scottstone7Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'm all in favor for the vassal system, it just should not be an automatic system action. It should require player action to initiate and defend against any sort of vassalage. It should not be the end all be all unless you get lucky and someone else knocks the regent node down a peg. I'm just saying more options are better.
This is already said in the WIKI:
Nodes encompass more land as they grow and will require more effort to be sustained. This system is a main driver for change in the world because it creates scarcity. As Nodes advance in stages of growth they will lock out neighboring Nodes from progressing, and will absorb their zones of influence.[1]
Kind of makes the point in support of allowing a rebellion right there. I mean, do you really expect everyone to accept forced second class citizenship?
You always have options. Even without rebellion you can relocate to different zone. Maybe 1 day you will be able to siege the node as enemy and take what was yours.
The whole idea behind the Vasal system is that TOGETHER you are like 1 country. And you should work together for the prosperity of this country.
I agree, you have options with the current system. Option 1, move out leaving everything you've built and worked toward behind. Option 2, accept you place of subservience and do what master tells you.
I agree that the vassal system will eventually smooth out into some semblance of a country. That will take time, and in that time the strife and unrest of the discontent should be allowed to manifest. Do not get me wrong, I'm not saying this should happen every time. I'm not saying that it would happen every time if given the option. I'm just saying the option should be there.
Having that option would then require the regent node to either spend time and resources to fix the problem or accept that it's going to happen and accept the consequences of letting it happen. Either way, it will help stabilize the world map because the war hungry larger powers will have to slow down and consolidate regularly to prevent it or accept suddenly losing parts of their controlled land to powers from within.
Village (stage 3) or higher nodes enslave nearby nodes, converting them into vassal nodes.[2][12]
Vassal nodes must remain at least one node stage below their parent node.[2]
Vassal nodes give excess experience to their parent node and may have their own vassals; so long as they fall within the parent node’s zone of influence.[26][2]
Regent nodes collect taxes from their vassal nodes. These taxes cannot be taken by the mayor or other players.[14]
Vassals are subject to the government, alliances, wars, taxes, and trade of their parent node, and are able to receive federal aid from them.[2]
Mayors are able to set a generalized node tax rate as well as overrides for different activities within their node. Mayors gain additional taxation controls as their node advances.[1][2]
Regent nodes take a cut of taxes from various activities that occur within their vassal node structure.[14][15]
This tax doesn't necessarily impact the individual citizen, because citizen's tax levels are determined by
their node, but the node's finances are affected by the taxation levied by its parent nodes.[15]
So.. Once enslaved...err.. forced to vassalize you are pretty much forced to work for master in your home node or give up everything and move. Before anyone tries to say that the higher nodes enslave nearby nodes is some sort of typo or play on word or misunderstanding, let me assure you it is not.
Diplomatic vassalage is where a weaker group seeks something from stronger group and accepts vassalage by pledging loyalty and or service to the stronger group. That, being voluntary and agreed upon would be a transactional deal, similar in a way to a work contract by a company or corporation. Forced vassalage, by war or other means, is forcing the subjugation of one group by another group. Now, as clearly defined and cited multiple times in different ways, the new subjugated vassal HAS to give up taxes and exp to their master node. Yes, I said it, their MASTER node. Because that's what it is, there is no friendship, no partnership. There is only master taking advantage of the enslaved to grow in power. Eventually over time both forms of vassalage can and probably will lead to a cohesive group working toward the same goal, but that's just it, eventually over time.
Now do not get me wrong by any means. I am not against the vassal system being in the game. It's going to be a very integral part of the game. I'm not even arguing against forced vassalage, as that is part of the vassal system. I'm saying that in no way should vassalage be an automatic system reaction, it should require direct player action, be it diplomatic or aggressive. In the event of an aggressive action that causes forced vassalization there should be a way for the vassal to try undermine and possibly overthrow their oppressors.
For rebellion, for example if city want to rebel against the Metropolis. This will affect all vasal nodes below the city. As well as the whole country negatively.
Just imagine with the current 9 nodes above Village. Everyone will want to ascend to next stage.
So what will happen? You will have 4 Villages rebelling against cities and towns. Towns rebelling against Cities and cities rebelling against the Metropolis. In the end everyone is with 0 resources, 0 equipment, 0 crafting workstations and ect.
Is this what you want?
Is that a possibility? Yes. Is that going to happen every time every where? In the short term, most likely. In the long term, doubtful. With the non overbearing larger powers? Doubtful after the their reputation is know. With the super overbearing larger powers? Of course, most likely very often. Now the real question is; how bad is the controllable taxation and overall douchey attitude going to be in those overbearing larger powers if the people under them in the vassal system can and will constantly make life harder for them?
Is this what I want? Simple answer, Yes. I would love to see systems like that in place. I'm not going to whine about it if it doesn't happen as it will likely have little impact on how I play either way. It's just an idea that I personally, and it seems at least a minority of others, would love to see implemented.
This stuff on inner pvp again with nodes while knowing everything is destroyed in a node again (your mats, housing, etc you have built over months on the game).
People will accept the parent vassal situation since no one is locked to one node. If you are at the point you really dislike you parent node you have the chance to leave to another group of nodes.
With how things are going to be inner connected to damage a node, this most likely is going to be a strong political weapon. If you have people leaving vassal nodes it most likely will have a huge impact on the parent node do to taxes. The point isn't to have inner fighting with these systems being so inner connected (or atleast not having the barrier to entry of inner conflict being so easy to engage in). There is a point people will accept how currently things are.
Again they want pvp but they more than likely want to control some of the chaos that comes with it. So it feels more meaningful than just pvp everywhere. They want a focus on the groups of nodes pvping together against other groups of nodes. Not inward pvp, which would increase the overall pvp even more so. I'm sure they are trying to get the right balance.
As usual the points around this are mostly people saying they want their node to be number one and if it isn't they just should be able to attack the node and become number 1. This is exactly why you have stuff in place to prevent it, cause without rules people will pvp everything they can, which would just damage this kind of game.
No, the wiki says if you destroy a stage 3 node, all stage 1 and 2 nodes under it are destroyed.
It says nothing about a stage 4 (or higher) node being destroyed having any effect on any stage 3 (or higher) nodes under.
I just wanted to type ... ... ... ... what the fffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu~ .
I mean okay, Stage 1 and 2 are just Camps ... ...
But if a Village could get destroyed WITHOUT EVEN BEING ATTACKED directly and physically -> only because a Node higher than itself would be destroyed,
this would be the the weirdest and most nonsensical thing of all time.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
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. [/quote]
I agree. on a personal level, sitting by and watching something I don't want to happen without doing something about it goes against my principles. on a less subjective level I don't see how automatic failure based on population density is fun.
there will be people that are fine with being vassalized and I got nothing to say about that. but I don't like the feeling of helplessness of being told to suck it up and accept this situation you are in. we are talking about forced servitude after all. they can pretty that up as much as they want with rewards, and falsely call it an alliance. but that doesn't change the situation at the core.[/quote]
Who is making yuo serve and forcing you to do things? The most you can say is if the parent node decs there is a chance you might be part of that owpvp. Besides that you aren't really forced to serve but pay taxes and get benefits for that....
People like you are the reason even more so these rules need to be in placed. You would destroy all the nodes until all content was dead if you could. Entirely of the games outlook needs to be around more organic and fluid node development for hard pvp. And for politics and such should be the most on inner node conflict.
No small nodes need to be empowered to be rats and work with some other higher level node to destroy the vassals parent node just because they think they will be the next top node. And continuing to rat until the area is dead.
I like the idea and @Noaani has the right idea from the comments above (your node lost). If you're unhappy with the outcome of "your" node, you have to move. Go find something else and plan your revenge.
Ultimately, this system inspires community and teamwork in order to do what you want it to do. I don't want my favorite location to become a vassal but I will certainly not sit down when there is work to be done. My guild, my community, and my alliance (all 3 different angles that I plan on approaching from) will do what needs to be done in order to experience what this game has to offer : ).
Why would we assume the best players are in the metropolis?
Well if not best - then for sure the most dedicated. And those who spend most time in the game. And yes i am aware that is not how skill is determined, but if you have big enough time to spend in AOC, then you would have been spending this same time on other games before this. So i would assume that they will be with above average skill (ofc not all of these players, but most).
Why would we assume players in the parent node would care about the vassal?
Vasal nodes pay taxes, Contribute with exp, Their ZOI is part of the Metropolis ZOI, so if a city gets destroyed for example, the Whole Vasal system loses territory.
If you are assuming the above for what ever reason, why are you not distracting the players in that parent node at a point in time when you are sieging the lower level nodes?
The sieges have preparation time. You cant make a surprising siege while you distract the Metropolis. They will have for example few days to prepare for this siege that will happen in the EXACT allocated time
The best players will play in the node that is most advantageous to them. That will not always be a metropolis. Dedication is not a factor that comes in to it, as many players are aware thst they don't want to be in a metropolis and so will work to make sure that is the case.
Sure, vassals contribute, but the average person in a node has no reason to care about any of that. Definitely not enough reason to care to spend time attempting to defend that node. Even more true when you consider that a lost lower level node will usually just result in a different type of node taking its place, which is then contributing to the parent node, and has the added benefit of changing the local content making things more interesting. When you also factor in the changes to local services that some players will find appealing, it is reasonable to assume thst some people in the parent node may well be all for the vassal being destroyed.
Sieges do indeed have preparation time. So you distract people with something more important at the actual time of the siege.
Declare a war on the parent node to coincide with the lower node siege. Most players would much rather protect their nodes existing services than spend time defending a minor tax/experience contributor.
