Node & Gear loss attrition

First let me start my first post by saying hello to my new victims and casualties of war. To anyone who I may know from past lives already present on these forums I salute you.

Moving on to my topic and I apologize in advance if this has been addressed or discussed i've searched the forums and wiki and have not seen specifics on this yet, though I admit possible human error on my part and due to my limited time being aware of the game, I would welcome being pointed in the correct direction should a link be available.

Node destruction and gear loss - let me start by saying Thank you to the developers for these aspects of game play. I find it utterly insulting how many companies cave to the possibility of a lost dollar if the game simply does not appeal to the masses.
With that said my concern sits on the shoulders of the developers to balance the loss of a node on what I can only imagine is a fine line between too easy and complete abandon by individuals and groups who invest the time and effort into them.

My point derives from one of the primary factors that ended the MMO Shadowbane , while not the games only significant failure by the developers of it, maybe one that simply broke it's back.

In Shadowbane the city building and upkeep turned into such a substantial grind that upon a siege loss the defeated city owners and players quit the game in droves. The amount of time invested into something that could be lost in a few hours is a tough burden to bear.

My question(s) are directly related to this. What measures are being put in place to try and limit loss of player base due to the attrition from building and maintaining cities over long periods of time.

Time and resource loss however is only one aspect of the defeat felt by a defeated city. In addition to this they face the new uncertainty of having their habits broken. As humans many of us are creatures of habit and this creates a unique difficulty for players that then become dispersed and/or uprooted by the loss of their familiar habits be that spawning in their own home, city or area of the world map for example. These players likely developed a comfort level from any of these possible scenarios and having to learn and adjust to something else could create turmoil that they simple do not want to deal with or try and learn. Maybe this forces players to enter NPC or free cities that have no pvp, or have only pvp which could also then alienate groups of people who specifically like just one or the other.

To a less extent gear loss would work the same way, if the grind and difficulty to get any items of quality are difficult to replicate or the time investment to re-gear characters is too great.

I look forward to this discussion if anyone has feedback to provide.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

mcstackerson

You don't really own a node. You can be a mayor and make decisions for the node but you can't do much else. Money taxed by the node, is the nodes, you can't take it for yourself. You are only able to spend on things for the node. Being a patron of a node gives you perks but it's not yours. You can't control the gaurds the way you seem to think or anything like that. If you attack someone in "your" node outside a siege, the guards will still attack you, even if they are from another node. You won't be able to just declaring a war on another "guild" as a node owner and sick the guards on them.

Yea, we don't really know much about the castle system but gold alone should be a great incentive to take it, especially as everyone is trading to build up their characters early on. Nothing binds so having a lot of gold should help progress any guild.

To my knowledge, you can control a castle while being a citizen of the node, so you can profit from a node's advancement while maintaining a castle.

Ventharien

Kings and queens of castles have an area of influence tax slider, but do not 'control' other non castle system nodes. They will also need to balance keeping a hold of their throne, and defending the nodes within their castle region.

You bring up that guilds will somehow control who enters a node early game, suggesting that their guards will attack other guilds, or that their players will attack and pk any outsiders. First, the town guards (And town) don't belong to a guild. Nor can they be set to attack other guilds. From what we've been told, they will attack corrupted players, attack monsters, and attack flagging players in town. And if a guild decides to try to keep every outsider from getting in to a chosen node, they will find themselves pretty quickly under a vassal situation of a neighboring node that used their heads. This is to say nothing of another guild taking advantage of this guilds stupidity, ramping up their corruption, and then coming in to clean them out.

Tyrantor

Ahh yes clearly I'm way off on the guard thing as it would not correlate with the guilds wars just based on mayor allegiance. Regarding the corruption from attacking people in their city. Unless people constantly revert back to non-combatant after death I do not understand why there would be so many people who were. In the case there are going to be droves of people who never fight others even once then, I suppose being able to clear out your city will be difficult in regards to avoiding corruption.

unknownsystemerror

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Ahh yes clearly I'm way off on the guard thing

No farther off than you are with anything else.

It's clear you have only been looking at this game for a few days, and have not yet actually grasped the systems in Ashes and how they will work together. It is clear you have seen a system that looks similar to one you are familiar with, and assumed much about it.

