Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Suggested PvP Enhancements
The following are suggestions I feel would enhance the Game experience significantly, if not already on the table. Praise, criticise, enhance or cripple...the choice is yours. I merely post this as my view on what would make the game better if its not already planned.
1. Node banking system (5 Castles/keeps) - All node funds are kept in 1 of the 5 castles. The guild that owns the castle receives 1% (DEV choice of course) of all subsequent monetary deposits as a protection fee. Any funds in the castle are lost if conquered by non-alliance guild, but remain if conquered by an aligned guild. A change of aligned guilds simply swaps ownership without losing deposits. This puts the castle on a much more significant footing than any caravan and just as relevant as a node siege (rather than just some separate part of the game where PvPers go), that really gives weight for the players to both attack and defend as well as mutually support.
Why bank goods ? It would be necessary to allow gold and resources 'on a person' to be dropped on death and/or 'limited home stored gold' to be lost if failing to protect against a siege. In essence the node city should act as a primary resource store where the crafters are to use them (but minor cash store) and the castle the primary monetary store where the warriors are to defend it. The onus is on the node PvE players to ensure their PvP playerbase are well kitted out to defend their wealth.
[A limiter should be placed on withdrawal frequency/amount or the cash be moved by caravan which could be a much more dangerous option.]
2. Game status dependant 'chat scope' limiter (communications blackout) - Limited fixed range node communication tower/relay network that can be created/destroyed and thought over (as an extensions of the supply line wars). Perhaps used in conjunction with the bounty hunter functionality. Any node to node chat is killed/hampered if they are outside range or dont have the necessary message relay station(s) between. This should be a segment range limited sequential line that eventually allows nodes to communicate via chat. Only one sequential line per node makes breaking the line a significant problem but does still allow node to node relays to form an alliance of nodes. Although magic exists....this does not have to be thought of as radio comms, but could just as easily be a message relay service. You could go extreme and require that node to node comms is via hand delivered mail only, but thats maybe too retro
3. Re-spawn points (forward camps) - A sequential line of 'fixed' segment range limited re spawn points that originate from a castle. Breaking a line midpoint destroys all tail end respawn points. This essentially acts as temporary and limited fast travel by re-spawning outside a node or castle. Only one sequential line per castle. Breaking the line at the root would mean being right at the castle where castle reinforcements are rapid and plentiful. The segment range is fixed length to ensure they are not too short to have 100 camps in the same vicinity to protect through redundancy, nor so far apart as to make them impossible to find/destroy as a needle in a haystack by tactical teams and scouts.
The supply lines, communication lines and forward camps should be thought of as an integrated system, that allows nodal alliances to function through commerce and communication and give military castles an extended range of influence with which to protect supply and communication lines of alliance nodes, that fall under their jurisdiction.
1. Node banking system (5 Castles/keeps) - All node funds are kept in 1 of the 5 castles. The guild that owns the castle receives 1% (DEV choice of course) of all subsequent monetary deposits as a protection fee. Any funds in the castle are lost if conquered by non-alliance guild, but remain if conquered by an aligned guild. A change of aligned guilds simply swaps ownership without losing deposits. This puts the castle on a much more significant footing than any caravan and just as relevant as a node siege (rather than just some separate part of the game where PvPers go), that really gives weight for the players to both attack and defend as well as mutually support.
Why bank goods ? It would be necessary to allow gold and resources 'on a person' to be dropped on death and/or 'limited home stored gold' to be lost if failing to protect against a siege. In essence the node city should act as a primary resource store where the crafters are to use them (but minor cash store) and the castle the primary monetary store where the warriors are to defend it. The onus is on the node PvE players to ensure their PvP playerbase are well kitted out to defend their wealth.
[A limiter should be placed on withdrawal frequency/amount or the cash be moved by caravan which could be a much more dangerous option.]
2. Game status dependant 'chat scope' limiter (communications blackout) - Limited fixed range node communication tower/relay network that can be created/destroyed and thought over (as an extensions of the supply line wars). Perhaps used in conjunction with the bounty hunter functionality. Any node to node chat is killed/hampered if they are outside range or dont have the necessary message relay station(s) between. This should be a segment range limited sequential line that eventually allows nodes to communicate via chat. Only one sequential line per node makes breaking the line a significant problem but does still allow node to node relays to form an alliance of nodes. Although magic exists....this does not have to be thought of as radio comms, but could just as easily be a message relay service. You could go extreme and require that node to node comms is via hand delivered mail only, but thats maybe too retro
3. Re-spawn points (forward camps) - A sequential line of 'fixed' segment range limited re spawn points that originate from a castle. Breaking a line midpoint destroys all tail end respawn points. This essentially acts as temporary and limited fast travel by re-spawning outside a node or castle. Only one sequential line per castle. Breaking the line at the root would mean being right at the castle where castle reinforcements are rapid and plentiful. The segment range is fixed length to ensure they are not too short to have 100 camps in the same vicinity to protect through redundancy, nor so far apart as to make them impossible to find/destroy as a needle in a haystack by tactical teams and scouts.