Again, do more thinking before forming opinions on the matter.
I like the idea and @Noaani has the right idea from the comments above (your node lost). If you're unhappy with the outcome of "your" node, you have to move. Go find something else and plan your revenge.
In the worst Case ... ... ... ... ... Yes.
Yes, maybe at some Point You will never get anything done with the Allies and People you have. Maybe you will need to leave your favourite Node-Point.
And You can be hella-sure - > some Node-Locations will be the most desired for many People. Both on the Surface - same as in the "Underground-World" of Verra.
Ultimately, this system inspires community and teamwork in order to do what you want it to do. I don't want my favorite location to become a vassal but I will certainly not sit down when there is work to be done.
Some People will not unlikely have only a Chance to have their most favourite Type of Node in their most favourite kind of Location - > if they become battle-hardened Conquerors. .
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
Who is making yuo serve and forcing you to do things? The most you can say is if the parent node decs there is a chance you might be part of that owpvp. Besides that you aren't really forced to serve but pay taxes and get benefits for that....
People like you are the reason even more so these rules need to be in placed. You would destroy all the nodes until all content was dead if you could. Entirely of the games outlook needs to be around more organic and fluid node development for hard pvp. And for politics and such should be the most on inner node conflict.
No small nodes need to be empowered to be rats and work with some other higher level node to destroy the vassals parent node just because they think they will be the next top node. And continuing to rat until the area is dead.
1: you are literally forced to be vassalized, it is automatic. you can be in denial about that if you want but that's just what the situation is.
2: now you are attacking a strawman. there is no indication that I even like pvp let alone that I would take it so far as to destroy EVERY node. I would fight for raising my own node up and nothing more.
3: I'm sure you'll feel different if you ever end up living as one of these "rats" in the small nodes. that you dismiss out of hand. they are players just like you, and deserve to have fun playing the game as well.
Who is making yuo serve and forcing you to do things? The most you can say is if the parent node decs there is a chance you might be part of that owpvp. Besides that you aren't really forced to serve but pay taxes and get benefits for that....
People like you are the reason even more so these rules need to be in placed. You would destroy all the nodes until all content was dead if you could. Entirely of the games outlook needs to be around more organic and fluid node development for hard pvp. And for politics and such should be the most on inner node conflict.
No small nodes need to be empowered to be rats and work with some other higher level node to destroy the vassals parent node just because they think they will be the next top node. And continuing to rat until the area is dead.
1: you are literally forced to be vassalized, it is automatic. you can be in denial about that if you want but that's just what the situation is.
2: now you are attacking a strawman. there is no indication that I even like pvp let alone that I would take it so far as to destroy EVERY node. I would fight for raising my own node up and nothing more.
3: I'm sure you'll feel different if you ever end up living as one of these "rats" in the small nodes. that you dismiss out of hand. they are players just like you, and deserve to have fun playing the game as well.
1. You are not even answering my point you are just starting the obvious. Because as i said its just about you wanting to attack even though there is no true draw back or actual control forced over you.
2. You complaining about being forced to be vassalized, means you need to attack another node to get yuors up, being the parent node. On the chance you don't care about your own nodes growth getting to the next rank, means you simply want to be able to PvP the node. Cut the BS please, my point stands systems like this need to be in place for people like you.
3. IT has nothing to do with the node you live in, im talking about rats that just want to attack everything or be used by other nodes to destroy things around them. Again you fit the bill.
Every bit of vibe I get from you would be someone that would 100% kill a server if you got into that kind of position (not that it would ever happen though).
IT has nothing to do with the node you live in, im talking about rats that just want to attack everything or be used by other nodes to destroy things around them. Again you fit the bill.
Do you see every guild that's gonna pvp for their content as rats as well? What about players that flag first if they see someone approaching their gathering spot or mob farming location?
Cause that kinda sounds like 90% of the game's population will just be rats then.
1. You are not even answering my point you are just starting the obvious. Because as i said its just about you wanting to attack even though there is no true draw back or actual control forced over you.
2. You complaining about being forced to be vassalized, means you need to attack another node to get yuors up, being the parent node. On the chance you don't care about your own nodes growth getting to the next rank, means you simply want to be able to PvP the node. Cut the BS please, my point stands systems like this need to be in place for people like you.
3. IT has nothing to do with the node you live in, im talking about rats that just want to attack everything or be used by other nodes to destroy things around them. Again you fit the bill.
Every bit of vibe I get from you would be someone that would 100% kill a server if you got into that kind of position (not that it would ever happen though).
1: how do you know that there is no drawback? I can think of several drawbacks like limiting the growth of your node and taxes on top of what you already have to pay for citizenship.
2: bold of you to assume that I need to lie to beat you in an argument. you don't know me therefore you have no idea what systems should be in place for people like me. personally I don't care if my node is above other nodes. I do care if it's bellow another node.
making it so that you can't free yourself from a master node, forces me to get into a lot of PVP to keep neighboring nodes from leveling in the first place when I would much rather just do PVE.
3: I highly doubt the people you refer to as rats are going to be in any way confined to lower level nodes. those assholes tend to worm their way into all sorts of places just to ruin other peoples days. I also doubt that they would have a whole lot of node loyalty. so I don't really see why they are applicable to this topic.
0
scottstone7Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I was just looking over the original kickstarter for something else and found that rebellion IS supported by the original Kickstarter. Just saying.
But change for change’s sake means nothing without consequence. That means that these changes and these choices must have repercussions, they must be *felt* throughout the rest of the world. It means that when a player makes a choice in a quest, that choice can’t be undone. It means that when that volcano erupts and destroys a city, the landscape is forever altered. It means that when a tyrant makes life difficult for his citizens, his citizens can rise up against him. Players have choices to make, those choices lead to change, and that change has consequence. Day to day, server to server, the world will be in flux, and history will remain where it always should, in the hands of the player.
IT has nothing to do with the node you live in, im talking about rats that just want to attack everything or be used by other nodes to destroy things around them. Again you fit the bill.
Do you see every guild that's gonna pvp for their content as rats as well? What about players that flag first if they see someone approaching their gathering spot or mob farming location?
Cause that kinda sounds like 90% of the game's population will just be rats then.
Just doing PvP doesn't make you a rat lmao. It be more so if you allow bigger nodes to use you for forms of advantage to bypass or make certain systems easier to approach. There are certain types of players that will do any kind of ratty behavior to get their way. This temper tantrum nonsense about wanting to attack a parent node without moving, will find a lot those types of people that will do ratty things. Not limited to destroy the games economy just cause to get their node up. And the same type of people will end up attacking every node possible, with more a direct target on weaker nodes based on their mind set.
We have already had this argument before anyway, this s the reason reason why corruption pvp is going to be minimum and heavily disincentive. Without any kind of ruling in place people will just go down the path of destruction and take out every single node they can.
1. You are not even answering my point you are just starting the obvious. Because as i said its just about you wanting to attack even though there is no true draw back or actual control forced over you.
2. You complaining about being forced to be vassalized, means you need to attack another node to get yuors up, being the parent node. On the chance you don't care about your own nodes growth getting to the next rank, means you simply want to be able to PvP the node. Cut the BS please, my point stands systems like this need to be in place for people like you.
3. IT has nothing to do with the node you live in, im talking about rats that just want to attack everything or be used by other nodes to destroy things around them. Again you fit the bill.
Every bit of vibe I get from you would be someone that would 100% kill a server if you got into that kind of position (not that it would ever happen though).
1: how do you know that there is no drawback? I can think of several drawbacks like limiting the growth of your node and taxes on top of what you already have to pay for citizenship.
2: bold of you to assume that I need to lie to beat you in an argument. you don't know me therefore you have no idea what systems should be in place for people like me. personally I don't care if my node is above other nodes. I do care if it's bellow another node.
making it so that you can't free yourself from a master node, forces me to get into a lot of PVP to keep neighboring nodes from leveling in the first place when I would much rather just do PVE.
3: I highly doubt the people you refer to as rats are going to be in any way confined to lower level nodes. those assholes tend to worm their way into all sorts of places just to ruin other peoples days. I also doubt that they would have a whole lot of node loyalty. so I don't really see why they are applicable to this topic.
1. You can read what they already put on the whole system, its funny your comment is asking me "how do i know there is no draw back" you are trying to use fear mongering essentially. There will be taxes everywhere so what, that is part of the game. And also more than likely going to be part of a strategy advantage to weakening nodes by destroying smaller ones.
The main taxes you need to worry about are the ones YOUR OWN node sets. If you don't like them or how things are run look at other nodes go move to that fit your situation better.
Obviously you can't increased your node further once you have a parent node. IF being in the highest node is what is needed for your experience just move to it. All nodes will still grow based the level of it and how much the people in the node invest in it.
2. Your type is clear as day to me i know your type very well, its clear in your nodes, the fact of you making your node, and your interaction with it. You continue to make that more clear, you would be poison to the server in a world where all nodes could be attackable.
3. Its a mind set, and you fit the bill this is why you are so emotionally invested caring about being vassal to another node(regardless of the benefits). You are one person I wouldn't trust, if for whatever reason I was in talks with you. You are the type of person that would be the first to throw a dagger in some ones back. It be like in a snake bit trying to be the kill the rest to come out as the strongest. Though you would end up coming out alone and it be your own weakness.
But change for change’s sake means nothing without consequence. That means that these changes and these choices must have repercussions, they must be *felt* throughout the rest of the world. It means that when a player makes a choice in a quest, that choice can’t be undone. It means that when that volcano erupts and destroys a city, the landscape is forever altered. It means that when a tyrant makes life difficult for his citizens, his citizens can rise up against him. Players have choices to make, those choices lead to change, and that change has consequence. Day to day, server to server, the world will be in flux, and history will remain where it always should, in the hands of the player.