Those of us that have been on these forums for a while (I think I am about 3 years when you include the original forums) have seen this a number of times. People see a thing they vaugely recognize from another game, and assume the basics of the system are the same. Without exception, these people would be best served if they asked others if what they think is right, rather than telling those same people that they are right. This is especially true when the people they are talking to have been following the game for years.

So, once again, you are wrong.

Fact is, guilds can't own nodes.

Even the idea of who is an enemy in Ashes seems to be something you haven't fully grasped. The game will essentially break in to clusters, with a castle and metropolis in each. For the most part, people that call each one of these home will all be working together to keep it strong. Node clusters based around a metropolis will need not far short of 2000 players to maintain, and so when you decide on an area to settle in Ashes, the closest 2000 people are all (mostly) friends. Nodes in this cluster can't declare war on each other, and if the metropolis is sieged, all citizens of all nodes in the cluster are automatically listed as defenders.

So it is fair to say, you are relying on this large number of people around you, moreso than they are relying on you.

Your idea of needing to own a node to keep your guild strong is completely missing this point. If you want your guild to be strong, you need to base it in a strong cluster around a metropolis node. You need to give your guild members the option of which ever one of the four node types best suits them (forcing everyone in a guild to be a citizen of the same node type is a great way to not have a strong guild). You need to support people that have to go four or five nodes over to harvest materials, and then support them further when those materials are all gone, and they need to move four or five nodes over in a different direction.

The entire node system is build around the idea of guilds needing access to many nodes, and nodes needing access to many guilds.

The notion of someone attempting to own a node from a guild perspective simply is a case of someone not understanding the game at all.

You are not wrong in that there may well be guilds that try - but it is not the trying part of it that I am saying won't happen. It is the succeeding part of it that won't happen - the game simply doesn't allow for it.

Tyrantor

noaani wrote: »

Those of us that have been on these forums for a while (I think I am about 3 years when you include the original forums) have seen this a number of times. People see a thing they vaugely recognize from another game, and assume the basics of the system are the same. Without exception, these people would be best served if they asked others if what they think is right, rather than telling those same people that they are right. This is especially true when the people they are talking to have been following the game for years.

So, once again, you are wrong.

Ok lets go with questions and see if you can answer everything.

For what it's worth I do not believe just because someone follows a game for years gives you the ability to shut people down trying to make points. While I may be "off" on some things I do not think i'm as far off as you do and while that could be my inexperience talking it could also be that you're flat out wrong but think your superior to me due to your time investment on a forum and by resolve you can't fathom conceding on points.

I also find it ironic that you blame me for my experience in another game having influence on my views of how this game will work while you do the exact same thing.

noaani wrote: »

Rather, leadership of nodes will function similarly to Archeages Hero elections (Archeage happens to he a game that has heavily influenced Steven and thus the development of this game). Sure, some players from some top guilds will be in the leadership roles at times, but that is as a result of individual effort, as "the guild" they are in gains nothing from them being in those positions, and so "the guild" instead focuses guild time and resources on things that "the guild" benefits from - which in Archeage also included castle sieges, among other things.

The way you're describing the Nodes to me here sounds like they just as well be NPC cities. You're essentially suggesting that they are simply paths of travel for farming/gathering.

noaani wrote: »

Nodes, however, offer nothing to the guild, and so guilds won't spend time or resources on them as long as there are things out there that the guild can spend those resources on instead that will actually benefit the guild.

While I on the other hand am suggesting that they will be used in addition to and in my opinion more importantly to advance characters through crafting, skill advancement, item availability etc etc. Essentially what i'm saying is that Nodes will be valuable assets to guilds for members advancing their skills and items. Controlling (not owning) a node could provide advantages over other guilds/nodes in the game. Essentially I find they will be more valuable to guilds than not otherwise the siege mechanic in the game wouldn't make much sense as a whole outside of creating additional questing areas/farming.

You should be able to make the correlation between me using the word "owning" and the differential being that they can control the node, in election, player housing and pvp.

noaani wrote: »

Nodes in this cluster can't declare war on each other, and if the metropolis is sieged, all citizens of all nodes in the cluster are automatically listed as defenders.

If nodes within a cluster can not siege eachother as you point out. This seems like a potential flaw in the "cluster" system you describe above. For example let's say one guild within a cluster controls one of the smaller nodes (through all their members holding housing) - then this guild just PKs all other players within their cluster. Yes it's likely they would become corrupt (again if no one fights back or is tagged as combatant within the cluster). Not being able to remove this node/guild from their own cluster through siege seems a bit odd to me.

