Contest for Parent Node

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ludullu

@Arya_Yeshe yes, it's an interesting idea, though I feel like it might get a bit too busy-workey in practice. But it's definitely better than what we'll currently have, so I'd be all for testing it.

Diamaht wrote: »

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.

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".

Diamaht wrote: »

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.

That is exactly what I suggested in the OP

Arya_Yeshe

Diamaht wrote: »

We asked him about this during a live stream, he wanted the nodes to be more cooperative in their interactions.

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.

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

Diamaht

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Diamaht wrote: »

We asked him about this during a live stream, he wanted the nodes to be more cooperative in their interactions.

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.

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.

Arya_Yeshe

Diamaht wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Diamaht wrote: »

We asked him about this during a live stream, he wanted the nodes to be more cooperative in their interactions.

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.

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

Diamaht

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Diamaht wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Diamaht wrote: »

We asked him about this during a live stream, he wanted the nodes to be more cooperative in their interactions.

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.

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.

Aszkalon

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

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".

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.

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

So, what do yall think?

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)

Ludullu

Aszkalon wrote: »

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.

We'll supposedly be able to invite more people into node wars, and those are meant to weaken the node in different ways, so I think it's gonna be possible to overthrow the kind of group you're talking about, though it'll definitely be hard.

Aszkalon

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Aszkalon wrote: »

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.

We'll supposedly be able to invite more people into node wars, and those are meant to weaken the node in different ways, so I think it's gonna be possible to overthrow the kind of group you're talking about, though it'll definitely be hard.

Ohhh i hope You are right

the harder the Wars, the more satisfying the Victory.

Arya_Yeshe

Aszkalon wrote: »

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".

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)?

Ludullu

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

What do you think about this?

I definitely agree that mayors should not be able to draw out money from the node. We already have castles for that.

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.

Arya_Yeshe

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

What do you think about this?

I definitely agree that mayors should not be able to draw out money from the node. We already have castles for that.

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.

Yes, comissions is the key word then

Child Item