The supply lines, communication lines and forward camps should be thought of as an integrated system, that allows nodal alliances to function through commerce and communication and give military castles an extended range of influence with which to protect supply and communication lines of alliance nodes, that fall under their jurisdiction.
0
Comments
There are already some inter-dependency and incentives in place that align more or less of what you suggested there. I agree that it could work well to enhance the chance of a good experience that will separate good and great team play that build on that knowledge of dependency across all fields involved.
I'm not sure about this one, it feels like it goes against the philosophy of the game at least the destruction part. I think as an addition it could be a great goal choice for a node to build up such a network to increase the range of possible communication with it's surrounding.
I am rather confident in my memory that they want to limit global communication on a bigger scale to make relationships between people/organizations much more powerful and important to warn against threats or spread information about findings that need/benefit the more people that are involved.
Coming back to my first sentence, as long as it is a PvE goal with possible little PvE threats to the network, I think it's a great idea. Looking at it from the PvP side tho, I feel that it is out of place. Sieges focus on the node itself, once it is called, everyone knows about it already and the preparation, as far as I heard involve more the cutting of supplies through caravans, which make perfect sense. You send them out/ want to receive them, so you as a node know about it and it's a temporary goal to see them save, but having to defend every relay station for the whole preparation time? What would be the benefit of it? Not having to rebuild them again after the siege? Making only specific ones attack able at times? I feel it's out of place in that aspect. As said as PvE element great stuff tho.
3rd one doesn't fit in my mind at all. Granted we don't know squat for now really, but looking at how castle sieges go(supplemented with what I imagine them to be from what we know about how node sieges run with capturing points inside the node itself) I don't see how there could be a forward camp system.
3 weeks you siege the corresponding military nodes of a castle and in the 4th you attack the castle itself. I don't think castles will have 3 layers of huge wall ranges, figuratively speaking, to protect them from attacks. Thinking of the game flow it makes much more sense to only have the respawn "right at" the center of the castles core. So the outer defenses are easier to scale since they are harder to re-man once someone dies, but the further the siege goes into the final stage, the more it is in favor of the defenders. I think it feels more natural that way and it is utilized in a lot of games I know and feel amazing to play that way than overcoming the same difficulty scale over and over again.
It would make more sense if the attackers have to/can put up such camps and would act as an attack point for defenders to hamper the attacks flow. Just the other way around seems rather strange, but even so I don't think that especially sieges will be fought that far away from the target itself to justify it/give it meaning.
The supply line, comms line and forward camps are not in any way related to castle siege. The forward camps are there to allow an alliance to defend the realm. That realm may consist of many nodes that could be far apart and spread out...but they will all have their money held within the alliance castle of choice. ENEMY ALLIANCES WOULD NOT USE THE SAME BANK
As you rightly pointed out. Castle and Node sieges are timed events and will probably have much twiddling of thumbs between. PvP players could do arenas. They could do caravans. But the caravans may or may not be frequent and may or may not give PvP players enough time to attend with no fast travel.
Enter the forward camps and comms. The comms enable supply lines to be coordinated easily. Take them out and you make the nodes life harder. So allies will protect them and enemies will attack them.
Allies will have a much easier time if they can actually get there. It is much easier for them to defend such places if they have the forward camps operational and nearby...and they are kept operational. But to keep them operational you need to prevent them from being attacked and burnt down.
So what I have tried to do here is;
1. give something for the open world PvP players to do to keep them occupied in down time instead of having to go to the arenas. This is tactical shadow warfare that will take place between enemy nodes in a relentless non stop fashion.
2. Fully engage a sense of PvP and PvE dependancy by putting all their cash in the castles.
3. Making reaching deep into enemy territory possible...but very very difficult.
1. Underestimating what castle and node siege means as well es everything else that is going on. Just my opinion but I get the feeling that we will be quite busy preparing for castle sieges quite a lot each week if it is our goal. Smaller groups will probably have other things to do.
2. The attitude of constant. Constant is a bad way due to time constrictions. I am not talking about some people having more time on their hands than others to put into Ashes, or any game for that matter, but are you familiar with Guild Wars 2 World vs World vs World?
Having people constantly, as in 24 hours each day every day, needed as stationary scouts to even have a chance to fend of an attack is ridiculous. It just spawns nightly raids to reset and get some good points while no one else can even attempt to defend or take it back in time.
Concentrating those events to predeterment times or times we know quite a bit in advance is one of the reasons I am looking forward to Ashes and one of the examples I gave with caravans supplements reasons that Ashes is doing it as a basic design philosophy contradicting your ideas.
Putting those issues aside, your explanation lacks some serious details. If those things have nothing to do with sieges at all, what is the purpose of it at all? Who even is the enemy then?
What is considered enemy territory in Ashes? It has nothing to do with sieges, so who is determined an enemy? How is it determined who an enemy is?
As far as I know guilds can be at war with one another(which has nothing to do with nodes, can be a reason but it's not directly linked)? Nodes are only temporarily at war but you excluded that, so who is the enemy while no siege is declared? Who decides that? Some random button from the node leader calling out guilds/individuals?
