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.
Maybe I'd commiserate more if citizenship, aka the thing that locks you from declaring a siege on a specific node, was automatic, but since it isn't automatic, you are free to wait out that timer and declare a siege on the stage 3 node. If the node goes from Village to Metro before the lockout ends, then its very obvious people in that region didn't share you node type preferences and wouldn't join the attacking siege anyway.
There is no damage done by being a vassal, and choosing to become a citizen of a vassal node is an active choice you make, not one inflicted on you. You literally HAVE to choose to be part of a vassal node. If that's a deal breaker, why would you ever choose to put yourself in a vassal position when you could go to another area of the world where a Divine metro has formed/is forming?
Every further interaction indicates some kind of lack of understanding, or maybe just that it's devolving into bad faith discussions, but either way in case you genuinely didn't know, nodes are not the units that declare a siege. Players are.
Any player that isn't a Citizen of a vassal node can declare a siege. Even if they spend most of their time in a vassal node, or use the bank in a vassal node, or use the services in that vassal node, as long as they didn't OPT-IN to being a citizen of that vassal node, they can declare a siege on the parent.
Maybe I'd commiserate more if citizenship, aka the thing that locks you from declaring a siege on a specific node, was automatic, but since it isn't automatic, you are free to wait out that timer and declare a siege on the stage 3 node. If the node goes from Village to Metro before the lockout ends, then its very obvious people in that region didn't share you node type preferences and wouldn't join the attacking siege anyway.
There is no damage done by being a vassal, and choosing to become a citizen of a vassal node is an active choice you make, not one inflicted on you. You literally HAVE to choose to be part of a vassal node. If that's a deal breaker, why would you ever choose to put yourself in a vassal position when you could go to another area of the world where a Divine metro has formed/is forming?
As I've been saying from the start, I don't want to move, I don't want to wait, I don't want to be passive about what MY PREFERRED NODE IS.
I chose a node to live in. I chose it before it became anything to anything (i.e. I have already chosen what kind of node I'll be living in). And I want it to succeed. In order for me to represent that desire I'd need to be a citizen of said node (especially considering that I'm aiming to be a mayor). Waiting for literal months to become a citizen (and that is if I manage to gather the people to siege the parent) would lock me out of a ton of gameplay interactions.
It would also make it potentially impossible to get good housing in my preferred node, because, by the time I get to siege the parent, all the housing will be bought up and the price will hit the upper limit.
All of this can be avoided if Intrepid simply enable vassal citizens to join the siege, with whatever consequences for failure Intrepid would want.
My main argument for this has been simple. If Steven wants nodes to be the highest and most important affiliation players have - why is the design going against that?
Every further interaction indicates some kind of lack of understanding, or maybe just that it's devolving into bad faith discussions, but either way in case you genuinely didn't know, nodes are not the units that declare a siege. Players are.
Any player that isn't a Citizen of a vassal node can declare a siege. Even if they spend most of their time in a vassal node, or use the bank in a vassal node, or use the services in that vassal node, as long as they didn't OPT-IN to being a citizen of that vassal node, they can declare a siege on the parent.
Yes, I know all of this and has talked about it in previous posts on this topic (which have been numerous and in numerous threads).
1) That the current system retains more homogenous power structures.
(If you don't like your node's lack of success, move where you like the way people play, don't try to force the node into something it isn't by antagonising your regents until everything's laid to dust and your less successful node is the best node by virtue of being the only thing remaining)
I don't immediately support NiKr's hyper-node-pride position, but I don't see a problem in letting players with those convictions get some tools to turn things around by investing a lot of effort into it.
Like 5-10 times the cost of a siege scroll for instigating a vassal uprising? Perhaps even more, so it's truly designed to be something for the entire node to chip in for.
So it's still heavily incentivised to find other ways of getting things done, but if they are *really* fed up with having a regent above them, they have a tool available to reset the power dynamics.
2) The other thing that has been brought up a lot is that property would get destroyed/removed/lost. Particularly by @Mag7spy, but also others.
What makes you think that would have to be the case? Just because it's also called "siege" doesn't have to mean that a vassal revolution would necessarily have the same outcomes as a proper node siege.
Why couldn't a successful vassal revolution simply end by knocking down the parent node by a level or two.
If you're worried about players who own freeholds and stuff, you could even grand land owners mandatory amnesty in the new regent node, if their prior regent node lost the space for them.
Has this even been discussed yet? Otherwise the discussion that there would necessarily be loss of property seems premature.
The only one who can validate you for all the posts you didn't write is you.
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.
Please, give some attention to this long post, because I am trying to see far in the future with these:
Scenario 1: Can we take crates from our own stockpile and store them in our own chest? It seems possible since you mentioned that non-origin crates can be replaced. This way, we can sanitize our chest, but continually doing so will deplete our stockpile, leaving us with fewer crates for hauling and storing in our neighbors' chests for attempting to vassalized them.
Unless, the new generated crates would automatically go to the chest and destroy the oldest non-origin chest automatically.
I really don't know which one is the best, maybe we have 79 crates inside our enemy's chest already and we needed just 1 crate in our stockpile so we can haul the last crate over there and add to their chest making 80 crates and vassalizing them.... Or, because the other node added a few crates to my chest then my new generated crates would replace automatically the non-origin crate in my chest.
What's gonna be?
Scenario 2: If I see we have 20 crates in the chest and then a stranger I've never seen before arrives, and I notice there are now 21 crates, I would suspect that the stranger has sneaked a crate into our chest. This would suggest they are from a node attempting to vassalize us.
It would be helpful to have visual indicators of who is adding crates to our chest. Perhaps they could move slowly or we could see the crate itself strapped on the character's back, which would help us identify who is taking crates from our stockpile. If he is using a mule maybe we could see the crate.
Scenario 3:
"Any player can remove a domestically produced crate from the stockpile"
Regarding this, any player? If my enemy node is trying to vassalize my node, can I send a group there to take all their crates from their stockpile and let them decay, thereby preventing the vassalization (at least temporarily)? The other node's members should notice that we took their crates and might then declare war on our guilds, allowing them to attack us the next time we try to approach their stockpile.
Is my understanding correct? Did I grasp the system properly? The system is good and fun!
We didn't have a detailed in depth explanation before, this is why sometimes people get a little concerned about the whole thing.
Vassalization doesn't happen automatically as the community is imagining:
In this system, to prevent vassalization, people need to engage in PvP before the chest reaches 80% full of crates from the other node. Therefore, if we have a highly aggressive and determined level 1 node, it's possible that they may never become vassals of anyone. They would remain a standalone node, isolated among other node chains.
Flagging:
Can someone take a crate from the stockpile while having green flag?
Can someone walk into another node with a crate from another origin while having green flag?
These two questions are very concerning!
Imagine if you are from node A and I am from node B:
I will go to A and snatch your crate and leave while having green safety and logoff with the crates and let them decay, I will call my my budies from node B and we will clean your stockpile.