But change for change’s sake means nothing without consequence. That means that these changes and these choices must have repercussions, they must be *felt* throughout the rest of the world. It means that when a player makes a choice in a quest, that choice can’t be undone. It means that when that volcano erupts and destroys a city, the landscape is forever altered. It means that when a tyrant makes life difficult for his citizens, his citizens can rise up against him. Players have choices to make, those choices lead to change, and that change has consequence. Day to day, server to server, the world will be in flux, and history will remain where it always should, in the hands of the player.
you can raise up by leaving and joining another node to attack them, yes.
Nodes maxmum development tier is limited by the number of nodes in their vassal network, including itself. Thus a vassals vassal is just as good as a direct vassal. Direct vassals are limited to no more then 2 or 3, possibly varrying by a nodes development level.
Thus to develop a node must aquire and retain vassals. To reach the Metropolis level it would probably require 10-12 vassal nodes as thats roughtly 85/6 with allowance for some isolated nodes. Likewise maximum nodes in a network should be capped, 15 to 16 seems resonable about the level where their 6th Metropolis starts to get squeezed out. Vassals can be of equal tier but never higher at time of aquisition.
Gaining vassals can be done by conquest or diplomacy. Diplomacy offers the potential for negotiating taxes and benifits and vassal and patron can update this relationship by mutual agreement of new terms after vassalization. Conqcoured vassals on the other hand get a standardized rate of taxes and benifits. Vassals gained diplomaticaly can rebel and fight for independence but must clear a high threshold, being no more then 1 tier development below the patron node, paying a large sum and probably having to be at full experience. Nodes vassalized by conquest get reduced costs and waving of prerequisites to rebel, but if a node that was concoured ever signs a formalized vassal contract with its patron then its concquored status is removed and it is treated like a diplomatically aquired node. Conversly a Patron can unilaterally change the vassal contract but this gives the vassal node the concqoured status and acompanying reduced rebellion costs. In the event any war of independence is lost the vassal has its exp wiped and it and its vassals all the way down are unable to rebel for a period of time.
If a patron node losses enough vassals to cause it to drop below the minimum needed to support its development level then it begins a timed degradation process. If it dosn't aquire new vassals (either direct or through its vassals gaining vassals) then the development drops 1 tier, if it is still under vassalized the process and time period repeat. If this comes as the result of a major vassal the old vassal may end up aquireing the former patron is it's vassal, basically flipping the script on them. Wars to aquire vassals can be conducted on nodes that are already vassals in which causes their patron to automatically be a defender. If the taken vassal themselves has vassals the whle vassal tree is transfered which can cause massive re-alignments and the fall of previous hegemons. Complete wiping of nodes is no longer possible in one event, a node only gets knocked down 1 development level as a result of a node seige which it can rebuild, the loss of vassals is the more serious threat as it devolves a node and leaves it capped.
This system gives incentives for patron nodes to engage in cut throat diplomacy and warmaking for vassals, and to then keep vassals fearfull and or happy, protect them from poaching by other nodes while encouraging them to make their own expansionary moves. As well as giving everyone incentive to grow and 'pad' their vassal count from a supply that is just a little too tight Kingdoms rise and fall more gradually and never go strait back to zero, but can be brought to ruin with repeated losses. This should allow for a more interesting political churn.
Nodes maxmum development tier is limited by the number of nodes in their vassal network, including itself. Thus a vassals vassal is just as good as a direct vassal. Direct vassals are limited to no more then 2 or 3, possibly varrying by a nodes development level.
Thus to develop a node must aquire and retain vassals. To reach the Metropolis level it would probably require 10-12 vassal nodes as thats roughtly 85/6 with allowance for some isolated nodes. Likewise maximum nodes in a network should be capped, 15 to 16 seems resonable about the level where their 6th Metropolis starts to get squeezed out. Vassals can be of equal tier but never higher at time of aquisition.
Gaining vassals can be done by conquest or diplomacy. Diplomacy offers the potential for negotiating taxes and benifits and vassal and patron can update this relationship by mutual agreement of new terms after vassalization. Conqcoured vassals on the other hand get a standardized rate of taxes and benifits. Vassals gained diplomaticaly can rebel and fight for independence but must clear a high threshold, being no more then 1 tier development below the patron node, paying a large sum and probably having to be at full experience. Nodes vassalized by conquest get reduced costs and waving of prerequisites to rebel, but if a node that was concoured ever signs a formalized vassal contract with its patron then its concquored status is removed and it is treated like a diplomatically aquired node. Conversly a Patron can unilaterally change the vassal contract but this gives the vassal node the concqoured status and acompanying reduced rebellion costs. In the event any war of independence is lost the vassal has its exp wiped and it and its vassals all the way down are unable to rebel for a period of time.
If a patron node losses enough vassals to cause it to drop below the minimum needed to support its development level then it begins a timed degradation process. If it dosn't aquire new vassals (either direct or through its vassals gaining vassals) then the development drops 1 tier, if it is still under vassalized the process and time period repeat. If this comes as the result of a major vassal the old vassal may end up aquireing the former patron is it's vassal, basically flipping the script on them. Wars to aquire vassals can be conducted on nodes that are already vassals in which causes their patron to automatically be a defender. If the taken vassal themselves has vassals the whle vassal tree is transfered which can cause massive re-alignments and the fall of previous hegemons. Complete wiping of nodes is no longer possible in one event, a node only gets knocked down 1 development level as a result of a node seige which it can rebuild, the loss of vassals is the more serious threat as it devolves a node and leaves it capped.
This system gives incentives for patron nodes to engage in cut throat diplomacy and warmaking for vassals, and to then keep vassals fearfull and or happy, protect them from poaching by other nodes while encouraging them to make their own expansionary moves. As well as giving everyone incentive to grow and 'pad' their vassal count from a supply that is just a little too tight Kingdoms rise and fall more gradually and never go strait back to zero, but can be brought to ruin with repeated losses. This should allow for a more interesting political churn.
Naa i prefer what AoC is already doing it will already have enough politics going on. 1001 people will all say to change systems constantly as everyone always has different ideas to the point you won't ever have a game.
These ideas to overcomplicate a system just to make it difficult to complain about being a vassal is silly and would just lead to a worse game no one can follow what is even going on. Like people out here trying to add 5 steps that aren't needed to make it as difficult as possible to try to avoid being a vassal.
Get xp for you node, build it up, and pvp other nodes make it clear as possible to not overcomplicate the game. Do that and your node will level up while slowing down your competition.
Long story short you could add 10 steps / rules to anything and make things super complex. That doesn't make the game any more fun or interesting. You just end up bogging down the overall experience with elements that are not needed.
Followup, I realized that a non-war and non-diplomatic system will be nessary for the vassalization of a tier 1 or 2 node because they lack mayors they can not agree to diplomatic vassalization. Likewise a tier 2 nodes ability to gain it's first vassal can't be done by either method due to the lack of a mayor to select a target. This is why the current design uses an automated vassalization based on node XP. I think a better solution can be reached using an embyronic Caravan system to make a delivery to the node and thus claim it. This will provide player agency to the process while preserving as much of what I think Intrepids original intent was.
At tier 1 a node gains a chest or NPC which has the capacity to hold special objects called 'Expedition Crates', it holds nothing else but these and has a capacity of 100 and starts empty. At tier 2 (which can be achived with XP alone) a node which is full of XP will have overflow XP generate crates in their stockpile at some rate aimed at being likely to generate about a crate every 5 to 10 minutes under expected XP production rates of a tier 2 node, these crates are labeled with their node of origin but are otherwise identical and functionless, this will eventually fill the stockpile with 100 domestically created crates. Any player can remove a domestically produced crate from the stockpile, possibly subject to a fee or auction price, but can not drop or delete it and can carry only 1 at a time, probably with reduced movement speed unless a mount is used. The crate might be visible to other players but not it's origin node and it will decay away in a few hours when outside a stockpile and decays instantly if they drop on death, this might leave some loot. A person carrying a crate can deposit it into any stockpile, if the stockpile is full then the oldest non-matching-origin crate is destroyed to accomadate it, if they deposit into a forign stockpile they get a modest monetary reward. If a crate of forign origin is in a stockpile then XP is first used to consume it at a comperable rate before new crates are generated, note that Tier 1 nodes can consume crates but not generate them and forign crates can not be removed meaning only XP based consumption can remove them, again oldest forign crate is consumed first. If a Tier 1 or 2 stockpile is ever filled with >80 crates of a single forign node origin then the node is vassalized to that forign node. This includes nodes that are already vassals so they can be stolen away from the current patron, but the patron has an advantage, a vassal node consumes non-patron crates first before consuming patron crates so the usurper must overcome the consumption rate AND push out the patron. Likewise if a vassal node reaches 80 domestic crates they become independent again. Tier 3 through 6 nodes retain their ability to produce and consume crates Mayors can set tasks to deliver crates to specific destinations such as existing vassals to help maintain them, or to aquire new vassals, or to block someone else from gaining a vassal and such deliveries could generate extra rewards subsidized by the town coffers at the mayors discression. In this way a node of any tier can aquire tier 1 and 2 vassals but might face limits on the number of direct vassals they can have. if under such a cap then their crates are deleted upon entering into any node stockpile that is not already a vassal, but all rewards are still generated. It is intended hat the whole system remains in place at higher tiers as a kind of delivery mini-game for players to do for the cash rewards as an individualized alternative to caravans probably with higher rewards for greater distance of delivery and for the crates originating from higher tier nodes, this would likely come with an adjustment to the rate of crate creation for larger nodes and more systems to 'reserve' crates for yourself rathe they relying on first come. This keeps players familiarized with the system and engaged in a low intensity strugle for control of vassals for which outright wars would be unreasonable. Lastly it fits the theme and astetics of tier 1 and 2 nodes with a 'camps' and 'expeditions', logically supplies should be delivered to such things to maintain them.
As you can see the system is kind of delivery pushing king-of-the-hill in which a Tier 2 nodes pushes crates onto other nodes and can act without centralized leadership as players just try to get the monetary rewards for delivery. To win this pushing contest a node will need to sustain a higher rate of XP generation as well as do the leg work to deliver the crates. No one is flaged for pvp but it could occour either oportunistically or as an organized defense to prevent vassalization. Other interesting counterplay also exists when a third node of tier 3 or higher is inloved, they could try to deplete the attacking sides crate supply by taking them home to their node to deposit, as hey are already tier 3 this presents no risk to them. Note while a tier 2 node vassalizing a tier 1 node is a one sided push because the tier 1 node produces no crates it is possible for two tier 2 nodes to fight each other both generating and consuming each others crates untill one wins. Two different nodes might battle over the vassalization of a third node trying to push more crates to it. Point is that it is all player driven but because all crate creation is a byproduct of XP it's inherently self-throttling, only a fraction of players in a node can be doing deliveries because someone needs to be generating XP which crate deliveries do not, thus normal PvE play dominates while crates act as a soft intro to caravans and node-2-node commerce for that segment of econ focused players and thouse guilds focused on node advancement and empire building letting them flex their organizational muscle.
Lastly you have the possibility that the player who deposited the most crates to a successful vassalization might get a prize, maybe a large monetary prize, rights or privlages in their home node, maybe even becoming the first mayor if the vassalization is what took their node to tier 3.
2
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Followup, I realized that a non-war and non-diplomatic system will be nessary for the vassalization of a tier 1 or 2 node because they lack mayors they can not agree to diplomatic vassalization. Likewise a tier 2 nodes ability to gain it's first vassal can't be done by either method due to the lack of a mayor to select a target. This is why the current design uses an automated vassalization based on node XP. I think a better solution can be reached using an embyronic Caravan system to make a delivery to the node and thus claim it. This will provide player agency to the process while preserving as much of what I think Intrepids original intent was.
At tier 1 a node gains a chest or NPC which has the capacity to hold special objects called 'Expedition Crates', it holds nothing else but these and has a capacity of 100 and starts empty. At tier 2 (which can be achived with XP alone) a node which is full of XP will have overflow XP generate crates in their stockpile at some rate aimed at being likely to generate about a crate every 5 to 10 minutes under expected XP production rates of a tier 2 node, these crates are labeled with their node of origin but are otherwise identical and functionless, this will eventually fill the stockpile with 100 domestically created crates. Any player can remove a domestically produced crate from the stockpile, possibly subject to a fee or auction price, but can not drop or delete it and can carry only 1 at a time, probably with reduced movement speed unless a mount is used. The crate might be visible to other players but not it's origin node and it will decay away in a few hours when outside a stockpile and decays instantly if they drop on death, this might leave some loot. A person carrying a crate can deposit it into any stockpile, if the stockpile is full then the oldest non-matching-origin crate is destroyed to accomadate it, if they deposit into a forign stockpile they get a modest monetary reward. If a crate of forign origin is in a stockpile then XP is first used to consume it at a comperable rate before new crates are generated, note that Tier 1 nodes can consume crates but not generate them and forign crates can not be removed meaning only XP based consumption can remove them, again oldest forign crate is consumed first. If a Tier 1 or 2 stockpile is ever filled with >80 crates of a single forign node origin then the node is vassalized to that forign node. This includes nodes that are already vassals so they can be stolen away from the current patron, but the patron has an advantage, a vassal node consumes non-patron crates first before consuming patron crates so the usurper must overcome the consumption rate AND push out the patron. Likewise if a vassal node reaches 80 domestic crates they become independent again. Tier 3 through 6 nodes retain their ability to produce and consume crates Mayors can set tasks to deliver crates to specific destinations such as existing vassals to help maintain them, or to aquire new vassals, or to block someone else from gaining a vassal and such deliveries could generate extra rewards subsidized by the town coffers at the mayors discression. In this way a node of any tier can aquire tier 1 and 2 vassals but might face limits on the number of direct vassals they can have. if under such a cap then their crates are deleted upon entering into any node stockpile that is not already a vassal, but all rewards are still generated. It is intended hat the whole system remains in place at higher tiers as a kind of delivery mini-game for players to do for the cash rewards as an individualized alternative to caravans probably with higher rewards for greater distance of delivery and for the crates originating from higher tier nodes, this would likely come with an adjustment to the rate of crate creation for larger nodes and more systems to 'reserve' crates for yourself rathe they relying on first come. This keeps players familiarized with the system and engaged in a low intensity strugle for control of vassals for which outright wars would be unreasonable. Lastly it fits the theme and astetics of tier 1 and 2 nodes with a 'camps' and 'expeditions', logically supplies should be delivered to such things to maintain them.
As you can see the system is kind of delivery pushing king-of-the-hill in which a Tier 2 nodes pushes crates onto other nodes and can act without centralized leadership as players just try to get the monetary rewards for delivery. To win this pushing contest a node will need to sustain a higher rate of XP generation as well as do the leg work to deliver the crates. No one is flaged for pvp but it could occour either oportunistically or as an organized defense to prevent vassalization. Other interesting counterplay also exists when a third node of tier 3 or higher is inloved, they could try to deplete the attacking sides crate supply by taking them home to their node to deposit, as hey are already tier 3 this presents no risk to them. Note while a tier 2 node vassalizing a tier 1 node is a one sided push because the tier 1 node produces no crates it is possible for two tier 2 nodes to fight each other both generating and consuming each others crates untill one wins. Two different nodes might battle over the vassalization of a third node trying to push more crates to it. Point is that it is all player driven but because all crate creation is a byproduct of XP it's inherently self-throttling, only a fraction of players in a node can be doing deliveries because someone needs to be generating XP which crate deliveries do not, thus normal PvE play dominates while crates act as a soft intro to caravans and node-2-node commerce for that segment of econ focused players and thouse guilds focused on node advancement and empire building letting them flex their organizational muscle.
Lastly you have the possibility that the player who deposited the most crates to a successful vassalization might get a prize, maybe a large monetary prize, rights or privlages in their home node, maybe even becoming the first mayor if the vassalization is what took their node to tier 3.
Wow, I had to read this three times to fully grasp it, but I think I understand now. You put so much effort into explaining everything in detail that I forced myself into keep trying to understand it by reading over and over, I’ve never seen such a detailed explanation about all these in the same post.
The system is really interesting and it seems very good, it is also a bit ludic style that resembles the tabletop/boardgames/toys from the 70s-80s-90s. I picture it as a tug-of-war of crates.
Strategically, it makes sense to declare wars on guilds in neighboring node that is generating more XP than yours and bringing their crates to your chest. You could focus on attacking their members and defending your chest from their crates. Also, if possible, it would be smart attacking caravans entering your node, as they might be trying to sneak crates into your node and vassalize you.
This system is very rich and it could lead to a few different scenarios, it won't be easy explaining everything.
This system you explained is very good, it is not so unilateral as people thing.
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
Thx for the complement, the descritpion came out really dense as I kept thinking of how the system might break or be exploited and kept adding clarifying rules to guid the gameplay down intended directions and thouse often don't make sense immediatly when reading.
Note that this systems operates entirely at node level, guilds never become flagged or mechanically in any state of hostility or competition, though obviously guild members would partispate. Nodes at tier 1 and 2 can't declare war or be the targets of war declarations but if groups assosiated with them react to crate pushing by going to war, all the better as the formal war and crate game will occour similutaniously and offter players multiple ways to fight for their side and strategic choices will need to be made.
Lastly note that I had not intended for these 'expedition crates' to be carried in the large caravan wagons because they need to be carried by individuals without access to a wagon when the game starts and every node is at no higher then tier 2. Were told that caravans spawn from building in nodes of level 3 or higher and I'd be concerned about possibly of imeediatly flooding a node with all the crates nessary to vassalize if big wagons fulls could be delivered all at once without time for counter-play. If the wagon capacity is kept to a reasonable amount then it might be possible, and it would represent an advantage that higher tier nodes have in the competition, it would certainly help make maintance of a vassal node easier if just a few wagons a day being delivered was needed to maintain the vassal node rather then many more individual deliveries.
@lodrig Tier 1 and Tier 2 nodes are not part of the vassalization system. In a fully built out server the tier 1 and 2 nodes are the buffer areas (frontier) between larger node organizations.
From wiki: The vassal system begins when a node hits Village (stage 3), but neighboring nodes starting from Expedition (stage 1) also block the growth of their immediate neighbors.[11][12]
Sorry to pour cold water on your well thought out and interesting idea. Just that I think that it is good that the tier 1 and 2 nodes should not be included
There is some opportunity for gameplay there with players wanting to potentially deny a power from vassalizing a node by actively working to prevent it from advancing to tier 3
Edit to say; I can even see some powers having PvP fights around tier 2 nodes to compete over who gets control of the node and advances it to 3 so they can incorporate it into their network
So, basically, what I get from that statement, is that you are saying you get to vote on who potentially vassalizes your home node? Are you saying you get to vote on whether your home node gets vassalized or not? Which nodes are above you? On who gets to be the mayor of each node above yours?
