also higher tier. Even that would give rise to interesting player driven diplomacy.

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.

RocketFarmer

Believe the players of a vassal node can obtain benefits from their liege node. Which actually could mean less effort overall. In addition the PVP action may be greater on the outskirts.

But I guess if every player wants to be king, then perhaps this isn’t the game for them.

RocketFarmer

As for the theory of vassal nodes being irrelevant in liege node power dynamics, I think it overlooks the methods of obtaining power or in maintaining power.

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.

Otr

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

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.

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".

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.

rollox

You can read this the other way. A king or parent node mayor who hates their vassal. Those dang scholars of node to the south. I hear them plotting rebellion. We must crush them and their dreams 😂

Veeshan

There should be a mayoral policy that quite costly to complete but once completed your node gets uprising status which after awhile allows the node to declare a seige on a one node above it in the vassalisation chain if they win they bump down the node one rank and requires time to repair structures and you get a 50% bump to node progression to the next rank so it doesnt garanteed you to rank up however u get a boost over the other nodes to race to rank up before them.
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.

Kyskei

Noaani wrote: »

Kyskei wrote: »

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?

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.

oh yeah I'd leave immediately to find a node that could and would lay siege to the parent node.

Kyskei

Nerror wrote: »

Kyskei wrote: »

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?

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?

not even if the vassal node has more benefits than the parent node.

Ludullu

Otr wrote: »

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.

My gameplay style is "I want to live in THIS EXACT NODE, and I want it to be the best it can be". I don't want to relocate. I don't want to give up my citizenship. I want to have a chance to rise up against someone who "won" a random fight of "well, people just gathered here first, so you're fucked now".

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.

Child Item