Yes they could ask a neighboring cluster to do this for them, but do they really want a neighboring cluster to gain a foothold within their own?

It's possible I just do not understand how the flagging system will work. Feel free to explain this also. I'm under the impression that once someone becomes flagged as combatant they then never revert back to non-combatant on this character. After a certain point it would seem most everyone would be fair game for PVP and guilds would not need to concern themselves with corruption. Of course maybe guilds require members to create alt accounts that never engage in pvp and try to harass their neighbors into corruption.

noaani wrote: »

No farther off than you are with anything else.

You also do a good job of telling me i'm flat out wrong on everything but you've failed to even counter any of the points i've made that would at a minimum in theory prove yours wrong.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Controlling (not owning) a node could provide advantages over other guilds/nodes in the game.

The only point that needs to be addressed is this one.

Let's say you have a single rival guild. You guys fight each other all the time.

Let's also say your guild levels up a node to metropolis level.

That rival guild is then able to access the services in that node in exactly the same manner as your guild. They are able to take up residence in that node in the same way your guild is. They are as protected by the guards in that node as your guild is. If you attempt to attack members of this rival guild as they enter, they can choose to not fight back, cause your guild members to gain corruption and thus be attacked by the guards of the node you built up, while they are free to enter.

How is that an asset for your guild in your fight against that rival guild?

Nodes are a game plays mechanic that sit above guilds, not under them.

Ventharien

Tyrantor wrote: »

You also do a good job of telling me i'm flat out wrong on everything but you've failed to even counter any of the points i've made that would at a minimum in theory prove yours wrong.

There is no need to 'counter' any assumption you have put forward, since all of them I've read have been put together on faulty premises, and systems you don't understand. Most of the people who regularly post in these forums have been around for a long time. Watching live streams, dev interviews, seeing changes to systems and revisions to previous statements. In that, they are more knowledgeable than you.

As @noaani said, there is little doubt that some guilds will try to head out from the divine gateways, and carve out their own little kingdoms. And some of these will go full 'No one else allowed'. As the system currently functions, those nodes will eventually be subjugated by a nearby advancing node that actually allowed as many people as wanted to live there to do so, increasing it's node exp far faster than the little tree-house group.

This other node may well have a center group of one or two well organized guilds, but to ensure their node and the vassals it locks down remain attractive places for new blood to set up shop, and current residents to remain and play, they will need to make decisions that benefit the node, not just themselves. This means maybe going with instanced housing, building things that many of the inhabitants want to see in the limited build slots, or even organizing and stepping in if another guild or group of guilds starts hunting players in the node.

Some other incorrect assumptions you have, Flagging is not a once done thing. They are going to be testing the time for switching, but you will go back and forth between the states. Also, while nodes themselves will be probably the greatest tool for character development/crafting, Freeholds will also be able to house crafting and other buildings, not just a home.

I would suggest you go look at Jahlon's ashes101.com and the ashes wiki for some of this info to catch up.

Plateau

Noaani

leonerdo wrote: »

If nodes serve the whole community equally, then the decisions made by the mayor are either good for everyone or bad for everyone.

There absolutely will be things that some people want and others don't - but they are things that some people in a guild will want and some won't.

An example could be the choice between a blacksmith and tailor - there will clearly be people that want one or the other.

This may also hold true with social organizations - with a thieves guild and scholars academy among them, it is easy to see how different players would likely want to pick different organizations. If nodes have the option to construct buildings for them, this could be a source of contention.

Religion is another possibility - which God does the node want to build a temple to?

All of these things matter, but these are not decisions that guilds will want to make for the whole guild (hence the premise of this thread being wrong).

I can see people leaving a metropolis if a neighboring city node has the religious and social infrastructure they want. Both of these organizations offer players augments, and so players without the right structure in these may be at an actual serious disadvantage.

The only real question I have in regards to how likely this will be is to do with access to metropolis services. While some will be available, I would expect citizens of a vassal of the metropolis to have better access to these services than someone that is not a citizen of any nearby node.

Jamation

I'm not as experienced as a lot of these guys, but I'll help clear up some of the misunderstandings, but forgive me if I'm wrong.

Tyrantor wrote: »

The way you're describing the Nodes to me here sounds like they just as well be NPC cities. You're essentially suggesting that they are simply paths of travel for farming/gathering.

While cities will of course be crucial landmarks, as well as points of travel, they will also have a few other functionalities that I know of.

So a quote from Margaret Krohn (Community Marketing Lead) starts off with this about nodes:
"As a Node advances, it influences the types of content within itself and the surrounding areas. Players do not create Nodes, but if they are a part of the government for a specific Node, they have the ability to influence diplomacy, and modify building types/construction and services within that Node."

If a node is advanced to the metropolis stage it can gain its "superpower" with the type being dependent on the type of node (Ex: Science node = Teleportation superpower)

Node advancement can also correlate with new quests, new NPCs, new dungeon and raids, new or advanced mob types, new or different resources, and possible events. It will also be a central place for safer item storage as well as additional housing. And of course, as you know, the many various facilities that can be used and developed within a city.

So they would indeed be more than hotspots to travel between, but they are indeed more NPC operated than it may appear at first glance. If it makes it easier, think of it like a normal NPC city, but the players can determine a small portion of how the city will be built and many players will call certain cities their home due to where they gather their resources, own a house, or just enjoy the aesthetic of.

Tyrantor wrote: »

While I on the other hand am suggesting that they will be used in addition to and in my opinion more importantly to advance characters through crafting, skill advancement, item availability etc etc. Essentially what i'm saying is that Nodes will be valuable assets to guilds for members advancing their skills and items. Controlling (not owning) a node could provide advantages over other guilds/nodes in the game. Essentially I find they will be more valuable to guilds than not otherwise the siege mechanic in the game wouldn't make much sense as a whole outside of creating additional questing areas/farming.

While you are correct that nodes will be essential in players character advancement in crafting, item availability, etc. I don't necessarily see how that is involved with guild behaviors. I think I need more clarity or a specific example on how you think this would benefit a guild that "controls" a node? I can't think of anything that fit in with your example, but I could easily be missing something. However, if the example is a guild controls Node A, they'd gain an advantage in crafting or item availability over other guilds, that's not really correct. The resources and facilities would be able to be used by anyone and everyone that visits the town and it would actually hinder the towns growth and development if the sites had limited availability to players, so it's in the "controlling" guilds best interest to allow players access to the node and focus their time on other developments.

Tyrantor wrote: »

If nodes within a cluster can not siege eachother as you point out. This seems like a potential flaw in the "cluster" system you describe above. For example let's say one guild within a cluster controls one of the smaller nodes (through all their members holding housing) - then this guild just PKs all other players within their cluster. Yes it's likely they would become corrupt (again if no one fights back or is tagged as combatant within the cluster). Not being able to remove this node/guild from their own cluster through siege seems a bit odd to me.

I think the term cluster might've been a bit confusing. The idea around this is vassal nodes + parent nodes. This image shows the influence between the two a little bit better than just the word "cluster":

Also some information from the wiki:
"Vassals are subject to the government, alliances, wars, taxes, and trade of their parent node, and are able to receive federal aid from them."
"Vassal nodes cannot declare war on their parent node or any of their vassals."
"Citizens of vassals are bound by the diplomatic states of the parent node."

Basically, civil war won't be a thing. However, a player can denounce their citizenship to a node and move to a different node or assist in a war against a node if they aren't happy with how things are operating. Citizenship is basically like pledging your life and loyalty to your nation.

This is also a place where thinking guild influence on a node is more than it could be. The politics of guilds is outside the realm of the politics of nodes. If guild A doesn't like guild B they can simply declare war on them and fight a good ol GvG without nodes coming into play. If guild politics were intertwined with node politics it would almost force guild members to all claim citizenship in a singular node, which as described, wouldn't be as beneficial to a guild as having them slightly spread out.

Atama

I think of high level nodes as NPC cities that are influenced by the actions of players. Imagine if Stormwind in WoW got bigger or smaller, changed its architectural style, or changed services available based on quests that are being done around it.

Noaani

Jamation wrote: »

I'm not as experienced as a lot of these guys, but I'll help clear up some of the misunderstandings, but forgive me if I'm wrong.