Putting those issues aside, your explanation lacks some serious details. If those things have nothing to do with sieges at all, what is the purpose of it at all? Who even is the enemy then?
Thats like saying what is the purpose of caravans. This is a dynamic world. Enemies and allegiances will change. Those nodes will form alliances. Those alliances will want to protect their nodes (guilds will want to protect their assets one assumes even if nodes dont). The comms exist for the same reason the caravan exists. To allow enemies to cut supply lines and hinder the node development. The chain system allow the flexibility to extend in any direction it needs to go which cant be preplanned as relationships are dynamic and changing.
What is considered enemy territory in Ashes? It has nothing to do with sieges, so who is determined an enemy? How is it determined who an enemy is?
Thats the whole point. The chain system is there to allow change and flexibility for allegiances that are in a constant state of flux. There is an alliance mechanism.
https://wiki.ashesofcommunity.com/wiki/Alliances
Enemy nodes will exist just as enemy alliances will exist.
As far as I know guilds can be at war with one another(which has nothing to do with nodes, can be a reason but it's not directly linked)? Nodes are only temporarily at war but you excluded that, so who is the enemy while no siege is declared? Who decides that? Some random button from the node leader calling out guilds/individuals?
Cannot flag on Party Members, Raid Members, Guild Members, Alliance Members
http://aocwiki.net/PvP
Seems to me theres alliances.
I have always been under the impression you have to have an alliance with another node to exchange goods.
So alliances are node-node.
Anyone as in people declare sieges. Not nodes. Nodes are what they call a sudo faction as are thieve guilds and so on. Look at the PAX video linked at the same page. Why call it a sudo faction when it's intention is to create player driven factions?
Have we ever heard of such a thing? No we didn't because it doesn't exist.
You will be part of a node, you might do stuff for a node, but the node itself or it's goverment doesn't dictate your enemies, your actions do.
Your home caravans are under attack because <<someone>> want's to hamper the trade and progress of the node, because the person thinks their own node is better and should be the one progressing to the next stage/ because they are thieves and want loot/ because lulz. Now you either defend it as a citizen having your home in mind or not.
Little off topic:
The node didn't tell them that other node is an enemy, they chose to do so with their own motives in mind.
They have brought us those player driven, individual choice examples again and again. It is a base concept of Ashes. I do not see how you can overthrow or interpret that any other way.
The people involved in the caravan attack are temporarily your enemies, because their decision gave you a choice to react. The main point tho is, it is temporarily through actions and decisions made by individuals not governed by the node. Otherwise we would be robbed of those drop in choices most of the time in the first place.
Sieges are the culminated climax of those smaller conflicts escalating on to the biggest possible stage.
For node sieges, citizens of the node being attacked are automatically registered as defenders.[3]
I'm sorry but this is very clear and is just directly up scaled from the caravan example. Temporary alliance due to decisions made on a people level, not node level. Which in turn explains why you can't tag on fellow alliance members. It's just the terminology used to clarify. You can't just leave out half of the equation and make something up that doesn't exist.Why is there no node Alliance on the Alliance page? It doesn't exist that's why.
I'm sorry but I am very sure your idea is based on wrong assumptions about the whole design of the game.
Since I liked the ideas anyway and just doubted the applicability I have nothing more to say to the topic. So spoilers for a rather off topic rant.
Imagine having a good portion of your members forfeit their investments and boons in a node because the leaders of a city decided those two can't coexist and your guild has to choose now which to abandon and support.
I'm not a fan of how this at all. I saw all those communities like the thieves/mage guild, citizenship and so on as rough loose bonds to give more sense of a together and interacting groups of interest.
This throws it all around and restricts the most closely knit group a guild altogether. I'm skeptical at best about this.
I realize there had to be some sort of driving decision power between cities, but I wouldn't have thought it be that invasive and quite honestly I think it was presented very miss leading up until now, if not for that blog post I am certain that all other information would paint a different picture as I think I made clear with my last post.
Why the heck are they called sudo-factions when they are quite literally, factions? I don't get it Intrepid is quite directly building a political landscape all of a sudden which we will have to navigate through at all times, not just a rough sense of community you are part in or put down some stakes in like a home.
I really thought more along the lines of surveys to determine the stance of the cities population to aid leader people (city and or guild wise) knowing if they have the support to siege other cities effectively.
I don't like this at all.
What about the whole technological side? What happened with the notion that different levels of crafting stations can be present in a city depending on it's location? Now people can get locked out of using them because they happen to be in the wrong city even tho they bear them no ill will jsut because they like the mountainside freehold more than the forest??
So much for the player choice, you are just getting restricted from all sides and thrown around by other peoples decisions. I thought those decisions from others should be opportunities, not pain in the sides.
I will comment later.
Damn it Lex... now I cant plead insanity.
The origin of tax as protection payment. And their use to construct forts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_medieval_England
Where else would you keep you treasures other than the place of the final stand that is the most protected of all....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep