Contest for Parent Node
Ludullu
Member
This post got inspired by this comment.
What would yall think if, when a node was about to level up and lock out its neighbors from leveling up, it would instead open a contest for that lock out. Send out a challenge to any potential rival nodes surrounding it.
The time period of this challenge would depend on the stage of the node that's about to level up, so, say, the challenge for lvl1 upgrade would last just 1-2h, lvl2 could be smth like 10h and lvl3 could be a day or two (and anything higher obviously longer).
Players in the contesting node (if there is one at the time of the challenge) would get a notification of "neighboring node is about to lock this one out. Do this and this if you wanna try and prevent that". And it'd be up to players in those node to decide on the spot if they wanna help the potentially locked out node.
At lvls < 3 it could just be about direct node XP, so the suggested actions would include smth like "do quests" (cause they maybe give the most node xp), while after lvl3 the contest could depend on the type of nodes that are fighting for the lvl up and player actions would require them to do something related to the type of their node.
Imo this would be a much better system than just "well, this node simply had more people in it, so your node got fucked over".
Especially because I believe that mobs will be spawning in the same locations on every server. And those mobs will have the same loot across all servers. This then means that groups (namely guilds, especially hardcore ones) that are trying to play optimally would grind those mobs/bosses (gatherable mats) in the same spots on all servers, which then means that the nodes that house those mobs/gatherables would be the ones getting the most xp, which would lead to them being the ones that lvl up the fastest. And this could inevitably lead to samey-looking servers, which kinda goes against the plan of "each server will look diferently cause different nodes will grow at different paces on different servers".
And yes, I know, the classic "let's test this before suggesting changes" always applies, but I doubt we'll see the true picture of how nodes will grow during A2. We miiiight see that in betas, but those are years out and putting untested changes into the NODE system seems like a bad idea that close to release.
All the while, testing my suggestion would be fairly simple. Intrepid delevel a bunch of nodes in a location > tp people there (during a predetermined test time) > say "choose a node you want and play like you'd play normally" > and then see how well the challenge thing does, if at all well.
So, what do yall think?
What would yall think if, when a node was about to level up and lock out its neighbors from leveling up, it would instead open a contest for that lock out. Send out a challenge to any potential rival nodes surrounding it.
The time period of this challenge would depend on the stage of the node that's about to level up, so, say, the challenge for lvl1 upgrade would last just 1-2h, lvl2 could be smth like 10h and lvl3 could be a day or two (and anything higher obviously longer).
Players in the contesting node (if there is one at the time of the challenge) would get a notification of "neighboring node is about to lock this one out. Do this and this if you wanna try and prevent that". And it'd be up to players in those node to decide on the spot if they wanna help the potentially locked out node.
At lvls < 3 it could just be about direct node XP, so the suggested actions would include smth like "do quests" (cause they maybe give the most node xp), while after lvl3 the contest could depend on the type of nodes that are fighting for the lvl up and player actions would require them to do something related to the type of their node.
Imo this would be a much better system than just "well, this node simply had more people in it, so your node got fucked over".
Especially because I believe that mobs will be spawning in the same locations on every server. And those mobs will have the same loot across all servers. This then means that groups (namely guilds, especially hardcore ones) that are trying to play optimally would grind those mobs/bosses (gatherable mats) in the same spots on all servers, which then means that the nodes that house those mobs/gatherables would be the ones getting the most xp, which would lead to them being the ones that lvl up the fastest. And this could inevitably lead to samey-looking servers, which kinda goes against the plan of "each server will look diferently cause different nodes will grow at different paces on different servers".
And yes, I know, the classic "let's test this before suggesting changes" always applies, but I doubt we'll see the true picture of how nodes will grow during A2. We miiiight see that in betas, but those are years out and putting untested changes into the NODE system seems like a bad idea that close to release.
All the while, testing my suggestion would be fairly simple. Intrepid delevel a bunch of nodes in a location > tp people there (during a predetermined test time) > say "choose a node you want and play like you'd play normally" > and then see how well the challenge thing does, if at all well.
So, what do yall think?
4
Comments
I'd focus more on fleshing out that idea.
My suspicion is that the system is meant to be balanced around this "just had more (actively contributing) players in it" metric, and if we lower the significance of that balancing cornerstone, we'll be left with an even less refined system.
Here are two problems I immediately foresee:
- Your suggestion gives far too much control over world developments directly into the hands of powerful players instead of letting individuals vote with their actions. Node development should be complex and difficult to predict, not be binary; it's the world evolving, it should feel natural and uncontrolled. Sieges are how you reshape it.