Considering how long you've been on these forums, that is a reasonably accurate an understanding of the node system - based on the info we have at hand.

Tyrantor

Jamation wrote: »

I'm not as experienced as a lot of these guys, but I'll help clear up some of the misunderstandings, but forgive me if I'm wrong.

Tyrantor wrote: »

I don't necessarily see how that is involved with guild behaviors. I think I need more clarity or a specific example on how you think this would benefit a guild that "controls" a node? I can't think of anything that fit in with your example, but I could easily be missing something. However, if the example is a guild controls Node A, they'd gain an advantage in crafting or item availability over other guilds, that's not really correct. The resources and facilities would be able to be used by anyone and everyone that visits the town and it would actually hinder the towns growth and development if the sites had limited availability to players, so it's in the "controlling" guilds best interest to allow players access to the node and focus their time on other developments.

Tyrantor wrote: »

If nodes within a cluster can not siege eachother as you point out. This seems like a potential flaw in the "cluster" system you describe above. For example let's say one guild within a cluster controls one of the smaller nodes (through all their members holding housing) - then this guild just PKs all other players within their cluster. Yes it's likely they would become corrupt (again if no one fights back or is tagged as combatant within the cluster). Not being able to remove this node/guild from their own cluster through siege seems a bit odd to me.

Also some information from the wiki:
"Vassals are subject to the government, alliances, wars, taxes, and trade of their parent node, and are able to receive federal aid from them."
"Vassal nodes cannot declare war on their parent node or any of their vassals."
"Citizens of vassals are bound by the diplomatic states of the parent node."

Basically, civil war won't be a thing. However, a player can denounce their citizenship to a node and move to a different node or assist in a war against a node if they aren't happy with how things are operating. Citizenship is basically like pledging your life and loyalty to your nation.

This is also a place where thinking guild influence on a node is more than it could be. The politics of guilds is outside the realm of the politics of nodes. If guild A doesn't like guild B they can simply declare war on them and fight a good ol GvG without nodes coming into play. If guild politics were intertwined with node politics it would almost force guild members to all claim citizenship in a singular node, which as described, wouldn't be as beneficial to a guild as having them slightly spread out.

Great post very well explained. Hope everyone enjoyed their 4th of July from here in the states.

Here are my follow up questions to the points you raised above that I need clarification on if you or anyone else can chime in here.

Regarding the "civil war" aspect of the Vassals/neighboring Nodes.

"You could be more precision oriented in the decision to attack a city. Let's say it's a rival node that's trying to reach you know a node stage five or something and you want to disable their ability for the religious system to progress so you target the temple during the attack, or you want to disable their scholars academy from reaching a higher level so that your nodes can; or you want to disable multiple buildings that allow for experience and quests to be undertaken by its citizenship, which prevents them from keeping up in pace of experience gained with your node. These can be more precision oriented and don't have to effectualize an actual takeover of the node.[80] – Steven Sharif"

What exactly makes a Node a rival regarding your own Node's advancement if not a node from within the same node system as your parent? Would this not essentially be Civil War per described above? That explanation of trying to prevent a node's advancement sounds a lot like it is specifically designed so that Nodes within a parent node can fight for advancement. From where I'm sitting it seems like this action would also then be guild oriented more than a bunch of random guild(s) that can freely travel between the Nodes. Even in an event this is some neighboring Node "cluster", what would be the point in a siege if you can simply just stroll over and use their facilities, or travel where ever is required to utilize the specific node needed for your benefits?

In regards to city guards is it a foregone conclusion that guards are automatically provided by the city as NPCs or do they require some form of activation/payment from the mayor/inner council to actually exist in a Node? If they are not free, or a guild/mayor can choose to have them or not it would open up the prospects of PVP within a node at limited exposure outside of corruption.

In regards to guild advantages - my idea here was more specifically related to potential dungeons, resource or other items by proximity that might be rare or more valuable for some reason. In addition to early game advantages of being the first Node with a blacksmith or other crafting abilities that they can gear up their players for quicker leveling, farming, questing etc. Possibly at later levels a specific node correlates with a rare dungeon system, quest line or other that provides legendary items, controlling this and limiting outside access (however possible, IF possible) seems like a huge advantage.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

What exactly makes a Node a rival regarding your own Node's advancement if not a node from within the same node system as your parent?