I mean, if you get to vote then, yeah, it’s not an automatic system check or a force vassalization. No rebellions needed. Problem solved. Sorry, I misunderstood literally all the information available about those exact things on the wiki. Whew, that’s totally a my bad situation. Someone should really clear off all that well documented bad information on the wiki though otherwise more people might come to the same incorrect conclusion.
you can raise up by leaving and joining another node to attack them, yes.
Not really even sure how to respond to that statement without sounding condescending….So I’m not even going to try.
I suck at story writing but here goes.
Daddy - Sit down babydoll, let Daddy tell you about some grown up stuff involving groups of bad people and those that fight against them.
Daughter – Okay Papa!
Daddy - Okay, so, there are some bad people out in the world, it sucks but it’s true. Some of those bad people form up into group to take from anyone they can. Sometimes those bad groups of people even manage to enslave towns or villages or even other smaller groups of people, forcing them to do things or take their valuables. Now, as you can imagine, those enslaved people will not be happy about it.
Daughter – But Papa, if they are not happy why don’t they just move somewhere else?
Daddy- Some do baby girl, some do. Maybe even most, and some could argue that they are the smart ones.
Daughter – I’m smart, I can do my numbers and my abz’s too.
Daddy – Yes babydoll, you are very smart. Now back to what I was talking about. There are some people out there who refuse to give up everything they have worked so hard for. Those people then in turn start to gather and form small groups of their own, that’s what we call an uprising or a rebellion. Those groups will then begin to fight back trying to make things more difficult for the bad people, maybe covertly at first.
Daughter – Papa! What does covertly mean?
Daddy – It’s just a fancy word for secret baby girl. When I used it like that it was to say they would try to stay hidden, not let the bad people find out what they were up to.
Daughter – Ohh, so Mama covertly gives me ice cream after dinner sometimes?
Daddy – Sure babydoll, she tries to covertly give you ice cream sometimes. Now where were we? Ah, yes. After some time of operating covertly they will then start doing smaller things in the open without trying so much to stay hidden. If they can manage to start really making things more difficult for the bad people, then after a while they will begin to openly fight the bad people, usually in smaller numbers at first. If the bad people do not figure out what’s going on and put a stop to it then eventually the people rebelling against them will attack them outright and try to take control of their home back from them.
Daughter – I want to help fight the bad people too Papa!
Daddy – No baby girl, you said so yourself, you are smart. That’s why you are going with your Mama to stay somewhere safe. Daddy will stay here and fight for our home.
In case my horrible attempt at story writing didn’t convey the point. Leaving is not an act of rising up. I will agree that leaving can be a form of revolt in and of itself, but it is not rising up to overthrow an oppressor. Leaving is more akin to giving up than rising up. If you leave to join another group, you are still not rising up. That's just running away to hide under mommy's skirt hoping she will scare the bullies off for you.
I wouldn't go so far as to say it is broken. I do believe it will work as it is currently planned. I'm just saying it could be better. Why do you use a pen or pencil to write on paper? Charcoal sticks worked just fine. For that matter, why do you even write on paper? Stone tablets are hands down more durable and sturdier than paper; they worked just fine. An idea does not just have to be about fixing what's broken, but improvement in general. And in case you haven't noticed yet, the game is still being developed. That's the time to come up with ideas for improvement, push those idea's, and if those ideas are good hopefully have them implemented.
So, basically, what I get from that statement, is that you are saying you get to vote on who potentially vassalizes your home node? Are you saying you get to vote on whether your home node gets vassalized or not? Which nodes are above you? On who gets to be the mayor of each node above yours?
I mean, if you get to vote then, yeah, it’s not an automatic system check or a force vassalization. No rebellions needed. Problem solved. Sorry, I misunderstood literally all the information available about those exact things on the wiki. Whew, that’s totally a my bad situation. Someone should really clear off all that well documented bad information on the wiki though otherwise more people might come to the same incorrect conclusion.
you can raise up by leaving and joining another node to attack them, yes.
Not really even sure how to respond to that statement without sounding condescending….So I’m not even going to try.
I suck at story writing but here goes.
Daddy - Sit down babydoll, let Daddy tell you about some grown up stuff involving groups of bad people and those that fight against them.
Daughter – Okay Papa!
Daddy - Okay, so, there are some bad people out in the world, it sucks but it’s true. Some of those bad people form up into group to take from anyone they can. Sometimes those bad groups of people even manage to enslave towns or villages or even other smaller groups of people, forcing them to do things or take their valuables. Now, as you can imagine, those enslaved people will not be happy about it.
Daughter – But Papa, if they are not happy why don’t they just move somewhere else?
Daddy- Some do baby girl, some do. Maybe even most, and some could argue that they are the smart ones.
Daughter – I’m smart, I can do my numbers and my abz’s too.
Daddy – Yes babydoll, you are very smart. Now back to what I was talking about. There are some people out there who refuse to give up everything they have worked so hard for. Those people then in turn start to gather and form small groups of their own, that’s what we call an uprising or a rebellion. Those groups will then begin to fight back trying to make things more difficult for the bad people, maybe covertly at first.
Daughter – Papa! What does covertly mean?
Daddy – It’s just a fancy word for secret baby girl. When I used it like that it was to say they would try to stay hidden, not let the bad people find out what they were up to.
Daughter – Ohh, so Mama covertly gives me ice cream after dinner sometimes?
Daddy – Sure babydoll, she tries to covertly give you ice cream sometimes. Now where were we? Ah, yes. After some time of operating covertly they will then start doing smaller things in the open without trying so much to stay hidden. If they can manage to start really making things more difficult for the bad people, then after a while they will begin to openly fight the bad people, usually in smaller numbers at first. If the bad people do not figure out what’s going on and put a stop to it then eventually the people rebelling against them will attack them outright and try to take control of their home back from them.
Daughter – I want to help fight the bad people too Papa!
Daddy – No baby girl, you said so yourself, you are smart. That’s why you are going with your Mama to stay somewhere safe. Daddy will stay here and fight for our home.
In case my horrible attempt at story writing didn’t convey the point. Leaving is not an act of rising up. I will agree that leaving can be a form of revolt in and of itself, but it is not rising up to overthrow an oppressor. Leaving is more akin to giving up than rising up. If you leave to join another group, you are still not rising up. That's just running away to hide under mommy's skirt hoping she will scare the bullies off for you.
I wouldn't go so far as to say it is broken. I do believe it will work as it is currently planned. I'm just saying it could be better. Why do you use a pen or pencil to write on paper? Charcoal sticks worked just fine. For that matter, why do you even write on paper? Stone tablets are hands down more durable and sturdier than paper; they worked just fine. An idea does not just have to be about fixing what's broken, but improvement in general. And in case you haven't noticed yet, the game is still being developed. That's the time to come up with ideas for improvement, push those idea's, and if those ideas are good hopefully have them implemented.
Did not read whatever nonsense you typed besides the summery. Leaving your node and attacking the node is the same thing if you are trying to destroy that power.
I'm being a broken record at this point since at this point I'm pretty confident people are thinking they destroy their own parent node so they become the next node when it doesn't even work like that lmao. THere will be other nodes you are competing for as well, granted I'm guessing the solution is you destroy all the nodes around you so you can become the next parent node.
Which is the issue, the only thing people will do is just destroy all the nodes which in turn will destroy the game.
ITs crazy people are trying tot throw narratives they are being controlled by a node, when the parent node doesn't really have a influence over you. Besides more than likely some small form of tax that won't really effect general people on the node at all (the mayors tax of ur own node is what will effect you). And being placed in some node wars based on the dec scrolls.
IF you don't want to pvp the people they are fighting, and you don't want to support them simply don't work with the node and do what you want to do. Your node being a child node doesn't mean you are a slave, it just means you can't start trying to destroy the node or declare war on all nodes connected to your parent.
Ensuring the pvp is more focused and not a mess that leads to the whole point of AoC being ruined since people will always go the full destruction route. Point of rules if to have some balance with it.
And naa you aren't going to make it better, you are actually going to make the system worse. People trying t parade they want to destroy / attack nodes above them just cause is not trying to make anything better. More does not always = better. That would be like saying instead of partial loot drop it should be full loot drop since that is more.
It's still funny that player agency is important to you when it comes to a higher node siphoning resources from vassals under its jurisdiction, but not when it comes to loot being siphoned up by guild leads.
Why is it that 'your' node not having a way to usurp top spot (not even that the parent node is handling things poorly, just that you don't want to be part of a vassal node) something that's 'broken'?
You'll know the moment a nearby Node hits 3 if your preferred node wins out or not. If it didn't, you are free to siege that stage 3 Node, because there are no citizenships for Nodes at stage 1 and 2. You can take part and knock it down to make way for your prefered node to grow up first the next time around. If that siege fails, then you were overruled through the power of the players not wanting the same thing you want.
So, basically, what I get from that statement, is that you are saying you get to vote on who potentially vassalizes your home node? Are you saying you get to vote on whether your home node gets vassalized or not? Which nodes are above you? On who gets to be the mayor of each node above yours?
No, none of that (except perhaps by extension that you're free to join a different node.
What I think Noaani was really very correctly pointing out is that the sentences you quoted from the Kickstarter don't promise full involvement in all political structures above you. They just promise that when "a tyrant" imposes undesired policies over "his citizens," you get to do something about it. Which is fulfilled just fine by granting you the right to riot against your direct mayor. Regent nodes don't really need to be addressed here. Which is further amplified by the fact that regent nodes don't control your node's actions as much as your mayor does.
