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

SmileGurney

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.

Yeah, I know. You don't have to look far for examples of this in real life also. The ungrateful colonials celebrate the treason day on the 4th of July. Just imagine the arrogance!

Aszkalon

Kyskei wrote: »

I am 100% one of the petty & vindictive people that won't accept being a vassal no matter what the reward structure looks like.

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.

Kyskei wrote: »

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.

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.

Kyskei wrote: »

there are absolutely going to be people like that in the game.

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. 😆

Kyskei wrote: »

now that being said. we have not actually tried the vassal system at all. but what are the community's initial view on it ?

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.

Gizban

At first I thought this was about the guild system.
In Asheron's Call the whole guild system was Patron and Vassal.

Lodrig

The correct term is 'Leige' and Vassal. A Patron is just a powerful benifactor like a 'Patron Saint' while a Leige is somone you actually owe service too as part of a reciprical relationship.

Caeryl

Lodrig wrote: »

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.

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.

Laetitian

Veeshan wrote: »

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 losing node since u only rank down instead of getting destroyed but it does allow some change in node vasalistion structure.

I was gonna say it shouldn't even be restricted to the mayor, but if you want to revolt and your mayor doesn't, you get to revolt against the mayor first and encourage your node citizens to support a different mayor. That's kind of fun, and if you cannot get enough people to agree with you, I do think you should kinda get the signal that this node might not have the potential you foresaw for it.

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.

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.

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.

Ludullu

Laetitian wrote: »

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.

I'm gonna be living in a Divine node. If my parent is not a DN - I don't have this
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.

Laetitian

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

If my parent is not a DN - I don't have this
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Divine_nodes

I'd consider this a potential extension to my condition of "If I agree with the politics and dominant alliances of my regent nodes."
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.

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

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.

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.

Spif

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

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.

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!

Dygz

I’d have to test it, but I think I would not care about belonging to a Vassal Node as long as the Parent Node is a Node type I want to support and has the Racial population I want to support.

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.)

Ludullu

Laetitian wrote: »

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.

That's just personal preference though. I want to live in a mountaneous divine node. There'll only be 2-3 such nodes on the entire map, if that. It's not "the first node that cought my eye". It's the gameplay style I chose for myself.

Spif wrote: »

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.

And then it's also entitled of all the guilds to assume they're worthy of trying to get a castle, or go to war against other guilds. It's also entitled of nodes of other vassal systems to want to war and siege their neighbor vassal systems. It's entitled of other people to have the ability to hit me when I'm walking around.

Do you see how this one rule does not match with the entire design of the rest of the game? Steven claims to have given players freedom of choice (with appropriate consuequences), but then takes away one of the biggest choices in the game.

As you said yourself, the nodes will most likely stay static after their first settling of progress. Prices to siege a node would be insanely high and would reap very vague benefits for the attackers (especially if you consider that those costs are meant to be paid by a single person that casts the siege scroll). All while there's more than enough benefits, motivation and reasons for vassals to want to go up in lvls.

This is just yet another contradiction in the current design.

Laetitian

Spif wrote: »

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.

No, they really don't need to protect against that. They can leave it to the node population to clean up their own mess. Campaign against them, and engage in diplomacy beyond your border counter to your mayor. If all the initiatives your lunatic mayor takes only have a fifth of your node's usual army size showing up, you should be able to get most of your surrounding/allied nodes to read that accordingly and ignore those actions without retaliation.

I still agree with the previous half of that paragraph though

Spif wrote: »

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.

Disagree. You underestimate people's hunger for PvP. Keep in mind, every time a node falls its XP gets reset. If a few nodes in the same general area get sieged successfully within a few months, the node power dynamics might rebuild very differently afterwards.

@Ludullu_(NiKr) Can't help but point out that you ignored a lot of my core arguments there, and essentially just responded to the postscript.

Githal

Vassal nodes gain benefits from their regent node (also referred to as sovereign node or parent node) even if the node type of the parent is different to the vassal.[28][29]
It is not a bad thing to be vasseled, it is a good thing to be vasseled. It brings many benefits from the Sovereign, which is the ultimate parent of that vassal network down to the vassal node itself; and it allows that vassal node to even live outside of its normal mechanics. You get to adopt some of the benefits that the node type of your sovereign is, even if your node type as a vassal node isn't the same

So what i get from this is that if you are in a city node, You will get a lot benefits from the Metropolis.
The downside of being in vasal node are:
* you give taxes to the parent node
* Metropolis will have more merchants and as a whole better crafting equipment, thus best buyers/sellers will be there, and less will be in the city
* Metropolis will have option to spec into more different utilities / while city will have less
* You will get destroyed first in a war, Since the metropolis is way harder to take.

The pros of being in a city
* Even tho you will have less node equipment you can still put some that the metropolis dont have. For example Black market. So you can still provide stuff that will be needed by players and are not covered by the Metropolis
* Even tho you pay taxes to the parent node, Your apartment costs will be Way less.
* You can be different node type from the parent which again will give your unique purpose.
* As far as i am familiar - you can use the metropolis crafting equipment even tho you are not citizen there.

So doesnt seem like that bad option to be in city. BUT if you are in Town, then your parent node is a City. So you dont get the metropolis bonuses. So i think being in metro or city will be good enough, but we shall see how it goes.

The way i think they are making it is - you grow as a whole together, both Parent and vassal nodes. And When the Metropolis develops, the vassals get better too.

Ludullu

Laetitian wrote: »

"Ludullu_(NiKr)" Can't help but point out that you ignored a lot of my core arguments there, and essentially just responded to the postscript.

I didn't really have anything to say about other things.

Laetitian wrote: »

I'd consider this a potential extension to my condition of "If I agree with the politics and dominant alliances of my regent nodes."
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.

This is just agreeance

Laetitian wrote: »

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.

I responded to this.

Laetitian wrote: »

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've responded to a similar sentiment several times. I don't want to move, I don't want to wait and pray - I want to have the ability to do something. I want to be proactive. Getting an outside to join me (hell, even requiring it) would be completely fine. High cost requirements - also completely fine.

But give me the ability to do SOMETHING to try and attempt a revolution.

I didn't address this in the previous comment because I've said the answer several times now.

Laetitian wrote: »

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.

Nodes will be controlled by guilds one way or the other. Guilds will always strive for optimization of their gameplay (especially the strong ones that would be the ones controlling the nodes). From that we can assume that the strongest guilds would do their best to optimize the node build of their server.

Smartest guilds will be doing this right from release, so the supposed staticness of servers several months in will simply support that build.

And I addressed stuff related to this at the end of my previous comment. I guess I should've grabbed this part of your comment to include it in the address. That's my bad.

Laetitian wrote: »

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.

Vassal agency would be a big part of this if Steven truly wants people to care about their node more than their guild. Because they wouldn't care about some random meta that the strong guilds are trying to build, and would instead care about their own node being stronger.

To me, the current design is a contradicting one (which just one of several such contradictions at this point), which is why I've brought this topic up on a few occasions. But I'm sure that absolute majority won't give two shits about their nodes and will simply play the game for all the other reasons. Steven will see this as "system working as intended" and won't change it, even though all that majority of players will still care about guilds and stuff and will involve themselves in their politics in some way (because that's what you do when you care about an entity that represents your group of people), so Steven's presented desire for player loyalty will simply fail.

And this part of the response is just a more verbose retelling of my core issue of "why shouldn't I be able to rebel, if my loyalty to MY node is higher than the loyalty towards my node's parent".

Githal

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

And this part of the response is just a more verbose retelling of my core issue of "why shouldn't I be able to rebel, if my loyalty to MY node is higher than the loyalty towards my node's parent".

Imagine you live in a small town next to a big city. There is not many jobs in your town so like 30-40% of your town population travels 40min-1hr to reach the city each day to work there, and then return home. You get most food supplies, electronics, cloths and delivered from the city.
Is there reason to rebel against the city? Like they dont prevent you from anything. You can spend 1 hour to reach the city and after this you will have absolutely the same access of things in the city as every other citizen there.