In the case you quoted, it could well be that he is talking about two nodes competing for level 5 in the absence of a parent node - thus the first node to reach that level will make the rival node their vassal.

As it stands right now though, you are unable to siege your parent node, or any vassals of that parent node.

There is rivalry as long as there is advancement to be had, but once one node makes another a vassal, that rivalry ceases.

Tyrantor wrote: »

In regards to city guards is it a foregone conclusion that guards are automatically provided by the city as NPCs or do they require some form of activation/payment from the mayor/inner council to actually exist in a Node?

From what I can tell, city guards are a given, but there is potential for a mayor to add more. Nodes will want more guards though, as they will assist in sieges - and it would be safe to assume that a node with fewer guards will make for an easier target in a siege.

Also, since most node services are suspending during the declaration period of a node siege (the time between when someone declares a siege and when the siege actually happens), it is safe to say that a mayor will be unable to purchase additional guards in this time. As such, you would want to have them in place all the time.

Tyrantor wrote: »

In regards to guild advantages - my idea here was more specifically related to potential dungeons, resource or other items by proximity that might be rare or more valuable for some reason. In addition to early game advantages of being the first Node with a blacksmith or other crafting abilities that they can gear up their players for quicker leveling, farming, questing etc. Possibly at later levels a specific node correlates with a rare dungeon system, quest line or other that provides legendary items, controlling this and limiting outside access (however possible, IF possible) seems like a huge advantage.

If a guild wants to level quickly, the most important thing they can do (more important than building a blacksmith, I would argue), is to make sure they have access to appropriate level content.

Since content level is tied to node level, this means they need to level a node up at the same pace they level themselves up.

This is only possible with many, many players. One or two thousand players will be involved on leveling up the first metropolis on each server.

The real advantage of being the first node in a region to build a blacksmith is not about the gear, it is that it will attract other players to that node to use the blacksmith, thus generate more experience for your node.

As soon as you start turning away those players - whether by force or by not providing the amenities and services they want when someone else will - your node stops it's progress, and potentially starts falling to atrophy.

Again, the key to a successful node is essentially player count. Start restricting players and you are actually restricting your node level.

Tyrantor

noaani wrote: »

As it stands right now though, you are unable to siege your parent node, or any vassals of that parent node.

There is rivalry as long as there is advancement to be had, but once one node makes another a vassal, that rivalry ceases.

From what I can tell, city guards are a given, but there is potential for a mayor to add more. Nodes will want more guards though, as they will assist in sieges - and it would be safe to assume that a node with fewer guards will make for an easier target in a siege.

Also, since most node services are suspending during the declaration period of a node siege (the time between when someone declares a siege and when the siege actually happens), it is safe to say that a mayor will be unable to purchase additional guards in this time. As such, you would want to have them in place all the time.

Since content level is tied to node level, this means they need to level a node up at the same pace they level themselves up.

This is only possible with many, many players. One or two thousand players will be involved on leveling up the first metropolis on each server.

Do they specifically say "any vassals of the parent node" or are they referring to Vassals nodes directly under your node?

City guards, where do you see they are a given? Also since these guards are going to be involved in sieges they will not be the typical NPC guards that can just insta kill people. Unless the siege mechanic changes their stats. This would mean that a guild could simply camp the guards/respawn to control the city for pvp.

Obviously at low levels this would be unlikely but since the guard level/skill should mirror the node stage. In my best guess I would think that guards will become available at node stage 3 and would equal level 30 NPC. Each node level from there would likely increase the guard level by 10 i.e. Lvl 4 node = lvl 40 NPC guards etc.

From what I can read the mayors can hire mercenary NPCs for sieges, this could mean offensive and/or defensive NPCs it doesn't specify defensive only and since the attacking side may also have a Mayor it could potentially add them also.

I have to imagine that the game is going to have more political aspects to the node systems than just simply during advancement mode. Rivalry could mean caravan assaults from neighboring guilds/node citizens that causes one node to the verge of war. Considering the costs of a siege it seems unlikely that being able to siege a competing node prior to a parent node existing would be the only applicable time period. (to me).

While I understand the more players available the faster a node levels. Since node leveling will mostly be capped by it's current citizens verus players passing through I believe that again this is going to be more guild driven than not. For example- if 10,000 players get dumped into a server at launch and they start spreading out across the world again per the simple math we're talking roughly 80x/each node development. Yes there would be player migration to larger cities for advancement however at early game levels guilds with 300+ members would have a substantial advantage for leveling specific nodes/clusters hence drawing more potential randoms to their Node(s) for advancement. They could very easily control most/all of the citizenship at some of their larger node(s) and as people continue to level at the lower ones they would then flow into the larger one and help advance it (plus the additional bonus from the vassal nodes feeding their primary node EXP).

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

They could very easily control most/all of the citizenship at some of their larger node

You are still looking at the "could they" rather than the "why would they?"

In terms of "could they" own a node, Steven has specifically said that guilds do not control nodes. During development, stated intention has a lot more weight than stated systems and mechanics. This means that if the intent is that guild do not control nodes, then if there is a gap in the system that allows for this, it will be closed.

In terms of "why would they?", I still don't have an answer.

Guilds want to progress fast and early, and will want a node that facilitates this.

The thing is, that is what almost all players want, which means that is what almost all nodes will do.

A guild - any guild - is best served by assisting a node rather than by trying to lead it. This is because if people see a guild attempting to run a node, they are very likely to just go to a different (potentially rival) node. On the other hand, if the guild is working with the node to level it faster, everyone wins.

At no point does the guild gain anything from attempting to control the node. The buildings that are built will be the same whether the guild is controlling it or not.

In order to maintain leadership of a node, a guild needs to do one of the following, depending on node type
Invest a LOT of time in religious quests.
Invest a LOT of coin every month.
Win a FFA PvP contest.
Win an election.

The first three of those things will see the guild spend a lot of time and/or resources, but they still don't stand to gain anything as a guild from it. Even if they win, the node still needs to retain the bulk of it's population, which means building the services that the bulk of the population want - which probably happen to be the buildings the guild wants anyway, which would have been built if the guild didn't invest that time/resources in to securing temporary leadership of the node.

So again, I am simply not seeing the point.

Of the above 4, winning an election seems to be the easiest, but it isn't, as will be obvious soon.

Tyrantor wrote: »

Yes there would be player migration to larger cities for advancement however at early game levels guilds with 300+ members would have a substantial advantage for leveling specific nodes/clusters hence drawing more potential randoms to their Node(s) for advancement.

300 member guilds won't exist while leveling.

300 member guilds will be rare once leveled as well, as players of large guilds are less effective in combat as members of smaller guilds. Guild size starts somewhere around 50, and guild progression is traded for an increase in guild size, but this progression can be used to gain augments and passive abilities instead of an increase in guild size.

Larger guilds that come to Ashes are likely to want to spread their members out over several small guilds - and in my experience of this kind of thing, these guilds tend to only remain affiliated for a short period of time in relation to teh life of an MMORPG.

However, even with 300 coordernated players all working together, you've not addressed the fact that these people will all want different things from a node in terms of social organizations and religious buildings. As such, it is reasonable to assume that it is in players best interest (and thus the guilds best interest) to go to the node that best suits their character, not that best suits the guild.

So those larger guilds will likely find their population spread over 3 or 4 nodes - indeed so will smaller guilds. This is why winning an election is not as simple as it may look. Your guild may have 300 members, but there are probably no more than 150 of those members in any one node. Since there are likely to be 1000+ citizens in a metropolis, that 150 players is obviously not enough to guarantee perpetual leadership.

Now, you may suggest that the guild can tell it's members to join the node for an election - the problem with this is that there is a 2 week stand down when leaving a node. This means that a player in a node will need to leave that node 2 weeks earlier to join the node with the election. Then after the election they leave that node to go back to the node they want to be in - which has another 2 week stand down. By the time they rejoin the node they want to be in, there is 2 weeks until the next election in the node the guild is trying to control and so they would need to leave their node again.

This is something that could potentially be done to take control of a node for a short duration, and guilds may well have a reason to want to do that. However, it is not a suitable means to control a node perpetually.

So again, guilds will want to assist a specific node in leveling up. Guilds will want to base themselves around a specific node. However, guilds don't actually gain anything by being the leaer of a node, and if there is half competent leadership of a node outside of a guild, the guild is better served by putting their time in to other endevors than they would be by attempting to control the node.