In the next day. since your node farms more, you will have many crates in your stockpile again and you are your buddies from A will take as many crates as you can carry and you will simply walk into node B with green flag and store in our chest.
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
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?
You're trying to fix a pen that isn't broken yet. And that no one has even used yet.
I never thought a post I made would get this popular. makes me feel good inside I am honored you all have been paying attention to it.
LOL, it is because the same subject has dozens of threads about it, and hundreds of posts along many random theads, so the pressure is going up in this subject for quite some time
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Every further interaction indicates some kind of lack of understanding, or maybe just that it's devolving into bad faith discussions, but either way in case you genuinely didn't know, nodes are not the units that declare a siege. Players are.
Any player that isn't a Citizen of a vassal node can declare a siege. Even if they spend most of their time in a vassal node, or use the bank in a vassal node, or use the services in that vassal node, as long as they didn't OPT-IN to being a citizen of that vassal node, they can declare a siege on the parent.
That's completly untenable as a design if you ask me. If that's not just a misinterpretation on your part and is actually what they are planning then it will be abandoned at some point in Alpha/Beta and they will move to a system in which a siege will be initiated my a Mayor. Random non-citizens declaring sieges would be trollish if the cost were low and pointless if it were high.
That's completly untenable as a design if you ask me. If that's not just a misinterpretation on your part and is actually what they are planning then it will be abandoned at some point in Alpha/Beta and they will move to a system in which a siege will be initiated my a Mayor. Random non-citizens declaring sieges would be trollish if the cost were low and pointless if it were high.
Every further interaction indicates some kind of lack of understanding, or maybe just that it's devolving into bad faith discussions, but either way in case you genuinely didn't know, nodes are not the units that declare a siege. Players are.
Any player that isn't a Citizen of a vassal node can declare a siege. Even if they spend most of their time in a vassal node, or use the bank in a vassal node, or use the services in that vassal node, as long as they didn't OPT-IN to being a citizen of that vassal node, they can declare a siege on the parent.
If that's not just a misinterpretation on your part and is actually what they are planning then it will be abandoned at some point in Alpha/Beta and they will move to a system in which a siege will be initiated my a Mayor. Random non-citizens declaring sieges would be trollish if the cost were low and pointless if it were high.
The costs are high. A good argument for why it's not pointless to let anyone declare is that the mayor isn't elected very directly in most node types, so the mayor isn't that much better of a true representative of the will of the node than that powerful guild that coughs up the resources for a siege scroll.
In a military node where your mayor is appointed through fighting, it's highly appropriate that a powerful guild should be able to declare a node war, even if the guy who happened to win their node mayor contest doesn't happen to feel like making a scroll.
Political systems are kinda fluid in Ashes, in a good way. It's not all rigid and predetermined and the same in every node.
The mayor is still an important figure to do diplomacy with and align your goals with, but he's not the only decisionmaker about everything the node does.
The only one who can validate you for all the posts you didn't write is you.
Every further interaction indicates some kind of lack of understanding, or maybe just that it's devolving into bad faith discussions, but either way in case you genuinely didn't know, nodes are not the units that declare a siege. Players are.
Any player that isn't a Citizen of a vassal node can declare a siege. Even if they spend most of their time in a vassal node, or use the bank in a vassal node, or use the services in that vassal node, as long as they didn't OPT-IN to being a citizen of that vassal node, they can declare a siege on the parent.
That's completly untenable as a design if you ask me. If that's not just a misinterpretation on your part and is actually what they are planning then it will be abandoned at some point in Alpha/Beta and they will move to a system in which a siege will be initiated my a Mayor. Random non-citizens declaring sieges would be trollish if the cost were low and pointless if it were high.
That’s exactly how it is planned to operate and it’s plenty tenable as long as it’s not painfully easy to get a declaration of siege, which it’s been claimed it won’t be.
Node sieges (individual players vs a node) are not node wars (node citizens vs another node’s citizens)
As Nik likes to say, it would be a 180 to not let individual players declare a siege.
Scenario 1: Can we take crates from our own stockpile and store them in our own chest? It seems possible since you mentioned that non-origin crates can be replaced. This way, we can sanitize our chest, but continually doing so will deplete our stockpile, leaving us with fewer crates for hauling and storing in our neighbors' chests for attempting to vassalized them.
Unless, the new generated crates would automatically go to the chest and destroy the oldest non-origin chest automatically.
I really don't know which one is the best, maybe we have 79 crates inside our enemy's chest already and we needed just 1 crate in our stockpile so we can haul the last crate over there and add to their chest making 80 crates and vassalizing them.... Or, because the other node added a few crates to my chest then my new generated crates would replace automatically the non-origin crate in my chest.
What's gonna be?
Your use of 'chest' is confusing here as it not a term I have been using, It sounds like your using it as a synonm for stockpile. In any case, their is only one stockpile per node and it is a structure/npc you interact with, any crate outside of a stockpile is decaying at all times without exception and will be gone in a ~2 hours at most. A crate can be returned to the stockpile it originated from, mainly as a way for players to reset that decay timer, but the intent is to prevent their ever being a significant number of crates outside of the stockpiles which might be used to 'instant win'.
Return a crate to it's origin aka domestic stockpile can eliminate forign crates, IF the stockpile were full AND had a forign crate in it this would delete the forign crate. But you would need to have removed your own crate before the forign crate was added for this to work. Because if the forign crate were already present and you remove your domestic crate your just making empty room and putting the crate back dosn't squeeze anything out. The creation of new domestic crates is suppressed when ever a forign crate is present because XP goes first to consuming forign crates and only when their are none left will domestic crates be generated.
Scenario 2: If I see we have 20 crates in the chest and then a stranger I've never seen before arrives, and I notice there are now 21 crates, I would suspect that the stranger has sneaked a crate into our chest. This would suggest they are from a node attempting to vassalize us.
It would be helpful to have visual indicators of who is adding crates to our chest. Perhaps they could move slowly or we could see the crate itself strapped on the character's back, which would help us identify who is taking crates from our stockpile. If he is using a mule maybe we could see the crate.
Indeed heir would be no need to 'guess', I stipulated a character or mount is carrying a crate is visible aka they litterally be carrying an obvious crate graphic plain as day like thouse npc's walking around with barrles in all the town previes. Likewise the name of the node from which a crate originated would be visible to anyone looking at the stockpile, so which enemy node is pushing crates will be obvious to everyone both friendly and hostile. Remember a Tier 2 node has no citizens so everyone is equal.
"Any player can remove a domestically produced crate from the stockpile"
Regarding this, any player? If my enemy node is trying to vassalize my node, can I send a group there to take all their crates from their stockpile and let them decay, thereby preventing the vassalization (at least temporarily)? The other node's members should notice that we took their crates and might then declare war on our guilds, allowing them to attack us the next time we try to approach their stockpile.