And in game perspective, guess Steven thought about this "superiority complex" that players my feel. so by preventing this he ensures that the whole vasal system will go forward, and be ready for wars with other vasal systems. Since if you have to worry about internal conflicts, then you wont go anywhere.
And lets be real here.. you have total 8 cities + towns + villages. The chance that from those 8 you wont get 1-2 or 3 rebels is almost non existent. So just coz few of the vassals are not happy doesnt mean the rest should suffer.

Spif

Laetitian wrote: »

Spif wrote: »

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.

No, they really don't need to protect against that. They can leave it to the node population to clean up their own mess. Campaign against them, and engage in diplomacy beyond your border counter to your mayor. If all the initiatives your lunatic mayor takes only have a fifth of your node's usual army size showing up, you should be able to get most of your surrounding/allied nodes to read that accordingly and ignore those actions without retaliation.

I still agree with the previous half of that paragraph though

Our understanding of node management isn't complete, but from what I remember it's something like: the mayor gets approval points by people doing "stuff" in the node. This includes filling consignments and doing board quests. I'm not sure what's involved in the "go to war" project, but it seems like it will be something that can be completed by a couple groups of dedicated players. You'd need at least 1 dedicated group to get elected anyway.

The only way other citizens can stop the "go to war" project is to PK the people who are doing the project. That's not practical long term. One protection IS could implement is a "don't go to war" project that automatically comes up alongside the "go to war" project. A way to vote with your actions against the war.

Note that I'm talking about rebellion-within-an-alliance kind of war action that needs some special rules. Not about the other war actions that would involve just raiding or trying to destroy an un-allied node.

arkileo

I agree that forced vassalization is likely to breed resentment to the point of wanting to rebel, unless the rewards are extreme. But that would mean losing and being vassalized would be rewarding failure, which seems illogical.

The path to vassalization is unclear, it reads like it happens automatically without any war or anything.
"Beginning at Node Stage 3, when a Node advances, it enslaves nearby Nodes and makes them into its Vassals." (https://ashesofcreation.com/news/2019-03-16-know-your-nodes-the-basics)

I'm not sure how automatic vassalization would feel in practice. If two level 2 nodes right next to each other are racing to level 3, it's going to feel pretty bad to suddenly be vassalized when you had the fullest intention to boost your node to level 3. Then again, we're talking about level 2 nodes, so it wouldn't be all that bad to pick up and move to a new node at that early point.

It would also feel bad if you were in a level 5 node working towards level 6, but a far-ish away level 5 hits 6 before you and you're suddenly vassalized. In that case, I would like to see some option for rebelling.

Spif

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

And this part of the response is just a more verbose retelling of my core issue of "why shouldn't I be able to rebel, if my loyalty to MY node is higher than the loyalty towards my node's parent".

What you're talking about is very game changing:

If you are planning to rebel against a parent node, are you ready to have your node get crippling taxes imposed on it? If you can "fight up", then the parent needs to have agency to "fight down". Now you're getting into a very adversarial relationship in this alliance. That's not the idea of an alliance.

The idea of rebelling just does not work with the idea of the highest level node automatically getting vassals. Although the act of rebelling could be only available to a "capped" node that's ready to advance but can't due to vassalship. Then if the node successfully rebels it levels up and therefore cannot become a vassal.

If a node can rebel, what happens to the rebelling node's vassals? If a 5 rebels against a 6, that's half of the nodes gone. That 5-node has a 4 and a three directly under it. Both of those can't be attached to the 6 because the 6 already has a 4.

My understanding is that node alliance fluidity is supposed to be low. That's why after a node gets attacked they're talking about a 1 month cooldown on it getting attacked again even if they successfully defend (this may change, and it may only apply to getting attacked to destroy. We don't know yet, because this info is pretty old). I think they also talked about a lockout on being attacked after upgrading a node too.

Rare node alliance changes are why we saw a bunch of different node-attack options in the war preview. Rather than just attack-to-destroy, there are attack-to-cripple or attack-to-steal-resources options. IS wants node destruction to be very very rare. Building up a node from 4->6 is a several month undertaking. Having it be destroyed is the kind of thing that will make people rage quit the game.

Ludullu

Githal wrote: »

Imagine you live in a small town next to a big city. There is not many jobs in your town so like 30-40% of your town population travels 40min-1hr to reach the city each day to work there, and then return home. You get most food supplies, electronics, cloths and delivered from the city.
Is there reason to rebel against the city? Like they dont prevent you from anything. You can spend 1 hour to reach the city and after this you will have absolutely the same access of things in the city as every other citizen there.

if me rebelling against that city could directly lead to my town becoming a booming metropolis with jobs, stores, etc - yes, rebilling would be a viable choice imo.

And I've already given an example of what those cities prevent us from doing. We also don't know the extent of services that are shared between metro citizens and vassal node citizens.

Githal wrote: »

And in game perspective, guess Steven thought about this "superiority complex" that players my feel. so by preventing this he ensures that the whole vasal system will go forward, and be ready for wars with other vasal systems. Since if you have to worry about internal conflicts, then you wont go anywhere.

Except the resentment wouldn't go anywhere. If enough people dislike their current parent node, they can just go farm/do stuff in other nodes, so that the parent doesn't get enough xp. But this would then lead to both sides feeling bad. The parent node might degrade due to lack of xp, while the citizens of the vassal node are not supporting their own node with their gameplay. It's a lose-lose design imo.

Githal wrote: »

And lets be real here.. you have total 8 cities + towns + villages. The chance that from those 8 you wont get 1-2 or 3 rebels is almost non existent. So just coz few of the vassals are not happy doesnt mean the rest should suffer.

And those other vassals can still come to the support of their parent node during a war/siege, if they disagree with the rebellion.

This would be literally the same situation as that parent getting sieged by randos from other nodes and then an entire vassal's worth of people not coming to its defense. Except in my suggestion those vassal citizens would be more proactive in their actions, instead of just sitting on a hill and watching their parent node burn down, in hopes of it losing completely.

Passive gameplay is very rarely good. Especially when it comes to social interactions and politics.

Githal

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Githal wrote: »

Imagine you live in a small town next to a big city. There is not many jobs in your town so like 30-40% of your town population travels 40min-1hr to reach the city each day to work there, and then return home. You get most food supplies, electronics, cloths and delivered from the city.
Is there reason to rebel against the city? Like they dont prevent you from anything. You can spend 1 hour to reach the city and after this you will have absolutely the same access of things in the city as every other citizen there.

if me rebelling against that city could directly lead to my town becoming a booming metropolis with jobs, stores, etc - yes, rebilling would be a viable choice imo.

And I've already given an example of what those cities prevent us from doing. We also don't know the extent of services that are shared between metro citizens and vassal node citizens.

Githal wrote: »

And in game perspective, guess Steven thought about this "superiority complex" that players my feel. so by preventing this he ensures that the whole vasal system will go forward, and be ready for wars with other vasal systems. Since if you have to worry about internal conflicts, then you wont go anywhere.

Except the resentment wouldn't go anywhere. If enough people dislike their current parent node, they can just go farm/do stuff in other nodes, so that the parent doesn't get enough xp. But this would then lead to both sides feeling bad. The parent node might degrade due to lack of xp, while the citizens of the vassal node are not supporting their own node with their gameplay. It's a lose-lose design imo.

Githal wrote: »

And lets be real here.. you have total 8 cities + towns + villages. The chance that from those 8 you wont get 1-2 or 3 rebels is almost non existent. So just coz few of the vassals are not happy doesnt mean the rest should suffer.

And those other vassals can still come to the support of their parent node during a war/siege, if they disagree with the rebellion.

This would be literally the same situation as that parent getting sieged by randos from other nodes and then an entire vassal's worth of people not coming to its defense. Except in my suggestion those vassal citizens would be more proactive in their actions, instead of just sitting on a hill and watching their parent node burn down, in hopes of it losing completely.

Passive gameplay is very rarely good. Especially when it comes to social interactions and politics.

Then if you rebel and lose from the metropolis - then you should be forced to leave the node together with ALL citizens. So the metropolis can put their own people there so there are no further rebelions. The worst thing is when some small fries are attacking you from inside and you cant do anything about it.

Child Item