(And hopefully some form of vassal uprising as suggested in the original thread)
By your own logic in the previous post of guilds controlling everything, I'd even argue you're actually just making the node development more predetermined if you let players interfere with node development mechanics that directly.
- Your suggestion is a bandaid solution to a fundamental problem with node levelling. That's never a good idea, and it's only going to distract from putting in the necessary work to improve the system causing the symptom. Each node type and each node location should be equipped to attract players, and enable players to be active enough there with activities that level that node.
You would ensure that by adjusting node type experience gain for crafting, trading, PvP etc. Things that aren't just XP-farming.
Then, if all nodes types are inherently viable, it won't be as big of a deal if a sought-after dungeon or monster always appears in the same map location; there will still be a decent chance of a surrounding node type locking out that area because players care more about crafting/warring in the neighbouring node than farming those mobs/dungeons in the node containing that PvE objective. The general area might still be sought-after across most server realms, but the levels of each node will be very fluid anyway.
This will also ensure that sieging can create lasting change, because a thriving PvE metropolis that's successfully destroyed won't just be back at the top of the node XP scoreboard again two months later, if the metropolis that replaced it is destroyed. (Because other nodes will be able to match its XP rebuilding speed and stay ahead.)
But what I'm suggesting is just a continuation on this exact design. It just creates a lever for those active players to use. And it would not just be active players, but proactive ones that are interested in the lives of the nodes, rather than "a shitton of casuals just happened to be leveling here". Though even then, those casuals could be attracted to another node, if the proactive players manage to convince the casuals to move there for the time of the challenge.
But it's already under their control. They'll be the ones playing and contributing the most in their chosen nodes. What I'm suggesting is a way for other guilds/proactive players to try and counteract that in a more meaningful and directed way, while in the current system no one would be the wiser about how close/far the node, under the control of those strong guilds, is.
That's kinda the point though. The first 2 stages don't have any of that attraction because they barely even have the npcs and quests related to their specialty. But those 2 lvls will already start the avalanche of lvl lockouts.
And considering the time scale of those first few lvls, it's not like my suggestion would definitely prevent those nodes from growing. I'd imagine that the nodes around starting locations will still be the ones to grow the fastest simply because all the casual players will spill out onto those nodes and just play the game - which means that those nodes will get a shitton of xp.
All this stuff could be the player action suggestion that I mentioned. And if players in the "losing" node can't take those actions during the challenge period - they'll properly lose the parent status. It'll be something that resulted from action of both sides, rather than actions of just one group of people overfarming another.
Here we just disagree on what that chance is. Currently I don't believe it'll be decent.
I'm not sure what you're saying here.
Right now successful sieges bring down the node to lvl0, so that ex-metro won't do shit, cause its past vassal system will have just grown up a bit and would've grabbed a buffer node into itself.
In other words, that ex-metro won't even have the challenge to go up against someone of similar lvl.
As long as your suggestion isn't used as a crutch to avoid confronting these underlying issues, it's probably good. I'd just stay wary of that.
How can you know that? What I meant there was a hypothetical patched state of the game where something like an economy node without major dungeons (let's say for the sake of argument that's something that exists in the current map design) gets boosted xp gain from trading and similar imperial actions. We couldn't yet know what the chance of that node surpassing a PvE-heavy surrounding node would be, because we wouldn't know how high that node XP boost would be.
I think your other counterpoints are convincing.
Especially in the context of all the nodes outside the immediate cirles around starting gates. Normal/casual players won't really care about node benefits, types or trinkets. They'll just start playing the game and will naturally spill out of the gates and devour everything they see like locusts.
But guilds will 100% have precise node targets, run there from the start and lvl them up asap. The bigger the guild - the faster the lvls. And this then spill over into this part of the discussion\/
I believe that the chance of nodes not being leveled because of mobs low because the avalanche begins exactly from nodes being lvled due to mobs. And you can't outpace the avalanche once it starts due to how the system itself works.
Guilds run out far from the gates to start leveling precise nodes. While unorganized players stumble around the gates, the guild-leveled nodes lock out at least the closest nodes to them, which will already create a small barrier around them. By the time general population gets to the guild-based nodes, they'll be of a higher lvl than the lvl0 nodes. This means that they'll try looking for higher lvl mobs, which would be situated in the guild-based nodes. This then snowballs those nodes into higher and higher lvls.
Right now this is how I foresee this system functioning. This assumption is based purely on my take on the system and expectations of how it works, as presented so far. Getting better gear early to allow yourself to lvl up faster seems like a more optimal action than trying to level up a node of some particular type, which is why I believe that hardcore guilds would go for mob locations more than for specific nodes (though some definitely will go for nodes).
And once that snowball starts (both in node lvls and in guild gearing) - it's reaaal hard to stop it. Especially considering that no sieges will be happening for the first few months (cause lockout is longer than node leveling) and wars will be too pricey/cumbersome for any group of people that are trying to push their progress to the limit.
Unorganized players usually take the path of least resistance, which means that "I am lvl20 so I want lvl20 mobs and this node has them" will prevail over "I am lvl20, but if I stay in this node there's a chance that it lvls up and gives me lvl20 mobs, so I'm fine with grinding lvl10 mobs for a while". This then means that guilds will get boosted by unguilded people.
If I'm wrong - cool, great even. But so far I don't really see how I could be. It'd be interesting to try and test this in A2, but we'd need a fresh wipe and huundreds of people all working towards this precise test. Would be cool if Intrepid organized this test themselves, but I'm sure they'll be preoccupied with, you know, building the rest of the game, rather than worrying about minute details like this
I would hope to see some type of deliberate action that leads to vassal status. Either 1). The subject node mayor and citizens want to be part of the parent node. So they have a node event, mayoral commission, to bend the knee and offer themselves to the parent.
Or 2). The higher level node decides they want this node as a vassal. So there is a commission for some type of war or subjugation action against that node. That if won or successful the citizens of the node bend the knee. But it provides that lower level node the chance to form a defense against becoming a vassal by fighting against anyone who wants to take their independence or sovereignty away from them.
Kind of a real world thing led to this thinking. That vassals do not just pop up and happen. There are politics, strife, war and all sorts of nasty stuff that leads to a vassal status.
The proposed system would encourage players to stay active and involved in their node's progress, knowing that they might have to defend their advancement or challenge a neighboring node. The varying time periods based on the node's level also seem like a fair approach, giving lower-level nodes a chance to contest without being overwhelmed.
This idea could also help address the concern about certain nodes leveling up faster due to popular mob spawns or resources, leading to a more diverse and unique progression across servers. It would make node development more about strategy and player involvement rather than just numbers.
Testing this during a controlled environment as you suggested would indeed be a great way to see how it plays out without making any permanent changes to the node system. Overall, this idea has a lot of potential to enhance the gameplay experience and keep things interesting for the players.
I agree that automatic vassalization is a poor system and it should be done by deliberate action.
What I would propose is that nodes tier of development is not cappby by BEING vassalized, but by how many vassals THEY HAVE (as in network size so vassals vassals count). Thus the aqusition of vassal nodes becomes the means to raise your own tier.
Aquisition can be by warfare or peaceful means. In both cases the vassal must be of equal or lower level (if a vassal of equal level is take the patron will immediatly earn promotion), and sufficiently close by to the Aquiring nodes network, maybe not nessarily directly adjacent. If it peacefull submission then the vassal might negotiate for lower taxes, more benifits etc, while a defeated node would get a 'standard' rate and low but atleast some benifits. By having voluntary vassalization present possible alternatives their is an incentive to both bully and negotiate at the same time and more complex politics results.
Once vassal status is established by peacefull means the vassal is considered in a state of 'contentment' and either side can propose modifications but these take effect only if signed by the other party, thus allowing both sides to continue to keep the relationship up to date with changing needs and expectations. So long as the most recent interaction between two nodes is a signed agreement the vassal is in contentment. Vassals in this state have a very hard time declaring war against their Patron, needing to be no more then 1 tier lower in development, and must pay a large war declaration cost.
But if a vassal is taken by force it has an initial 'defeated' status which lasts a specific time period (2-4 weeks maybe) after which it automatically goes to 'agrived' and vassals in such status can at any time make a war declaration at reduced or possibly no cost to try for liberation, if they lose they go back to defeated as a timeout.
The Patron node can also pull a Vader and "Alter the agreement" unilaterally, if the changes are in any way negative for the vassal (higher taxes or lower benifits even if combined with offsets elseware) then the vassal node is set to a state of 'agrived' allowing them to essentially fight for independence or perhapse a return to the old agreement with a freeze out period in which no alterations are allowed. Alternativly the vassal can submit and sign the new agreement and go back to contentment. This allows some brinksmanship and friction between patron and vassal nodes and encourages them to again get into disagrements.
Lastly possibility for a node to develop up to a level through aquiring vassals and for them to then lose thouse vassals which were a pre-requisite to their development level. This puts a node in a state of 'over-stretched' and will trigger a decay process. If they do not bring their vassal count back up in a specified period (likely the same 2-4 weeks that 'defeated' status lasts) the development tier will regress 1 level then start another decay timer if it is still over-stretched. Over-stretched should carry significant penalties such as not being able to create any new buildings or lossing lots of taxes and no wars delcarations for purposes other then aquiring vassals.
I agree, all of this. Sold.
I like contests, I just had a contest in Factional Warfare in EVE a few minutes ago, it ended up with me shooting my own faction a couple times and forcing everybody out my site
My idea of a contest is almost the same as yours in a general sense, with this difference:
- When a node is upgrading, a contest should start at the borders around this node, and right at the border there should be a small area for capturing the border.
- The system is simply a domination style: stay inside the ring to gain points.
- Anyone stepping inside will add score to your node.
- If there are people from both nodes or no one in the capture point, then the score won't progress.
- The general idea is to stay in the cap point and kill anyone from the other node.
- Once the score limit is reached by the upgraded node, it will become the master of the losing node.
- If the lesser node wins, it won’t become a vassal and will have the opportunity to upgrade itself after the contest is over if it manages to reach the XP requirements.
- If no one wins after many hours, then the vassalage will happen
- Citizens of both nodes are automatically subscribed to this event, so they can step inside the capture zone and score for their node
And then we will see who shows up for a fight and who's the best!So, the upgraded node probably will have more people living in it and they will have to split their forces to multiple borders, the lesser nodes will have a better chance fighting in a smaller scale.
I wonder how random players (those not affiliated with either node) would play if Intrepid had implemented my idea of using node gold to pay for kills based on the repair cost of the killed targets. With such a system, any random player from any node could have come to aid in the event and influence the vassalization or freedom of nodes. It’s truly disappointing that this system wasn’t introduced, as it would have opened up many possibilities for node politics and warfare.
Maybe there should be quests too, who knows, but I don't think this is the time for even more PvE after people already crunched PvE and upgraded their node through PvE, do you get me? The PvE aspect and requisits were already met and it was clear who did the better job in this.
I think the after the upgrade there should be a full PvP contest to settle things up and if the lesser node has the chops for a fight they should free themselves from the fate of being vassals, this will be a huge morale boost
Yes, in my vision there should be a big notification and people should run to the border to defend it!
I can already imagine the rage ping on Discord and people loggin in the game to defend the border
This is AoC in my book, it has many great ideas, but it always seems to fall short when it comes to delivering the grand finale. Each system is interesting and promising, but then there's a bit of a letdown at the end. I'm really concerned about this
We now 'know' that Intrepid is considering having subsections to Nodes that can be temporarily switched into a state where they give their exp to a different Parent node, for example.
In my experience in Elite, this is done moreso as 'Systems within a sector' (you can think of a Sector as roughly 12-20 star systems within range of a specific central one, where 'central' is defined by natural trade routes, not directly by players only).
So even if Sector A sorta-vassalizes Sector B, and the 'goodwill' and such flows back to Sector A (this is approximately what happens) Sector B can use 'Node Wars' to push back over time, resulting in a more equitable actual relationship. In Ashes this would not necessarily work, but there are signs that something could happen, if Intrepid allowed Node B to have Node WARS but not Node SIEGES against their Parent node under certain conditions. I think that with some tweaking, this would parallel well to the thing I know works in ED, while offering a way for Node landscape to change without Sieges, but with much more direct politics and PvP content.
In FFXI, the Conquest Map works similarly. The three nations usually control the areas nearest to them, but you can take temporary control in exactly the same way as in Ashes (just assume that aside from the actual Nodes being there, FFXI's base conquest system works like Ashes Nodes but without PvP).
So if you wanted the benefits of being first in Conquest, your goal would be to coordinate to bring the maximum number of territories under your control every week by sending people out to get exp in those areas (or taking equipment to the Outpost to equip the Garrison soldiers there, this is really just adding more points to the equivalent of Node Exp in FF, the actual soldiers are not enhanced by this, but I think you get extra points for helping them fight off enemy raids/mini-Sieges).
Obviously it's not as advanced a game as Ashes, so you never get the option to 'attack and bring down the Capital of another nation', but you can do the same thing and push them back, and this is entirely flexible, so it's possible for one nation to control the 'Node' right outside the other, though this is difficult.
Ashes' system seems to be based around 'change' within the world rather than dynamism in relationships like FF's system, but a contest doesn't really evoke 'change', if anything it does the opposite. By 'giving the lesser Node one last chance to avoid their fate', you might be slightly reducing the chances of 'change' later. Probably not by much, though.
Also, I am absolutely confident that:
"Especially because I believe that mobs will be spawning in the same locations on every server. And those mobs will have the same loot across all servers."
will not be true, and possibly drastically untrue, which, in my experience, leads to some very interesting dynamism in the overall player experience, over time.
I think there's a chance that contested PvE locations will not be available randomly in any given node, but I expect that they have a system planned to make sure there's a decent chance for most nodes to see significant influx of popularity, depending on how the realm happens to develop.
As for the rest, I also agree, and I'd also reiterate that the "first come first serve" principle will only ever hold true until the first times the level 5s and level 6s of an area get destroyed, at which point power dynamics will be pretty much guaranteed to look different across realms.
I'd be totally ok with wars, cause then it'd be easier to get external support for a siege of the parent by them, because the war managed to weaken that node.
It'd be waaaay harder to actually get a war going, cause it's way more of a "whole node gotta agree on that" kinda thing than just "the siege is happening and you're free to join either side" (that is if Intrepid allowed vassal citizens to do that).
I mean, if it's not true - great. A fair bit of my concern would go away. The separate issue of vassal-parent relations remains, but at least the underlying player actions won't just be metaified to all hell (well, relatively speaking).
Also, are you basing this on just your own designer experience or on A1, or on something else?
There's no reason to have static spawns in Ashes when it's just too easy to do it the other way.
FF does it (but only a little), Elite does it (a lot), etc. When Steven talks about the dynamic world, about seasons and statuses and story arcs all affecting spawners, this is what is being referred to, I guarantee it.
As for the thing you are 'forgetting', it's part of the 'benefits' for winning the Node War, it's at the start of the Node War Video if you wanna recheck it.
I'd imagine Intrepid wouldn't want "crimson dagger of lava" to drop from ice mobs in the mountains, though that would definitely be funny to me. But if the loot doesn't suddenly shift containers, that'd mean that there's still a reason to farm out the same location if you want that specific loot.
And when it comes to seasons, the nodes will grow faster than the seasons will change, so unless we get servers that start on different seasons - I'd imagine the metaing of loot might lead to some node progress similarities. Though servers starting on different season could definitely be one of the ways to try and prevent this w/o really impacting anything in the game itself.
I expect Story Arcs to be the same, even if they take a day or two. If an area is full of zombies today, it might be full of minotaurs tomorrow.
I do hope Intrepid try to test this at some point in A2. Though it'd probably have to be after crating gets a fuller gameplay cycle than what we have rn. Well, unless Intrepid want to just target this specific interaction with testing and just make people pretend they're playing in a certain manner.
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/60624/vassal-resentment/p3
It's not easy putting together that much information in many long posts, but I fully read it and understood it.
It is mostly PvE but there are many PvP windows all the way before the vassalization goes through. So, the generated XP will generate expedition crates in the stockpile and anyone can pick a crate and go to the target node and drop a crate there in their stockpile, if that stockpile gets mostly filled with your crates then they become your vassal.
People would declare guild wars so they can defend their stockpiles, people woud put safety to red and gank the crate haulers, mayors would declare enemies of the state and declare node wars. If people defedend their stockpile well then they would never be anyone's vassal.
His idea is by far the more interesting than the Intrepid vassalization vision, and it is a fun too.
Instead of a challenge or a revolt, I'd propose a more merit based system. If a level 2 node passes certain economic milestones compared to a lvl 3 neighborhood, they could have a machanic where they can be promoted to lvl 3 and their neighbor could go to lvl 2. Sort of like when businesses move from one city to another in real life.
You don't want chaos and you want the downgraded node to have a chance to correct course so any change like this should take a long time and should have a lot of requirements.
As far as preventing a node from advancing when they are free to do so, why not just have time be the warning to their neighbors? Have the change take a week or two and the neighbors can see it's about to happen and that's their chance to do something about it.
Yep, the predicates for taking down a parent could be numerous, with most of them being more interesting than "more people got XP here than there".
That is exactly what I suggested in the OP
There would only be chaos if the devs never implemented reasons for cooperation, let's say my node produces X and your node produces Y, then if there is a chain we can balance our stuff and so on, also the possibility of having non-agression pacts and defensive pacts, and so on
I mean, it's not even hard, I am very sad that Steven didn't have the right people around him when he formulated the main ideas to the game
We'll have to see how things are structured in a live setting.