The only one who can validate you for all the posts you didn't write is you.
It's still funny that player agency is important to you when it comes to a higher node siphoning resources from vassals under its jurisdiction, but not when it comes to loot being siphoned up by guild leads.
Why is it that 'your' node not having a way to usurp top spot (not even that the parent node is handling things poorly, just that you don't want to be part of a vassal node) something that's 'broken'?
There's a shitton of choice in a guild situation. Choice of GL, of guild playstyle, guild size, guild composition, and pretty much every other thing that's related to how a guild could be structured or how it could treat its players.
What choice do you have with vassal-parent relations? Suck it up or leave. Awesome. Incredible! Revolutionary even. Oh wait, THERE IS NO DAMN REVOLUTION
You'll know the moment a nearby Node hits 3 if your preferred node wins out or not. If it didn't, you are free to siege that stage 3 Node, because there are no citizenships for Nodes at stage 1 and 2. You can take part and knock it down to make way for your prefered node to grow up first the next time around. If that siege fails, then you were overruled through the power of the players not wanting the same thing you want.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_sieges A node siege may not be declared for 21 days following a node advancing to any stage.[28][29]
Just sieging doesn't work. At first you literally can't and then it would take you the same amount of time a node takes to level up to its lvl to acquire the required resources for its siege.
And you know what happens during that time? YOU BECOME A VASSAL. Got fokced, boiiii.
Intra-guild relationships are not even close to the restrictions of inter-node relationships.
Comments
Kind of makes the point in support of allowing a rebellion right there. I mean, do you really expect everyone to accept forced second class citizenship?
I agree, you have options with the current system. Option 1, move out leaving everything you've built and worked toward behind. Option 2, accept you place of subservience and do what master tells you.
I agree that the vassal system will eventually smooth out into some semblance of a country. That will take time, and in that time the strife and unrest of the discontent should be allowed to manifest. Do not get me wrong, I'm not saying this should happen every time. I'm not saying that it would happen every time if given the option. I'm just saying the option should be there.
Having that option would then require the regent node to either spend time and resources to fix the problem or accept that it's going to happen and accept the consequences of letting it happen. Either way, it will help stabilize the world map because the war hungry larger powers will have to slow down and consolidate regularly to prevent it or accept suddenly losing parts of their controlled land to powers from within.
So.. Once enslaved...err.. forced to vassalize you are pretty much forced to work for master in your home node or give up everything and move. Before anyone tries to say that the higher nodes enslave nearby nodes is some sort of typo or play on word or misunderstanding, let me assure you it is not.
Diplomatic vassalage is where a weaker group seeks something from stronger group and accepts vassalage by pledging loyalty and or service to the stronger group. That, being voluntary and agreed upon would be a transactional deal, similar in a way to a work contract by a company or corporation. Forced vassalage, by war or other means, is forcing the subjugation of one group by another group. Now, as clearly defined and cited multiple times in different ways, the new subjugated vassal HAS to give up taxes and exp to their master node. Yes, I said it, their MASTER node. Because that's what it is, there is no friendship, no partnership. There is only master taking advantage of the enslaved to grow in power. Eventually over time both forms of vassalage can and probably will lead to a cohesive group working toward the same goal, but that's just it, eventually over time.
Now do not get me wrong by any means. I am not against the vassal system being in the game. It's going to be a very integral part of the game. I'm not even arguing against forced vassalage, as that is part of the vassal system. I'm saying that in no way should vassalage be an automatic system reaction, it should require direct player action, be it diplomatic or aggressive. In the event of an aggressive action that causes forced vassalization there should be a way for the vassal to try undermine and possibly overthrow their oppressors.
Is that a possibility? Yes. Is that going to happen every time every where? In the short term, most likely. In the long term, doubtful. With the non overbearing larger powers? Doubtful after the their reputation is know. With the super overbearing larger powers? Of course, most likely very often. Now the real question is; how bad is the controllable taxation and overall douchey attitude going to be in those overbearing larger powers if the people under them in the vassal system can and will constantly make life harder for them?
Is this what I want? Simple answer, Yes. I would love to see systems like that in place. I'm not going to whine about it if it doesn't happen as it will likely have little impact on how I play either way. It's just an idea that I personally, and it seems at least a minority of others, would love to see implemented.
People will accept the parent vassal situation since no one is locked to one node. If you are at the point you really dislike you parent node you have the chance to leave to another group of nodes.
With how things are going to be inner connected to damage a node, this most likely is going to be a strong political weapon. If you have people leaving vassal nodes it most likely will have a huge impact on the parent node do to taxes. The point isn't to have inner fighting with these systems being so inner connected (or atleast not having the barrier to entry of inner conflict being so easy to engage in). There is a point people will accept how currently things are.
Again they want pvp but they more than likely want to control some of the chaos that comes with it. So it feels more meaningful than just pvp everywhere. They want a focus on the groups of nodes pvping together against other groups of nodes. Not inward pvp, which would increase the overall pvp even more so. I'm sure they are trying to get the right balance.
As usual the points around this are mostly people saying they want their node to be number one and if it isn't they just should be able to attack the node and become number 1. This is exactly why you have stuff in place to prevent it, cause without rules people will pvp everything they can, which would just damage this kind of game.
I just wanted to type ... ... ... ... what the fffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu~
I mean okay, Stage 1 and 2 are just Camps ... ...
But if a Village could get destroyed WITHOUT EVEN BEING ATTACKED directly and physically -> only because a Node higher than itself would be destroyed,
this would be the the weirdest and most nonsensical thing of all time.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
But give me the ability to do SOMETHING to try and attempt a revolution. [/quote]
I agree. on a personal level, sitting by and watching something I don't want to happen without doing something about it goes against my principles. on a less subjective level I don't see how automatic failure based on population density is fun.
there will be people that are fine with being vassalized and I got nothing to say about that. but I don't like the feeling of helplessness of being told to suck it up and accept this situation you are in. we are talking about forced servitude after all. they can pretty that up as much as they want with rewards, and falsely call it an alliance. but that doesn't change the situation at the core.[/quote]
Who is making yuo serve and forcing you to do things? The most you can say is if the parent node decs there is a chance you might be part of that owpvp. Besides that you aren't really forced to serve but pay taxes and get benefits for that....
People like you are the reason even more so these rules need to be in placed. You would destroy all the nodes until all content was dead if you could. Entirely of the games outlook needs to be around more organic and fluid node development for hard pvp. And for politics and such should be the most on inner node conflict.
No small nodes need to be empowered to be rats and work with some other higher level node to destroy the vassals parent node just because they think they will be the next top node. And continuing to rat until the area is dead.
Ultimately, this system inspires community and teamwork in order to do what you want it to do. I don't want my favorite location to become a vassal but I will certainly not sit down when there is work to be done. My guild, my community, and my alliance (all 3 different angles that I plan on approaching from) will do what needs to be done in order to experience what this game has to offer : ).
The best players will play in the node that is most advantageous to them. That will not always be a metropolis. Dedication is not a factor that comes in to it, as many players are aware thst they don't want to be in a metropolis and so will work to make sure that is the case.
Sure, vassals contribute, but the average person in a node has no reason to care about any of that. Definitely not enough reason to care to spend time attempting to defend that node. Even more true when you consider that a lost lower level node will usually just result in a different type of node taking its place, which is then contributing to the parent node, and has the added benefit of changing the local content making things more interesting. When you also factor in the changes to local services that some players will find appealing, it is reasonable to assume thst some people in the parent node may well be all for the vassal being destroyed.
Sieges do indeed have preparation time. So you distract people with something more important at the actual time of the siege.
Declare a war on the parent node to coincide with the lower node siege. Most players would much rather protect their nodes existing services than spend time defending a minor tax/experience contributor.
Again, do more thinking before forming opinions on the matter.
In the worst Case ... ... ... ... ... Yes.
Yes, maybe at some Point You will never get anything done with the Allies and People you have. Maybe you will need to leave your favourite Node-Point.
And You can be hella-sure - > some Node-Locations will be the most desired for many People. Both on the Surface - same as in the "Underground-World" of Verra.
Some People will not unlikely have only a Chance to have their most favourite Type of Node in their most favourite kind of Location - > if they become battle-hardened Conquerors.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
1: you are literally forced to be vassalized, it is automatic. you can be in denial about that if you want but that's just what the situation is.
2: now you are attacking a strawman. there is no indication that I even like pvp let alone that I would take it so far as to destroy EVERY node. I would fight for raising my own node up and nothing more.
3: I'm sure you'll feel different if you ever end up living as one of these "rats" in the small nodes. that you dismiss out of hand. they are players just like you, and deserve to have fun playing the game as well.
1. You are not even answering my point you are just starting the obvious. Because as i said its just about you wanting to attack even though there is no true draw back or actual control forced over you.
2. You complaining about being forced to be vassalized, means you need to attack another node to get yuors up, being the parent node. On the chance you don't care about your own nodes growth getting to the next rank, means you simply want to be able to PvP the node. Cut the BS please, my point stands systems like this need to be in place for people like you.
3. IT has nothing to do with the node you live in, im talking about rats that just want to attack everything or be used by other nodes to destroy things around them. Again you fit the bill.
Every bit of vibe I get from you would be someone that would 100% kill a server if you got into that kind of position (not that it would ever happen though).
Cause that kinda sounds like 90% of the game's population will just be rats then.
1: how do you know that there is no drawback? I can think of several drawbacks like limiting the growth of your node and taxes on top of what you already have to pay for citizenship.
2: bold of you to assume that I need to lie to beat you in an argument. you don't know me therefore you have no idea what systems should be in place for people like me. personally I don't care if my node is above other nodes. I do care if it's bellow another node.
making it so that you can't free yourself from a master node, forces me to get into a lot of PVP to keep neighboring nodes from leveling in the first place when I would much rather just do PVE.
3: I highly doubt the people you refer to as rats are going to be in any way confined to lower level nodes. those assholes tend to worm their way into all sorts of places just to ruin other peoples days. I also doubt that they would have a whole lot of node loyalty. so I don't really see why they are applicable to this topic.
Just doing PvP doesn't make you a rat lmao. It be more so if you allow bigger nodes to use you for forms of advantage to bypass or make certain systems easier to approach. There are certain types of players that will do any kind of ratty behavior to get their way. This temper tantrum nonsense about wanting to attack a parent node without moving, will find a lot those types of people that will do ratty things. Not limited to destroy the games economy just cause to get their node up. And the same type of people will end up attacking every node possible, with more a direct target on weaker nodes based on their mind set.
We have already had this argument before anyway, this s the reason reason why corruption pvp is going to be minimum and heavily disincentive. Without any kind of ruling in place people will just go down the path of destruction and take out every single node they can.
1. You can read what they already put on the whole system, its funny your comment is asking me "how do i know there is no draw back" you are trying to use fear mongering essentially. There will be taxes everywhere so what, that is part of the game. And also more than likely going to be part of a strategy advantage to weakening nodes by destroying smaller ones.
The main taxes you need to worry about are the ones YOUR OWN node sets. If you don't like them or how things are run look at other nodes go move to that fit your situation better.
Obviously you can't increased your node further once you have a parent node. IF being in the highest node is what is needed for your experience just move to it. All nodes will still grow based the level of it and how much the people in the node invest in it.
2. Your type is clear as day to me i know your type very well, its clear in your nodes, the fact of you making your node, and your interaction with it. You continue to make that more clear, you would be poison to the server in a world where all nodes could be attackable.
3. Its a mind set, and you fit the bill this is why you are so emotionally invested caring about being vassal to another node(regardless of the benefits). You are one person I wouldn't trust, if for whatever reason I was in talks with you. You are the type of person that would be the first to throw a dagger in some ones back. It be like in a snake bit trying to be the kill the rest to come out as the strongest. Though you would end up coming out alone and it be your own weakness.
Indeed you can.
In the next election.
you can raise up by leaving and joining another node to attack them, yes.
Nodes maxmum development tier is limited by the number of nodes in their vassal network, including itself. Thus a vassals vassal is just as good as a direct vassal. Direct vassals are limited to no more then 2 or 3, possibly varrying by a nodes development level.
Thus to develop a node must aquire and retain vassals. To reach the Metropolis level it would probably require 10-12 vassal nodes as thats roughtly 85/6 with allowance for some isolated nodes. Likewise maximum nodes in a network should be capped, 15 to 16 seems resonable about the level where their 6th Metropolis starts to get squeezed out. Vassals can be of equal tier but never higher at time of aquisition.
Tier 6 needs 11 nodes (thus 10 vassls)
Tier 5 needs 7 nodes (thus 6 vassals)
Tier 4 needs 4 nodes (thus 3 vassals)
Tier 3 needs 2 nodes (thus 1 vassal)
Tier 2 needs 1 node (which is itself)
Tier 1 needs 1 node (which is itself)
Gaining vassals can be done by conquest or diplomacy. Diplomacy offers the potential for negotiating taxes and benifits and vassal and patron can update this relationship by mutual agreement of new terms after vassalization. Conqcoured vassals on the other hand get a standardized rate of taxes and benifits. Vassals gained diplomaticaly can rebel and fight for independence but must clear a high threshold, being no more then 1 tier development below the patron node, paying a large sum and probably having to be at full experience. Nodes vassalized by conquest get reduced costs and waving of prerequisites to rebel, but if a node that was concoured ever signs a formalized vassal contract with its patron then its concquored status is removed and it is treated like a diplomatically aquired node. Conversly a Patron can unilaterally change the vassal contract but this gives the vassal node the concqoured status and acompanying reduced rebellion costs. In the event any war of independence is lost the vassal has its exp wiped and it and its vassals all the way down are unable to rebel for a period of time.
If a patron node losses enough vassals to cause it to drop below the minimum needed to support its development level then it begins a timed degradation process. If it dosn't aquire new vassals (either direct or through its vassals gaining vassals) then the development drops 1 tier, if it is still under vassalized the process and time period repeat. If this comes as the result of a major vassal the old vassal may end up aquireing the former patron is it's vassal, basically flipping the script on them. Wars to aquire vassals can be conducted on nodes that are already vassals in which causes their patron to automatically be a defender. If the taken vassal themselves has vassals the whle vassal tree is transfered which can cause massive re-alignments and the fall of previous hegemons. Complete wiping of nodes is no longer possible in one event, a node only gets knocked down 1 development level as a result of a node seige which it can rebuild, the loss of vassals is the more serious threat as it devolves a node and leaves it capped.
This system gives incentives for patron nodes to engage in cut throat diplomacy and warmaking for vassals, and to then keep vassals fearfull and or happy, protect them from poaching by other nodes while encouraging them to make their own expansionary moves. As well as giving everyone incentive to grow and 'pad' their vassal count from a supply that is just a little too tight Kingdoms rise and fall more gradually and never go strait back to zero, but can be brought to ruin with repeated losses. This should allow for a more interesting political churn.
Naa i prefer what AoC is already doing it will already have enough politics going on. 1001 people will all say to change systems constantly as everyone always has different ideas to the point you won't ever have a game.
These ideas to overcomplicate a system just to make it difficult to complain about being a vassal is silly and would just lead to a worse game no one can follow what is even going on. Like people out here trying to add 5 steps that aren't needed to make it as difficult as possible to try to avoid being a vassal.
Get xp for you node, build it up, and pvp other nodes make it clear as possible to not overcomplicate the game. Do that and your node will level up while slowing down your competition.
Long story short you could add 10 steps / rules to anything and make things super complex. That doesn't make the game any more fun or interesting. You just end up bogging down the overall experience with elements that are not needed.
At tier 1 a node gains a chest or NPC which has the capacity to hold special objects called 'Expedition Crates', it holds nothing else but these and has a capacity of 100 and starts empty. At tier 2 (which can be achived with XP alone) a node which is full of XP will have overflow XP generate crates in their stockpile at some rate aimed at being likely to generate about a crate every 5 to 10 minutes under expected XP production rates of a tier 2 node, these crates are labeled with their node of origin but are otherwise identical and functionless, this will eventually fill the stockpile with 100 domestically created crates. Any player can remove a domestically produced crate from the stockpile, possibly subject to a fee or auction price, but can not drop or delete it and can carry only 1 at a time, probably with reduced movement speed unless a mount is used. The crate might be visible to other players but not it's origin node and it will decay away in a few hours when outside a stockpile and decays instantly if they drop on death, this might leave some loot. A person carrying a crate can deposit it into any stockpile, if the stockpile is full then the oldest non-matching-origin crate is destroyed to accomadate it, if they deposit into a forign stockpile they get a modest monetary reward. If a crate of forign origin is in a stockpile then XP is first used to consume it at a comperable rate before new crates are generated, note that Tier 1 nodes can consume crates but not generate them and forign crates can not be removed meaning only XP based consumption can remove them, again oldest forign crate is consumed first. If a Tier 1 or 2 stockpile is ever filled with >80 crates of a single forign node origin then the node is vassalized to that forign node. This includes nodes that are already vassals so they can be stolen away from the current patron, but the patron has an advantage, a vassal node consumes non-patron crates first before consuming patron crates so the usurper must overcome the consumption rate AND push out the patron. Likewise if a vassal node reaches 80 domestic crates they become independent again. Tier 3 through 6 nodes retain their ability to produce and consume crates Mayors can set tasks to deliver crates to specific destinations such as existing vassals to help maintain them, or to aquire new vassals, or to block someone else from gaining a vassal and such deliveries could generate extra rewards subsidized by the town coffers at the mayors discression. In this way a node of any tier can aquire tier 1 and 2 vassals but might face limits on the number of direct vassals they can have. if under such a cap then their crates are deleted upon entering into any node stockpile that is not already a vassal, but all rewards are still generated. It is intended hat the whole system remains in place at higher tiers as a kind of delivery mini-game for players to do for the cash rewards as an individualized alternative to caravans probably with higher rewards for greater distance of delivery and for the crates originating from higher tier nodes, this would likely come with an adjustment to the rate of crate creation for larger nodes and more systems to 'reserve' crates for yourself rathe they relying on first come. This keeps players familiarized with the system and engaged in a low intensity strugle for control of vassals for which outright wars would be unreasonable. Lastly it fits the theme and astetics of tier 1 and 2 nodes with a 'camps' and 'expeditions', logically supplies should be delivered to such things to maintain them.
As you can see the system is kind of delivery pushing king-of-the-hill in which a Tier 2 nodes pushes crates onto other nodes and can act without centralized leadership as players just try to get the monetary rewards for delivery. To win this pushing contest a node will need to sustain a higher rate of XP generation as well as do the leg work to deliver the crates. No one is flaged for pvp but it could occour either oportunistically or as an organized defense to prevent vassalization. Other interesting counterplay also exists when a third node of tier 3 or higher is inloved, they could try to deplete the attacking sides crate supply by taking them home to their node to deposit, as hey are already tier 3 this presents no risk to them. Note while a tier 2 node vassalizing a tier 1 node is a one sided push because the tier 1 node produces no crates it is possible for two tier 2 nodes to fight each other both generating and consuming each others crates untill one wins. Two different nodes might battle over the vassalization of a third node trying to push more crates to it. Point is that it is all player driven but because all crate creation is a byproduct of XP it's inherently self-throttling, only a fraction of players in a node can be doing deliveries because someone needs to be generating XP which crate deliveries do not, thus normal PvE play dominates while crates act as a soft intro to caravans and node-2-node commerce for that segment of econ focused players and thouse guilds focused on node advancement and empire building letting them flex their organizational muscle.
Lastly you have the possibility that the player who deposited the most crates to a successful vassalization might get a prize, maybe a large monetary prize, rights or privlages in their home node, maybe even becoming the first mayor if the vassalization is what took their node to tier 3.
Wow, I had to read this three times to fully grasp it, but I think I understand now. You put so much effort into explaining everything in detail that I forced myself into keep trying to understand it by reading over and over, I’ve never seen such a detailed explanation about all these in the same post.
The system is really interesting and it seems very good, it is also a bit ludic style that resembles the tabletop/boardgames/toys from the 70s-80s-90s. I picture it as a tug-of-war of crates.
Strategically, it makes sense to declare wars on guilds in neighboring node that is generating more XP than yours and bringing their crates to your chest. You could focus on attacking their members and defending your chest from their crates. Also, if possible, it would be smart attacking caravans entering your node, as they might be trying to sneak crates into your node and vassalize you.
This system is very rich and it could lead to a few different scenarios, it won't be easy explaining everything.
This system you explained is very good, it is not so unilateral as people thing.
Note that this systems operates entirely at node level, guilds never become flagged or mechanically in any state of hostility or competition, though obviously guild members would partispate. Nodes at tier 1 and 2 can't declare war or be the targets of war declarations but if groups assosiated with them react to crate pushing by going to war, all the better as the formal war and crate game will occour similutaniously and offter players multiple ways to fight for their side and strategic choices will need to be made.
Lastly note that I had not intended for these 'expedition crates' to be carried in the large caravan wagons because they need to be carried by individuals without access to a wagon when the game starts and every node is at no higher then tier 2. Were told that caravans spawn from building in nodes of level 3 or higher and I'd be concerned about possibly of imeediatly flooding a node with all the crates nessary to vassalize if big wagons fulls could be delivered all at once without time for counter-play. If the wagon capacity is kept to a reasonable amount then it might be possible, and it would represent an advantage that higher tier nodes have in the competition, it would certainly help make maintance of a vassal node easier if just a few wagons a day being delivered was needed to maintain the vassal node rather then many more individual deliveries.
From wiki: The vassal system begins when a node hits Village (stage 3), but neighboring nodes starting from Expedition (stage 1) also block the growth of their immediate neighbors.[11][12]
Sorry to pour cold water on your well thought out and interesting idea. Just that I think that it is good that the tier 1 and 2 nodes should not be included
There is some opportunity for gameplay there with players wanting to potentially deny a power from vassalizing a node by actively working to prevent it from advancing to tier 3
Edit to say; I can even see some powers having PvP fights around tier 2 nodes to compete over who gets control of the node and advances it to 3 so they can incorporate it into their network
I hear that in C13's Voice from Team Four Star of DBZ Abridged.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
So, basically, what I get from that statement, is that you are saying you get to vote on who potentially vassalizes your home node? Are you saying you get to vote on whether your home node gets vassalized or not? Which nodes are above you? On who gets to be the mayor of each node above yours?
I mean, if you get to vote then, yeah, it’s not an automatic system check or a force vassalization. No rebellions needed. Problem solved. Sorry, I misunderstood literally all the information available about those exact things on the wiki. Whew, that’s totally a my bad situation. Someone should really clear off all that well documented bad information on the wiki though otherwise more people might come to the same incorrect conclusion.
Not really even sure how to respond to that statement without sounding condescending….So I’m not even going to try.
I suck at story writing but here goes.
Daddy - Sit down babydoll, let Daddy tell you about some grown up stuff involving groups of bad people and those that fight against them.
Daughter – Okay Papa!
Daddy - Okay, so, there are some bad people out in the world, it sucks but it’s true. Some of those bad people form up into group to take from anyone they can. Sometimes those bad groups of people even manage to enslave towns or villages or even other smaller groups of people, forcing them to do things or take their valuables. Now, as you can imagine, those enslaved people will not be happy about it.
Daughter – But Papa, if they are not happy why don’t they just move somewhere else?
Daddy- Some do baby girl, some do. Maybe even most, and some could argue that they are the smart ones.
Daughter – I’m smart, I can do my numbers and my abz’s too.
Daddy – Yes babydoll, you are very smart. Now back to what I was talking about. There are some people out there who refuse to give up everything they have worked so hard for. Those people then in turn start to gather and form small groups of their own, that’s what we call an uprising or a rebellion. Those groups will then begin to fight back trying to make things more difficult for the bad people, maybe covertly at first.
Daughter – Papa! What does covertly mean?
Daddy – It’s just a fancy word for secret baby girl. When I used it like that it was to say they would try to stay hidden, not let the bad people find out what they were up to.
Daughter – Ohh, so Mama covertly gives me ice cream after dinner sometimes?
Daddy – Sure babydoll, she tries to covertly give you ice cream sometimes. Now where were we? Ah, yes. After some time of operating covertly they will then start doing smaller things in the open without trying so much to stay hidden. If they can manage to start really making things more difficult for the bad people, then after a while they will begin to openly fight the bad people, usually in smaller numbers at first. If the bad people do not figure out what’s going on and put a stop to it then eventually the people rebelling against them will attack them outright and try to take control of their home back from them.
Daughter – I want to help fight the bad people too Papa!
Daddy – No baby girl, you said so yourself, you are smart. That’s why you are going with your Mama to stay somewhere safe. Daddy will stay here and fight for our home.
In case my horrible attempt at story writing didn’t convey the point. Leaving is not an act of rising up. I will agree that leaving can be a form of revolt in and of itself, but it is not rising up to overthrow an oppressor. Leaving is more akin to giving up than rising up. If you leave to join another group, you are still not rising up. That's just running away to hide under mommy's skirt hoping she will scare the bullies off for you.
I wouldn't go so far as to say it is broken. I do believe it will work as it is currently planned. I'm just saying it could be better. Why do you use a pen or pencil to write on paper? Charcoal sticks worked just fine. For that matter, why do you even write on paper? Stone tablets are hands down more durable and sturdier than paper; they worked just fine. An idea does not just have to be about fixing what's broken, but improvement in general. And in case you haven't noticed yet, the game is still being developed. That's the time to come up with ideas for improvement, push those idea's, and if those ideas are good hopefully have them implemented.
Did not read whatever nonsense you typed besides the summery. Leaving your node and attacking the node is the same thing if you are trying to destroy that power.
I'm being a broken record at this point since at this point I'm pretty confident people are thinking they destroy their own parent node so they become the next node when it doesn't even work like that lmao. THere will be other nodes you are competing for as well, granted I'm guessing the solution is you destroy all the nodes around you so you can become the next parent node.
Which is the issue, the only thing people will do is just destroy all the nodes which in turn will destroy the game.
ITs crazy people are trying tot throw narratives they are being controlled by a node, when the parent node doesn't really have a influence over you. Besides more than likely some small form of tax that won't really effect general people on the node at all (the mayors tax of ur own node is what will effect you). And being placed in some node wars based on the dec scrolls.
IF you don't want to pvp the people they are fighting, and you don't want to support them simply don't work with the node and do what you want to do. Your node being a child node doesn't mean you are a slave, it just means you can't start trying to destroy the node or declare war on all nodes connected to your parent.
Ensuring the pvp is more focused and not a mess that leads to the whole point of AoC being ruined since people will always go the full destruction route. Point of rules if to have some balance with it.
And naa you aren't going to make it better, you are actually going to make the system worse. People trying t parade they want to destroy / attack nodes above them just cause is not trying to make anything better. More does not always = better. That would be like saying instead of partial loot drop it should be full loot drop since that is more.
It's still funny that player agency is important to you when it comes to a higher node siphoning resources from vassals under its jurisdiction, but not when it comes to loot being siphoned up by guild leads.
Why is it that 'your' node not having a way to usurp top spot (not even that the parent node is handling things poorly, just that you don't want to be part of a vassal node) something that's 'broken'?
You'll know the moment a nearby Node hits 3 if your preferred node wins out or not. If it didn't, you are free to siege that stage 3 Node, because there are no citizenships for Nodes at stage 1 and 2. You can take part and knock it down to make way for your prefered node to grow up first the next time around. If that siege fails, then you were overruled through the power of the players not wanting the same thing you want.
What I think Noaani was really very correctly pointing out is that the sentences you quoted from the Kickstarter don't promise full involvement in all political structures above you. They just promise that when "a tyrant" imposes undesired policies over "his citizens," you get to do something about it. Which is fulfilled just fine by granting you the right to riot against your direct mayor. Regent nodes don't really need to be addressed here. Which is further amplified by the fact that regent nodes don't control your node's actions as much as your mayor does.
What choice do you have with vassal-parent relations? Suck it up or leave. Awesome. Incredible! Revolutionary even. Oh wait, THERE IS NO DAMN REVOLUTION
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_sieges
A node siege may not be declared for 21 days following a node advancing to any stage.[28][29]
Just sieging doesn't work. At first you literally can't and then it would take you the same amount of time a node takes to level up to its lvl to acquire the required resources for its siege.
And you know what happens during that time? YOU BECOME A VASSAL. Got fokced, boiiii.
Intra-guild relationships are not even close to the restrictions of inter-node relationships.