Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Randomizing Node Types
Lodrig
Member
Currently in the Alpha nodes have labels for the 4 types which will ultimatly exist, but the functionalities of these types are absent. The main differences the types provide will be in mayorship contests and the ability to create certain structures. Given that the mayor contest is seperate from teh map and nodes buildings fit into a system of plots 'slots'. It looks like which nodes are assigned which types is at present a completly arbitary choice and has no connection to node layout.
If that is the case then it would be wise for each server in alpha, beta and launch to have a randomized assignment of the node types to each node, with the obvious rules of equal totals for each type, and each biome with 4 or more nodes getting atleast 1 of each. This will make each server more unique in their history and community and more likely to catch and find bugs with the node type systems durring testing.
And if that can be done then an even more radical option also exists. When a node is sieged and dropped to tier 0 that is an ideal time to re-roll the node type on a live server as all effects, structures and relationships from the prior node are inherently errased already. Re-rolling would need to use a 'pool' system to prevent the ratio of the node types from skewing too out of balance. Think of this as a bag of marbles, take out a marble, swap with the on on the map and return the displaced one to the bag, thus the more of one type out on the map the less likely it comes out in a reroll.
Rerolling like this would further highten the impact of big important Metro nodes being wiped out because the new node rising from the ashes will be unlikely to be a clone of what was their before and a different groups and goals are more likely to shuffle around and rebuild creating a more dynamic server/realm environment. Sieging intentionally to get a reroll might be a thing people do and I think that's legit, but to keep it from being abused the reroll only happens a percentage of the times, each tier and each month that's passed since the last reroll raises the chance say by 10%.
If that is the case then it would be wise for each server in alpha, beta and launch to have a randomized assignment of the node types to each node, with the obvious rules of equal totals for each type, and each biome with 4 or more nodes getting atleast 1 of each. This will make each server more unique in their history and community and more likely to catch and find bugs with the node type systems durring testing.
And if that can be done then an even more radical option also exists. When a node is sieged and dropped to tier 0 that is an ideal time to re-roll the node type on a live server as all effects, structures and relationships from the prior node are inherently errased already. Re-rolling would need to use a 'pool' system to prevent the ratio of the node types from skewing too out of balance. Think of this as a bag of marbles, take out a marble, swap with the on on the map and return the displaced one to the bag, thus the more of one type out on the map the less likely it comes out in a reroll.
Rerolling like this would further highten the impact of big important Metro nodes being wiped out because the new node rising from the ashes will be unlikely to be a clone of what was their before and a different groups and goals are more likely to shuffle around and rebuild creating a more dynamic server/realm environment. Sieging intentionally to get a reroll might be a thing people do and I think that's legit, but to keep it from being abused the reroll only happens a percentage of the times, each tier and each month that's passed since the last reroll raises the chance say by 10%.
0
Comments
So this part of the suggestion seems pointless.
In general, I wouldn't get my hopes up. I think Steven is happy with this being a curated thing that doesn't require analysis. And I'm not sure he's wrong:
Ultimately, the individual server realm's identity is supposed to be derived from which nodes players choose, not which nodes happen to be most advantageous through the nature of the map. If anything, you don't want to test for how placing different node types in different areas affects their popularity. You want to test for how each node type's bonuses need to be balanced, in order to make all of them attractive enough for players to earn their experience, spend their resources, and become citizens there, in the predetermined locations they're going to have on all realms. So that ultimately the growth of nodes will be purely determined by the types of players that happen to dominate regions of each realm.
Whole player alliances are not going to refrain from seiging their rivals nodes simply because of the oponent has a 'good' or 'more popular' type of node. So all types should regularly get recycled into the pool and then redistributed on subsequent siegies.
An example of a pool system in finer detail. 85 nodes on the map, 15 in the pool, total of 100, 25 of each type. In the initial map distribution we average 21.25 of each node type on the map, the maximum is 25 and probability will keep it to quite a narrow range of 19-23.
Also remember the players choice of WHICH nodes to develop is FAR more impactful then any skew created here. Node type basically dose NOTHING for tier 1 and 2 and enough nodes will stay at that level that a whole node type could basically be suppressed to non-expression under the existing design if players deside a type is unworth developing. So giving players agency to effectivly re-shuffle node types around actually adds almost no more inbalance potential then already exists.
Your last paragraphs logic is entirly an argument FOR my proposal when you think about it. Everything else in the maps design, terrain, dungeons etc is identical from realm to realm. If thouse other factors are vastly more imporatnt to success then node type the the same nodes will be developed on each realm and then RE-developed once sieged. It is going to be nearly impossible to undo or equalize these kinds of disparities on a map this large and complex once it is made, by the time they are identified we will be stuck with them. Both concepts of an initial server node type seeding, and rerolling both break up the potential monotony.