I think with the correct incentives you can produce cooperation between nodes. If there are no incentives to cooperate, people simply won't. Incentives definitely have to be something deliberately placed and watched by the devs.
Yeap, and not bonuses based incetives, but diplomany and trading
Right. No "you made an alliance, now here is a buff" or "here is a cookie" type of rewards. Structure the world to where people who work with others gain a meaningful advantage over those who don't. For example spread resources in a way that rewards cooperation and interdependence.
Sounds good,
but this " Sorry your Opponents simply had more People so your Node got fucked over " -> might be the only thing that can counter and defeat (and humble) an ultra-sick Elitist-kind of Group of lets say a Maximum of 500 Players,
and when the Maximum (instanced??) of Players in a Node or Castle Siege on One Side is always 500 : and the same 500 People stay invincible and undefeated for Years and Years,
-> that can make other People also leave that Server, if they know they are just Fodder in the End of the Day so that 500 People somewhere on that Server can feel like the Gods itself. (lol)
This is the only Reason why i have nothing against the Possibility of more Attackers joining an Effort to bring down a maximum Number of Defender who may or may not have a much harder time to gather Allies to defend their Node or Castle.
I think i have a bit of the exact kind of Opposite Concern than " Mag7spy ".
Mag7spy is afraid that countless People come together who are talentless on their own, but overwhelm and overrun their Opponents with sheer Numbers.
I instead am afraid of a - in the most ridiculous kind of Case - let's say a Player-Alliance of +1000 People - or even 2000 People or maybe even " 3000 " People - wants to get rid of the Influence of an Hardcore-Elitist kind of Group of a maximum of 500 People somewhere,
they have raised up a Metropolis somewhere -> probably own at least One Castle, too - > and everyone else in the World around them is doomed to Vassalage to let's say now 1 or 2 Reallife Years.
The People want a Change for once -> but no One can beat those 500 Folks in any kind of Battle. They are always Discord- or Teamspeak-oriented -> share always the best Gear on the Sever by far -> and every single one of them plays the Class/Archetype they can do best - plus always manage to have the best Defense Positions to come out victorious against their Opponents not simply every single time -> but clearly forever.
This would be absolutely ridiculous. Several Thousand People not being able to get rid of the "Oppression" (lol) of 500 People at maximum.
But there is simply no way this would work in Reallife. This is why i hope the World of Verra will have some Possibilities to apply a superior kind of Pressure onto an Enemy Node when You have clearly much higher Numbers of Allies.
Doesn't matter how.
Doesn't matter if it is Monster Coin Sieges stacked onto of the usual Node Sieges,
doesn't matter if it's a constant State of Node Wars, flagging the 500 Elitist-Player Node in a way that they are literally outlawed One Meter outside the City/Metropolis-Gate, (LOL)
or if it's just Daily Terror from all Sides by Players who have nothing better to do.
Maybe i am by far overthinking things. But damn is this a fresh kind of feeling. I have played on a "PvP"-kind of Server during WoW Vanilla and until Cataclysm,
and i must say it was always a nice Feeling that i should take my Surroundings serious because someone from the other Faction might come for me.
The Concern with the Farming-Spots is legit. And that probably the same Mobs spawn about always at the same Locations is also legit. No Idea how much dear Intrepid would be able to change and alter that to always keep the Experience somewhat fresh and varying.
This is also one of the Reasons why People say " Guides ruin everything ". Because People will definitely make Guides. Where to find the best Spots to farm Ore. To farm Wood. To farm furs. To farm Animal Meat. To farm Minerals. To farm glint. To farm unsuspecting PvE-Enjoyers. (lol)
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
Ohhh i hope You are right
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
I think it's ok getting rolled over because you didnt have enough defenders, but it is ONLY INTREPID'S FAULT you don't have enough players!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If Intrepid was serious about diplomacy in this game, then the mayor would have the option of enacting an eddict that let's him use node gold for recruiting defenders who are willing to play as mercenaries in wars and sieges!!!
BUT NOPE, in Intrepid's eyes the node gold is sacro-holy and can never be touched and never discussed about, so because of this your node will get stomped over and over if you try to develop it, and your node will die with it's coffers full of gold and you won't be able to do a thing
What do you think about this, @Ludullu_(NiKr)?
I would be all for a node currency based commissions for these kinds of tasks. And then that currency can be used for whatever it's used for.