Yes this is intended counter play, though I had intended the no-drop rule to prevent mass removal and wasting of crates, once a person has a crate they can't withdraw another, but they can return it to the stockpile, this is to let people back out of the crate delivery if they change their mind without penalizing them or the source node. To conduct hostile crate 'wasting' one will need to move the crates to a 3rd node where it can be deposited and thus become irretrivable. It might also be nessary to implement some withdraw-rate limit on crates to prevent complet emptying. Note tier 3 or higher nodes might have a fee to withdraw their crates as well and maybe reservation systems or even limits on non-citizens doing this, the completly open first come, costless withdrawing is intended for tier 2 nodes which have no citizenship.
Is my understanding correct? Did I grasp the system properly? The system is good and fun!
We didn't have a detailed in depth explanation before, this is why sometimes people get a little concerned about the whole thing.
Vassalization doesn't happen automatically as the community is imagining:
In this system, to prevent vassalization, people need to engage in PvP before the chest reaches 80% full of crates from the other node. Therefore, if we have a highly aggressive and determined level 1 node, it's possible that they may never become vassals of anyone. They would remain a standalone node, isolated among other node chains.
Flagging:
Can someone take a crate from the stockpile while having green flag?
Can someone walk into another node with a crate from another origin while having green flag?
These two questions are very concerning!
Imagine if you are from node A and I am from node B:
I will go to A and snatch your crate and leave while having green safety and logoff with the crates and let them decay, I will call my my budies from node B and we will clean your stockpile.
In the next day. since your node farms more, you will have many crates in your stockpile again and you are your buddies from A will take as many crates as you can carry and you will simply walk into node B with green flag and store in our chest.
PvP is not the ONLY means available to avoid vassalization, you can PvE to burn off forign crates faster then they come in, OR go the the enemy and send their crates elseware, OR pvp the enemy crate carriers, or do all thouse things simultanisly, likely different players will have different preferences.
Hypothetically yes a Tier 1 node that successfully KOS or drives off all incoming crate carriers would never be vasslized. They can even advance up to tier 2 by XP and continue to avoid vassalization, even if a few crates slip through if they keep up on consuming them. They could get vassalized but then start defending the stockpile and build up their domestic crates enough to break vassalage and become independent again. Basically if they are stuborn enough they never have to be or stay a vassal. If they reach and maintain tier 3 (by taking their own vassal) then crates stop being the means by which they are vassalized, tier 3 and up use actual wars and or signed documents of vassalization between mayors to determine that. Remember crate vassalization is an extension of the earlier system of war/diplomacy for MOST nodes.
I did not intend for pvp flagging or corruption to have any affect on crates, as I did not imagine that it ever effect any interaction you have with npc's or node systems generally. It is only a system for other players to judge you by. If players want to pvp to prevent crate from being deposited or withdrawn from a stockpile they merely need to guard the area and KOS all unknowns who approatch, that's going to be a very costly means to achive their ends but it's an open world game. If crate carrying makes you slow and unable to defend yourself is another question, I'd imagined that most movement would be done with mounts rather then carying by hand in any case so it's a question of balance.
As for logging off with crates, yes they wold need to decay, but note that the intended rate of crate generation every 10 minutes makes this a really really inefficient senario as your logging off your character to deny them this when you could just take the crate away to another node, cash it in for a reward and then likely be back by the time the next one spawns and thus eliminate far more crates and get paid for it then by logging off for ~2 hours at a time. If this were found to be an abuse then an individual who allows a crate to decay either when logged in or off can just be flagged with a one day timeout period for picking out crates from that node.
Steven keeps saying it is a good thing to be vasseled. I want to find out how he plans to make that true.
Given that people will want their node to be top-dog, it does seem weird that there's no way to achieve that in the current system without moving to a different node.
Steven keeps saying it is a good thing to be vasseled. I want to find out how he plans to make that true.
Given that people will want their node to be top-dog, it does seem weird that there's no way to achieve that in the current system without moving to a different node.
You can stay in the same node no problem, you just can’t sign yourself up as a citizen of the vassal node then take part in a siege against the parent node.
You siege the parent, that node you like is now racing the others to level up, and you can now sign up for citizenship and housing with the expanded population allocations in the larger node.
Scenario 1: Can we take crates from our own stockpile and store them in our own chest? It seems possible since you mentioned that non-origin crates can be replaced. This way, we can sanitize our chest, but continually doing so will deplete our stockpile, leaving us with fewer crates for hauling and storing in our neighbors' chests for attempting to vassalized them.
Unless, the new generated crates would automatically go to the chest and destroy the oldest non-origin chest automatically.
I really don't know which one is the best, maybe we have 79 crates inside our enemy's chest already and we needed just 1 crate in our stockpile so we can haul the last crate over there and add to their chest making 80 crates and vassalizing them.... Or, because the other node added a few crates to my chest then my new generated crates would replace automatically the non-origin crate in my chest.
What's gonna be?
Your use of 'chest' is confusing here as it not a term I have been using, It sounds like your using it as a synonm for stockpile. In any case, their is only one stockpile per node and it is a structure/npc you interact with, any crate outside of a stockpile is decaying at all times without exception and will be gone in a ~2 hours at most. A crate can be returned to the stockpile it originated from, mainly as a way for players to reset that decay timer, but the intent is to prevent their ever being a significant number of crates outside of the stockpiles which might be used to 'instant win'.
Return a crate to it's origin aka domestic stockpile can eliminate forign crates, IF the stockpile were full AND had a forign crate in it this would delete the forign crate. But you would need to have removed your own crate before the forign crate was added for this to work. Because if the forign crate were already present and you remove your domestic crate your just making empty room and putting the crate back dosn't squeeze anything out. The creation of new domestic crates is suppressed when ever a forign crate is present because XP goes first to consuming forign crates and only when their are none left will domestic crates be generated.
Scenario 2: If I see we have 20 crates in the chest and then a stranger I've never seen before arrives, and I notice there are now 21 crates, I would suspect that the stranger has sneaked a crate into our chest. This would suggest they are from a node attempting to vassalize us.
It would be helpful to have visual indicators of who is adding crates to our chest. Perhaps they could move slowly or we could see the crate itself strapped on the character's back, which would help us identify who is taking crates from our stockpile. If he is using a mule maybe we could see the crate.
Indeed heir would be no need to 'guess', I stipulated a character or mount is carrying a crate is visible aka they litterally be carrying an obvious crate graphic plain as day like thouse npc's walking around with barrles in all the town previes. Likewise the name of the node from which a crate originated would be visible to anyone looking at the stockpile, so which enemy node is pushing crates will be obvious to everyone both friendly and hostile. Remember a Tier 2 node has no citizens so everyone is equal.
"Any player can remove a domestically produced crate from the stockpile"
Regarding this, any player? If my enemy node is trying to vassalize my node, can I send a group there to take all their crates from their stockpile and let them decay, thereby preventing the vassalization (at least temporarily)? The other node's members should notice that we took their crates and might then declare war on our guilds, allowing them to attack us the next time we try to approach their stockpile.
Yes this is intended counter play, though I had intended the no-drop rule to prevent mass removal and wasting of crates, once a person has a crate they can't withdraw another, but they can return it to the stockpile, this is to let people back out of the crate delivery if they change their mind without penalizing them or the source node. To conduct hostile crate 'wasting' one will need to move the crates to a 3rd node where it can be deposited and thus become irretrivable. It might also be nessary to implement some withdraw-rate limit on crates to prevent complet emptying. Note tier 3 or higher nodes might have a fee to withdraw their crates as well and maybe reservation systems or even limits on non-citizens doing this, the completly open first come, costless withdrawing is intended for tier 2 nodes which have no citizenship.
Is my understanding correct? Did I grasp the system properly? The system is good and fun!
We didn't have a detailed in depth explanation before, this is why sometimes people get a little concerned about the whole thing.
Vassalization doesn't happen automatically as the community is imagining:
In this system, to prevent vassalization, people need to engage in PvP before the chest reaches 80% full of crates from the other node. Therefore, if we have a highly aggressive and determined level 1 node, it's possible that they may never become vassals of anyone. They would remain a standalone node, isolated among other node chains.
Flagging:
Can someone take a crate from the stockpile while having green flag?
Can someone walk into another node with a crate from another origin while having green flag?
These two questions are very concerning!
Imagine if you are from node A and I am from node B:
I will go to A and snatch your crate and leave while having green safety and logoff with the crates and let them decay, I will call my my budies from node B and we will clean your stockpile.
In the next day. since your node farms more, you will have many crates in your stockpile again and you are your buddies from A will take as many crates as you can carry and you will simply walk into node B with green flag and store in our chest.
PvP is not the ONLY means available to avoid vassalization, you can PvE to burn off forign crates faster then they come in, OR go the the enemy and send their crates elseware, OR pvp the enemy crate carriers, or do all thouse things simultanisly, likely different players will have different preferences.
Hypothetically yes a Tier 1 node that successfully KOS or drives off all incoming crate carriers would never be vasslized. They can even advance up to tier 2 by XP and continue to avoid vassalization, even if a few crates slip through if they keep up on consuming them. They could get vassalized but then start defending the stockpile and build up their domestic crates enough to break vassalage and become independent again. Basically if they are stuborn enough they never have to be or stay a vassal. If they reach and maintain tier 3 (by taking their own vassal) then crates stop being the means by which they are vassalized, tier 3 and up use actual wars and or signed documents of vassalization between mayors to determine that. Remember crate vassalization is an extension of the earlier system of war/diplomacy for MOST nodes.
I did not intend for pvp flagging or corruption to have any affect on crates, as I did not imagine that it ever effect any interaction you have with npc's or node systems generally. It is only a system for other players to judge you by. If players want to pvp to prevent crate from being deposited or withdrawn from a stockpile they merely need to guard the area and KOS all unknowns who approatch, that's going to be a very costly means to achive their ends but it's an open world game. If crate carrying makes you slow and unable to defend yourself is another question, I'd imagined that most movement would be done with mounts rather then carying by hand in any case so it's a question of balance.
As for logging off with crates, yes they wold need to decay, but note that the intended rate of crate generation every 10 minutes makes this a really really inefficient senario as your logging off your character to deny them this when you could just take the crate away to another node, cash it in for a reward and then likely be back by the time the next one spawns and thus eliminate far more crates and get paid for it then by logging off for ~2 hours at a time. If this were found to be an abuse then an individual who allows a crate to decay either when logged in or off can just be flagged with a one day timeout period for picking out crates from that node.
I thought there was one chest for depositing where people deliver the crates and one stockpile for overflow, from the overflow extra crates would be generated and these extra crates could be hauled to other nodes so you could force vassalization on them. So, it is just one stockpile then.
Mayors could name usual crate carriers from other nodes as enemies of the state, that would be fun if they could be KOS within the node, it would be a good deterrent.
It would be also excelent if the mayor could use and edict for rewarding in gold the citizens who manage to deploy crates in the other node, so citizens would actively work on this.
Your whole idea is by far the best idea about vassalization and I doubt Intrepid will come up with something better than this, they always start with a good idea but in the long run there is always bit of a let down when the subject is the systems themselves. Unfortunatelly, your idea won't be implemented just like any other good idea from any other community member
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
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.
What?
Your comment was that the kickstarter specifically said "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.". This passage is CLEARLY talking about if a node elects someone in charge that turns out to be a tyrrant. It is not a comment on your node being a vassal.
Throwing my two cents in. I'm kind of 50-50 on if I mind being a vassal citizen or not. There's two instances I would hate. One; being vassal to an Economic node in any capacity. (This is more of a personal opinion. I might just pick up and leave if that were the case) Two; being stuck at a lvl 3 Village with no room for advancement (Parent node is a Metro, we are Village).
On the other hand; being a citizen of a city or town who is vassal to a Scientific, Divine, or Military node and I'd probably be a happy camper. I think the problem is that; that is really only a 50-50 shot with the vassal system currently of that being the case. Wiki chart shows that a Metro can have 2 cities, 2 towns, and 4 villages. So 50-50. (I would like to see the opportunity for more towns in this structure.)
That being said; I don't think there's as much helplessness or lack of player agency that originally suggested in this thread. Vassaling is "automatic". That when a node levels up; they auto-collect the neighbors around them. But I think you're missing that up until that point you have leeway in deciding your destiny. It's just very dependent on the formative stage.
For example, If I don't want the economic node in my system to win the "race", my node and I can start a node war with it while we are on even footing (both lvl 3). In the war, we can steal territory from them and the exp from their stolen territory will go to my node instead. (This was demo'd in a live stream). Meaning it would boost your development and hinder theirs. You could also attack caravans going to those nodes, stifling their resources. If you prevent movement of goods there, you can chokehold their ability to start their own wars or slow down significantly what they could build (preventing crafting stations, apartments, etc from being built.) If there isn't much going on in their node, they're less likely to attract players there to play. Less players, less exp. You could implant a spy to become the mayor there and jack up taxes/prices so people leave. Spy-Mayor might be a little harder in a Scientific node with a voting structure, but I could see it working well in Military or Economic nodes (win a battle for mayor/ pay for mayor, respectively).
Those are the options I can see for someone like OP--who wants absolute dominance in their territory. You're going to want to play strategically like the people around you are enemies from the get-go. If you're aiming for mayor yourself, you'll also really want to start figuring out how to get people to your node early on, incentives or at least a community. (Starting a guild is a good way!)
For people like myself, who have some *opinions* about certain outcomes, but don't mind vassal. Once you do become vassal to a node; it is absolutely in my best interest to help that node succeed. And best to help them succeed through my own node! Once my node reaches it's cap (one level below our parent). It starts siphoning the excess exp to level up the parent. This is good for me! Because once the parent levels up, my Village can level up. So, I'd probably be in a mad dash to make sure I don't get stuck in a permanent Village node. Supporting their advancement is supporting my own advancement.
I get two chances to do that, I think? Once would be the first (and best opportunity) when my parent is going from 4 to 5. This window gives me a good chance to land in a city. And one last chance to save my outcome when it's going from 5-6. Though, I'm not certain if this second opportunity really exists without playing the game. It might just be that the ZOI of the parent adopts in another powerful node locking my node out of advancement entirely.
But I can see the issue in that; where if I do get stuck in a Village node. At that point I really am just hoping for the whole system's downfall, without any option from my end to influence that. I can't really see any benefit to being stuck in a non-advancing Village node. Not sure what benefit dials Intrepid intends to spin to balance that out to feel fair. Currently, I can only see resentment from my end if that were the case. Especially if I put in a ton of effort to try and advance my parent node twice, just to get locked out of advancement in the second opportunity because of how far the parent's ZOI stretches.
I'd definitely want a rebellion option in that scenario! Or an option to fight the nodes within the system that're locking me out of advancing.
The only current way to shift our positions would be through Node Atrophy, I think? But how is a Village node supposed to compete to attract players to it and away from others when you have basically just the starting slots to build on, and have remained unchanged for so long with no bonuses? It feels like my only option then is to wait and hope that another server discovers that leveling up my node gives some good benefit to the world, like spawning a world boss, and that news spreads via internet to players on my server causing them to flock over. But that's not very fun player-agency wise, depending on players who aren't even on your server. It's also a shot in the dark that your node is even special enough to cause that. And it really feels like you're almost perma-stuck as a Village then.
TL;DR
I don't mind being vassal to certain node-types. I think there's some good player agency to steer your destiny to where you want to go in the server's formative stage, though you could argue they're all PvP-centric. (Personally, don't mind that, though.) I kind of want the opportunity to fight other vassals to shift power dynamics in my system, but I don't think that's a thing?
Maybe everything is Intrepid's fault for tying the character to the node instead of tying it to the node chain, so people get territorial automatically
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
1
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Steven keeps saying it is a good thing to be vasseled. I want to find out how he plans to make that true.
Given that people will want their node to be top-dog, it does seem weird that there's no way to achieve that in the current system without moving to a different node.
I want my preferred Node Type to have a Metro with my preferred Racial NPC population.
As long as my Node is part of that Metro, it doesn't matter if it's a Vassal. I still access to all the stuff I want.
If my node, loses out, I will just wait, or encourage an attack on our parent node, then help them destroy it.
I’m the parent, or you dead, end of discussion.
Of Course People can "and will" probably try that.
But to find out how all of that would work in the first Place -> we would need to be balls deep in the Alpha Two anyway. So we will probably find out sooner or later only around the first Day of May in 2025.
Don't we all want to find out first how " Vassalage " is supposed to work anyway ? Is it a harsh System of Oppression, which Masochists would find kinda appealing ? (lol)
Or does it feel far more likely like a System in which Players as Vassals support and help out the Parent Node ?? Questions over Questions which demand Answers - and still no Alpha Two in sight. .
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
I just don't see how Intrepid thinks having a vassal node filled with players who despise the parent node would ever turn out well. If you give them the exact same access to allied war statuses, they can royally screw with the defense of the parent node during sieges / wars. Stuff like taking off all your gear and letting yourself get farmed during a node war or similar event, or taking up spots for a siege and AFKing, jumping in siege equipment and not using it properly, etc. And that's not fun.
Intrepid often overlook what actually motivates players and what they will do. Being a vassal node should come with plenty of benefits and less headaches of running the metro ZOI, hence why you'd want to be a vassal in the first place.
Also, a Parent node should be able to siege a vassal. If only vassals can siege parents, it's uneven. Rather, the relationship between vassal and parent node should be one of necessity to survive from foreign threats, and one based off ACTUAL benefit. And then of course the political game comes into play, the game of the vassal nodes scheming and the parent node shutting down rebellion.
Maybe everything is Intrepid's fault for tying the character to the node instead of tying it to the node chain, so people get territorial automatically
That's honestly a pretty good take. Either regency and vassalship have to constitute a purely beneficial alliance, granting fully shared advantages (node level benefits) to all members, or it has to be something you can actively resist against.
If Steven wants the first system so badly, perhaps node chains with the highest level top-level regent should limit their surrounding node-chains' max level?
So you'd benefit from being a citizen of a strong node chain by being part of a node chain that can even *have* a metropolis in the first place.
That might not leave enough room for 5 nodes across the realm, in which case I'd just suggest removing one of the less significant node levels (without lowering the total node xp requirements until metropolis, of course.)
The only one who can validate you for all the posts you didn't write is you.
I just don't see how Intrepid thinks having a vassal node filled with players who despise the parent node would ever turn out well. If you give them the exact same access to allied war statuses, they can royally screw with the defense of the parent node during sieges / wars. Stuff like taking off all your gear and letting yourself get farmed during a node war or similar event, or taking up spots for a siege and AFKing, jumping in siege equipment and not using it properly, etc. And that's not fun.
Obviously the Game (and Players) need Options to punish such Behaviour - and they should be able to punish it IN. TIME., once they notice it.
Someone is intentionally sabotaging the own Side ? By being AFK ? By screwing with Defense Mechanisms ? By sabotaging the fellow Node Defenders ?
I mean,
it even became a " thing " in Worst of Warcraft - > to report fellow Players who intentionally sabotage the own Side in Battlegrounds.
So jeah. Griefplayers are a thing. And maybe to likely - > Players will vent their butthurt over being a defeated and enslaved Vassal-Node this way. (LOL)
Intrepid often overlook what actually motivates players and what they will do. Being a vassal node should come with plenty of benefits and less headaches of running the metro ZOI, hence why you'd want to be a vassal in the first place.
A good Idea. Actually a VERY good Idea.
Becoming and being a Vassal should also come with some Benefits for oneself. So that Players who are Citizens of Vassal Nodes, feel motivated to work and fight for the Parent Node which rules over oneself.
Rather, the relationship between vassal and parent node should be one of necessity to survive from foreign threats, and one based off ACTUAL benefit. And then of course the political game comes into play, the game of the vassal nodes scheming and the parent node shutting down rebellion.
Damn i love how cool You made that sound right here.
Jepp. Co-Existence with actual Benefits for both Nodes. "AND" (but) also with the Option of the Parent Node to shut down rebellious Schemes and Intent.
If Anyone has nice and brilliant Ideas and Suggestions for dear Intrepid - Please don't hesitate to put them here into this Forum as Topics.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
Maybe everything is Intrepid's fault for tying the character to the node instead of tying it to the node chain, so people get territorial automatically
That's honestly a pretty good take. Either regency and vassalship have to constitute a purely beneficial alliance, granting fully shared advantages (node level benefits) to all members, or it has to be something you can actively resist against.
If Steven wants the first system so badly, perhaps node chains with the highest level top-level regent should limit their surrounding node-chains' max level?
So you'd benefit from being a citizen of a strong node chain by being part of a node chain that can even *have* a metropolis in the first place.
That might not leave enough room for 5 nodes across the realm, in which case I'd just suggest removing one of the less significant node levels (without lowering the total node xp requirements until metropolis, of course.)
My take is this: since Intrepid tied the character to the node, then it is just natural that people will despise the chain and be territorial about the node
Here's a revised version that addresses the issues while retaining the original intent:
To counter this, since Intrepid has tied the character to the node, it’s only natural that people will develop a strong aversion against the chain and become territorial about their node. It is just logical being like this and it's Intrepid's responsability.
To address this, there should be opportunities for those who are part of a chain, including:
PvE wars: chain vs. goblins and many others
Trade agreements and additional caravan options
Defense pacts for both PvE and PvP
Expanded diplomacy options among the guilds within the chain
Services for importing and exporting along the chain
And so on.
When you join a chain, there should be a range of new features that encourage collaboration and cooperation in both PvE and PvP contexts. Just adding bonues is the most disgusting solution you can have, bonuses are irrelevant for good gaming experience.
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
No taxation without representation. Vassal citizens should be allowed to run and vote in their parent node (or otherwise participate in the election process). That's all I require.
Comments
Maybe I'd commiserate more if citizenship, aka the thing that locks you from declaring a siege on a specific node, was automatic, but since it isn't automatic, you are free to wait out that timer and declare a siege on the stage 3 node. If the node goes from Village to Metro before the lockout ends, then its very obvious people in that region didn't share you node type preferences and wouldn't join the attacking siege anyway.
There is no damage done by being a vassal, and choosing to become a citizen of a vassal node is an active choice you make, not one inflicted on you. You literally HAVE to choose to be part of a vassal node. If that's a deal breaker, why would you ever choose to put yourself in a vassal position when you could go to another area of the world where a Divine metro has formed/is forming?
Any player that isn't a Citizen of a vassal node can declare a siege. Even if they spend most of their time in a vassal node, or use the bank in a vassal node, or use the services in that vassal node, as long as they didn't OPT-IN to being a citizen of that vassal node, they can declare a siege on the parent.
I chose a node to live in. I chose it before it became anything to anything (i.e. I have already chosen what kind of node I'll be living in). And I want it to succeed. In order for me to represent that desire I'd need to be a citizen of said node (especially considering that I'm aiming to be a mayor). Waiting for literal months to become a citizen (and that is if I manage to gather the people to siege the parent) would lock me out of a ton of gameplay interactions.
It would also make it potentially impossible to get good housing in my preferred node, because, by the time I get to siege the parent, all the housing will be bought up and the price will hit the upper limit.
All of this can be avoided if Intrepid simply enable vassal citizens to join the siege, with whatever consequences for failure Intrepid would want.
My main argument for this has been simple. If Steven wants nodes to be the highest and most important affiliation players have - why is the design going against that?
Yes, I know all of this and has talked about it in previous posts on this topic (which have been numerous and in numerous threads).
1) That the current system retains more homogenous power structures.
(If you don't like your node's lack of success, move where you like the way people play, don't try to force the node into something it isn't by antagonising your regents until everything's laid to dust and your less successful node is the best node by virtue of being the only thing remaining)
I don't immediately support NiKr's hyper-node-pride position, but I don't see a problem in letting players with those convictions get some tools to turn things around by investing a lot of effort into it.
Like 5-10 times the cost of a siege scroll for instigating a vassal uprising? Perhaps even more, so it's truly designed to be something for the entire node to chip in for.
So it's still heavily incentivised to find other ways of getting things done, but if they are *really* fed up with having a regent above them, they have a tool available to reset the power dynamics.
2) The other thing that has been brought up a lot is that property would get destroyed/removed/lost. Particularly by @Mag7spy, but also others.
What makes you think that would have to be the case? Just because it's also called "siege" doesn't have to mean that a vassal revolution would necessarily have the same outcomes as a proper node siege.
Why couldn't a successful vassal revolution simply end by knocking down the parent node by a level or two.
If you're worried about players who own freeholds and stuff, you could even grand land owners mandatory amnesty in the new regent node, if their prior regent node lost the space for them.
Has this even been discussed yet? Otherwise the discussion that there would necessarily be loss of property seems premature.
Please, give some attention to this long post, because I am trying to see far in the future with these:
Scenario 1: Can we take crates from our own stockpile and store them in our own chest? It seems possible since you mentioned that non-origin crates can be replaced. This way, we can sanitize our chest, but continually doing so will deplete our stockpile, leaving us with fewer crates for hauling and storing in our neighbors' chests for attempting to vassalized them.
Unless, the new generated crates would automatically go to the chest and destroy the oldest non-origin chest automatically.
I really don't know which one is the best, maybe we have 79 crates inside our enemy's chest already and we needed just 1 crate in our stockpile so we can haul the last crate over there and add to their chest making 80 crates and vassalizing them.... Or, because the other node added a few crates to my chest then my new generated crates would replace automatically the non-origin crate in my chest.
What's gonna be?
Scenario 2: If I see we have 20 crates in the chest and then a stranger I've never seen before arrives, and I notice there are now 21 crates, I would suspect that the stranger has sneaked a crate into our chest. This would suggest they are from a node attempting to vassalize us.
It would be helpful to have visual indicators of who is adding crates to our chest. Perhaps they could move slowly or we could see the crate itself strapped on the character's back, which would help us identify who is taking crates from our stockpile. If he is using a mule maybe we could see the crate.
Scenario 3:
Regarding this, any player? If my enemy node is trying to vassalize my node, can I send a group there to take all their crates from their stockpile and let them decay, thereby preventing the vassalization (at least temporarily)? The other node's members should notice that we took their crates and might then declare war on our guilds, allowing them to attack us the next time we try to approach their stockpile.
Is my understanding correct? Did I grasp the system properly? The system is good and fun!
We didn't have a detailed in depth explanation before, this is why sometimes people get a little concerned about the whole thing.
Vassalization doesn't happen automatically as the community is imagining:
In this system, to prevent vassalization, people need to engage in PvP before the chest reaches 80% full of crates from the other node. Therefore, if we have a highly aggressive and determined level 1 node, it's possible that they may never become vassals of anyone. They would remain a standalone node, isolated among other node chains.
Flagging:
These two questions are very concerning!
Imagine if you are from node A and I am from node B:
I will go to A and snatch your crate and leave while having green safety and logoff with the crates and let them decay, I will call my my budies from node B and we will clean your stockpile.
In the next day. since your node farms more, you will have many crates in your stockpile again and you are your buddies from A will take as many crates as you can carry and you will simply walk into node B with green flag and store in our chest.
Because I think it is genious.
It is really good
LOL, it is because the same subject has dozens of threads about it, and hundreds of posts along many random theads, so the pressure is going up in this subject for quite some time
That's completly untenable as a design if you ask me. If that's not just a misinterpretation on your part and is actually what they are planning then it will be abandoned at some point in Alpha/Beta and they will move to a system in which a siege will be initiated my a Mayor. Random non-citizens declaring sieges would be trollish if the cost were low and pointless if it were high.
Node sieges are declared directly by any player[16] who completes the prerequisites for the siege initiation.[17]
In a military node where your mayor is appointed through fighting, it's highly appropriate that a powerful guild should be able to declare a node war, even if the guy who happened to win their node mayor contest doesn't happen to feel like making a scroll.
Political systems are kinda fluid in Ashes, in a good way. It's not all rigid and predetermined and the same in every node.
The mayor is still an important figure to do diplomacy with and align your goals with, but he's not the only decisionmaker about everything the node does.
That’s exactly how it is planned to operate and it’s plenty tenable as long as it’s not painfully easy to get a declaration of siege, which it’s been claimed it won’t be.
Node sieges (individual players vs a node) are not node wars (node citizens vs another node’s citizens)
As Nik likes to say, it would be a 180 to not let individual players declare a siege.
Your use of 'chest' is confusing here as it not a term I have been using, It sounds like your using it as a synonm for stockpile. In any case, their is only one stockpile per node and it is a structure/npc you interact with, any crate outside of a stockpile is decaying at all times without exception and will be gone in a ~2 hours at most. A crate can be returned to the stockpile it originated from, mainly as a way for players to reset that decay timer, but the intent is to prevent their ever being a significant number of crates outside of the stockpiles which might be used to 'instant win'.
Return a crate to it's origin aka domestic stockpile can eliminate forign crates, IF the stockpile were full AND had a forign crate in it this would delete the forign crate. But you would need to have removed your own crate before the forign crate was added for this to work. Because if the forign crate were already present and you remove your domestic crate your just making empty room and putting the crate back dosn't squeeze anything out. The creation of new domestic crates is suppressed when ever a forign crate is present because XP goes first to consuming forign crates and only when their are none left will domestic crates be generated.
Indeed heir would be no need to 'guess', I stipulated a character or mount is carrying a crate is visible aka they litterally be carrying an obvious crate graphic plain as day like thouse npc's walking around with barrles in all the town previes. Likewise the name of the node from which a crate originated would be visible to anyone looking at the stockpile, so which enemy node is pushing crates will be obvious to everyone both friendly and hostile. Remember a Tier 2 node has no citizens so everyone is equal.
Yes this is intended counter play, though I had intended the no-drop rule to prevent mass removal and wasting of crates, once a person has a crate they can't withdraw another, but they can return it to the stockpile, this is to let people back out of the crate delivery if they change their mind without penalizing them or the source node. To conduct hostile crate 'wasting' one will need to move the crates to a 3rd node where it can be deposited and thus become irretrivable. It might also be nessary to implement some withdraw-rate limit on crates to prevent complet emptying. Note tier 3 or higher nodes might have a fee to withdraw their crates as well and maybe reservation systems or even limits on non-citizens doing this, the completly open first come, costless withdrawing is intended for tier 2 nodes which have no citizenship.
PvP is not the ONLY means available to avoid vassalization, you can PvE to burn off forign crates faster then they come in, OR go the the enemy and send their crates elseware, OR pvp the enemy crate carriers, or do all thouse things simultanisly, likely different players will have different preferences.
Hypothetically yes a Tier 1 node that successfully KOS or drives off all incoming crate carriers would never be vasslized. They can even advance up to tier 2 by XP and continue to avoid vassalization, even if a few crates slip through if they keep up on consuming them. They could get vassalized but then start defending the stockpile and build up their domestic crates enough to break vassalage and become independent again. Basically if they are stuborn enough they never have to be or stay a vassal. If they reach and maintain tier 3 (by taking their own vassal) then crates stop being the means by which they are vassalized, tier 3 and up use actual wars and or signed documents of vassalization between mayors to determine that. Remember crate vassalization is an extension of the earlier system of war/diplomacy for MOST nodes.
I did not intend for pvp flagging or corruption to have any affect on crates, as I did not imagine that it ever effect any interaction you have with npc's or node systems generally. It is only a system for other players to judge you by. If players want to pvp to prevent crate from being deposited or withdrawn from a stockpile they merely need to guard the area and KOS all unknowns who approatch, that's going to be a very costly means to achive their ends but it's an open world game. If crate carrying makes you slow and unable to defend yourself is another question, I'd imagined that most movement would be done with mounts rather then carying by hand in any case so it's a question of balance.
As for logging off with crates, yes they wold need to decay, but note that the intended rate of crate generation every 10 minutes makes this a really really inefficient senario as your logging off your character to deny them this when you could just take the crate away to another node, cash it in for a reward and then likely be back by the time the next one spawns and thus eliminate far more crates and get paid for it then by logging off for ~2 hours at a time. If this were found to be an abuse then an individual who allows a crate to decay either when logged in or off can just be flagged with a one day timeout period for picking out crates from that node.
Given that people will want their node to be top-dog, it does seem weird that there's no way to achieve that in the current system without moving to a different node.
You can stay in the same node no problem, you just can’t sign yourself up as a citizen of the vassal node then take part in a siege against the parent node.
You siege the parent, that node you like is now racing the others to level up, and you can now sign up for citizenship and housing with the expanded population allocations in the larger node.
I thought there was one chest for depositing where people deliver the crates and one stockpile for overflow, from the overflow extra crates would be generated and these extra crates could be hauled to other nodes so you could force vassalization on them. So, it is just one stockpile then.
Mayors could name usual crate carriers from other nodes as enemies of the state, that would be fun if they could be KOS within the node, it would be a good deterrent.
It would be also excelent if the mayor could use and edict for rewarding in gold the citizens who manage to deploy crates in the other node, so citizens would actively work on this.
Your whole idea is by far the best idea about vassalization and I doubt Intrepid will come up with something better than this, they always start with a good idea but in the long run there is always bit of a let down when the subject is the systems themselves. Unfortunatelly, your idea won't be implemented just like any other good idea from any other community member
Your comment was that the kickstarter specifically said "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.". This passage is CLEARLY talking about if a node elects someone in charge that turns out to be a tyrrant. It is not a comment on your node being a vassal.
If you read it as that, then that is on you.
On the other hand; being a citizen of a city or town who is vassal to a Scientific, Divine, or Military node and I'd probably be a happy camper. I think the problem is that; that is really only a 50-50 shot with the vassal system currently of that being the case. Wiki chart shows that a Metro can have 2 cities, 2 towns, and 4 villages. So 50-50. (I would like to see the opportunity for more towns in this structure.)
That being said; I don't think there's as much helplessness or lack of player agency that originally suggested in this thread. Vassaling is "automatic". That when a node levels up; they auto-collect the neighbors around them. But I think you're missing that up until that point you have leeway in deciding your destiny. It's just very dependent on the formative stage.
For example, If I don't want the economic node in my system to win the "race", my node and I can start a node war with it while we are on even footing (both lvl 3). In the war, we can steal territory from them and the exp from their stolen territory will go to my node instead. (This was demo'd in a live stream). Meaning it would boost your development and hinder theirs. You could also attack caravans going to those nodes, stifling their resources. If you prevent movement of goods there, you can chokehold their ability to start their own wars or slow down significantly what they could build (preventing crafting stations, apartments, etc from being built.) If there isn't much going on in their node, they're less likely to attract players there to play. Less players, less exp. You could implant a spy to become the mayor there and jack up taxes/prices so people leave. Spy-Mayor might be a little harder in a Scientific node with a voting structure, but I could see it working well in Military or Economic nodes (win a battle for mayor/ pay for mayor, respectively).
Those are the options I can see for someone like OP--who wants absolute dominance in their territory. You're going to want to play strategically like the people around you are enemies from the get-go. If you're aiming for mayor yourself, you'll also really want to start figuring out how to get people to your node early on, incentives or at least a community. (Starting a guild is a good way!)
For people like myself, who have some *opinions* about certain outcomes, but don't mind vassal. Once you do become vassal to a node; it is absolutely in my best interest to help that node succeed. And best to help them succeed through my own node! Once my node reaches it's cap (one level below our parent). It starts siphoning the excess exp to level up the parent. This is good for me! Because once the parent levels up, my Village can level up. So, I'd probably be in a mad dash to make sure I don't get stuck in a permanent Village node. Supporting their advancement is supporting my own advancement.
I get two chances to do that, I think? Once would be the first (and best opportunity) when my parent is going from 4 to 5. This window gives me a good chance to land in a city. And one last chance to save my outcome when it's going from 5-6. Though, I'm not certain if this second opportunity really exists without playing the game. It might just be that the ZOI of the parent adopts in another powerful node locking my node out of advancement entirely.
But I can see the issue in that; where if I do get stuck in a Village node. At that point I really am just hoping for the whole system's downfall, without any option from my end to influence that. I can't really see any benefit to being stuck in a non-advancing Village node. Not sure what benefit dials Intrepid intends to spin to balance that out to feel fair. Currently, I can only see resentment from my end if that were the case. Especially if I put in a ton of effort to try and advance my parent node twice, just to get locked out of advancement in the second opportunity because of how far the parent's ZOI stretches.
I'd definitely want a rebellion option in that scenario! Or an option to fight the nodes within the system that're locking me out of advancing.
The only current way to shift our positions would be through Node Atrophy, I think? But how is a Village node supposed to compete to attract players to it and away from others when you have basically just the starting slots to build on, and have remained unchanged for so long with no bonuses? It feels like my only option then is to wait and hope that another server discovers that leveling up my node gives some good benefit to the world, like spawning a world boss, and that news spreads via internet to players on my server causing them to flock over. But that's not very fun player-agency wise, depending on players who aren't even on your server. It's also a shot in the dark that your node is even special enough to cause that. And it really feels like you're almost perma-stuck as a Village then.
TL;DR
I don't mind being vassal to certain node-types. I think there's some good player agency to steer your destiny to where you want to go in the server's formative stage, though you could argue they're all PvP-centric. (Personally, don't mind that, though.) I kind of want the opportunity to fight other vassals to shift power dynamics in my system, but I don't think that's a thing?
As long as my Node is part of that Metro, it doesn't matter if it's a Vassal. I still access to all the stuff I want.
I’m the parent, or you dead, end of discussion.
Of Course People can "and will" probably try that.
But to find out how all of that would work in the first Place -> we would need to be balls deep in the Alpha Two anyway. So we will probably find out sooner or later only around the first Day of May in 2025.
Don't we all want to find out first how " Vassalage " is supposed to work anyway ? Is it a harsh System of Oppression, which Masochists would find kinda appealing ? (lol)
Or does it feel far more likely like a System in which Players as Vassals support and help out the Parent Node ?? Questions over Questions which demand Answers - and still no Alpha Two in sight.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
Intrepid often overlook what actually motivates players and what they will do. Being a vassal node should come with plenty of benefits and less headaches of running the metro ZOI, hence why you'd want to be a vassal in the first place.
Also, a Parent node should be able to siege a vassal. If only vassals can siege parents, it's uneven. Rather, the relationship between vassal and parent node should be one of necessity to survive from foreign threats, and one based off ACTUAL benefit. And then of course the political game comes into play, the game of the vassal nodes scheming and the parent node shutting down rebellion.
If Steven wants the first system so badly, perhaps node chains with the highest level top-level regent should limit their surrounding node-chains' max level?
So you'd benefit from being a citizen of a strong node chain by being part of a node chain that can even *have* a metropolis in the first place.
That might not leave enough room for 5 nodes across the realm, in which case I'd just suggest removing one of the less significant node levels (without lowering the total node xp requirements until metropolis, of course.)
Obviously the Game (and Players) need Options to punish such Behaviour - and they should be able to punish it IN. TIME., once they notice it.
Someone is intentionally sabotaging the own Side ? By being AFK ? By screwing with Defense Mechanisms ? By sabotaging the fellow Node Defenders ?
I mean,
it even became a " thing " in Worst of Warcraft - > to report fellow Players who intentionally sabotage the own Side in Battlegrounds.
So jeah. Griefplayers are a thing. And maybe to likely - > Players will vent their butthurt over being a defeated and enslaved Vassal-Node this way. (LOL)
A good Idea. Actually a VERY good Idea.
Becoming and being a Vassal should also come with some Benefits for oneself. So that Players who are Citizens of Vassal Nodes, feel motivated to work and fight for the Parent Node which rules over oneself.
Indeed.
We need to be able to apply the "STICK" as well. Not just the Carrot.
Damn i love how cool You made that sound right here.
Jepp. Co-Existence with actual Benefits for both Nodes. "AND" (but) also with the Option of the Parent Node to shut down rebellious Schemes and Intent.
If Anyone has nice and brilliant Ideas and Suggestions for dear Intrepid - Please don't hesitate to put them here into this Forum as Topics.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
My take is this: since Intrepid tied the character to the node, then it is just natural that people will despise the chain and be territorial about the node
Here's a revised version that addresses the issues while retaining the original intent:
To counter this, since Intrepid has tied the character to the node, it’s only natural that people will develop a strong aversion against the chain and become territorial about their node. It is just logical being like this and it's Intrepid's responsability.
To address this, there should be opportunities for those who are part of a chain, including:
- PvE wars: chain vs. goblins and many others
- Trade agreements and additional caravan options
- Defense pacts for both PvE and PvP
- Expanded diplomacy options among the guilds within the chain
- Services for importing and exporting along the chain
And so on.When you join a chain, there should be a range of new features that encourage collaboration and cooperation in both PvE and PvP contexts. Just adding bonues is the most disgusting solution you can have, bonuses are irrelevant for good gaming experience.