Tyrantor

I feel like you're so concerned with trying to prove my guild / control aspects wrong that you're missing the bigger discussion at this point. It seems completely plausible to me that a large guild could level several nodes (by control or association) within the same "cluster" in addition to other players. This would give their members the benefit of multiple node types (if needed) and potential control over the area through citizenship especially if they're able to mostly buy in on the larger/quicker advancing nodes early game. This allows them the voting power and the vassal nodes below them to feed their main city EXP while advancing. Maybe they don't lock people out early but the larger guilds will have an advantage and the ability to control early game node advancement.

I'm not sure why you keep arguing this unless it's just to troll me at this point. What if a guild of 1,000 people migrate to this game joint he same server and for the greater good of their own guild work towards advancing nodes in a specifc cluster? Based on this number it seems now likely based on your own numbers that this guild could easily become the parent node no?

Guilds with 50, 100, 300, 1,000 members should easily be in position to not only level up nodes but gain political control and citizenship within them. I will concede that yes not EVERY single node on the map may work this way but if guilds from alpha/beta understand where they want to go at launch they should easily be able to. Maybe things change as the game develokps and people level but I strongly believe that guilds will want to group together in the same general area or "cluster" rather than spread out across the map.

I'm also happy to completely concede my argument on this to not further derail the topic. So you're totally right guilds will not control anything especially on a technical level.

Ventharien

Tyrantor wrote: »

Do they specifically say "any vassals of the parent node" or are they referring to Vassals nodes directly under your node?

City guards, where do you see they are a given? Also since these guards are going to be involved in sieges they will not be the typical NPC guards that can just insta kill people. Unless the siege mechanic changes their stats. This would mean that a guild could simply camp the guards/respawn to control the city for pvp.

Obviously at low levels this would be unlikely but since the guard level/skill should mirror the node stage. In my best guess I would think that guards will become available at node stage 3 and would equal level 30 NPC. Each node level from there would likely increase the guard level by 10 i.e. Lvl 4 node = lvl 40 NPC guards etc.

From what I can read the mayors can hire mercenary NPCs for sieges, this could mean offensive and/or defensive NPCs it doesn't specify defensive only and since the attacking side may also have a Mayor it could potentially add them also.

I have to imagine that the game is going to have more political aspects to the node systems than just simply during advancement mode. Rivalry could mean caravan assaults from neighboring guilds/node citizens that causes one node to the verge of war. Considering the costs of a siege it seems unlikely that being able to siege a competing node prior to a parent node existing would be the only applicable time period. (to me).

While I understand the more players available the faster a node levels. Since node leveling will mostly be capped by it's current citizens verus players passing through I believe that again this is going to be more guild driven than not. For example- if 10,000 players get dumped into a server at launch and they start spreading out across the world again per the simple math we're talking roughly 80x/each node development. Yes there would be player migration to larger cities for advancement however at early game levels guilds with 300+ members would have a substantial advantage for leveling specific nodes/clusters hence drawing more potential randoms to their Node(s) for advancement. They could very easily control most/all of the citizenship at some of their larger node(s) and as people continue to level at the lower ones they would then flow into the larger one and help advance it (plus the additional bonus from the vassal nodes feeding their primary node EXP).

Dude, you reaaaallllyyy need to just do a base reading on the wiki and listen listen to what the developers have said. Like 80% of what you have said so far has just been baseless assumptions, which would be fine; this is a forum on a in development game after all. But you are assuming things that the developers have directly commented on, and then not accepting when people are telling you so.

1. Yes they specifically say "or any of their Vassals"
2. They are a given because the developers have said they are present in node. To what degree a Mayor has control over them we haven't been told, but we know they kill corrupted players. It's doubtful they would be easily camp murdered though.
3. Mayors don't start sieges, individuals do. So i doubt the besiegers will have access to them, or at least, a different form.
4. Node Wars, are not the same as Node Sieges. Sieges are instigated by a single player activating a war dec on the node, while node wars, are a system that flags the citizens of your enemy node as hostile to the citizens of your node, and will have varying victory goals.
5. Even players passing through will pass experience to the node, whether they are citizens or not. if they fight gather discover or do anything that generates exp, the node benefits. Also you can only get citizens at node level 3, village, on a bar that you can't see. So this guild would be hard pressed to lock out every spot once citizenship unlocks. they might get a bunch, but all is unlikely. Each advancement point just makes this harder and harder. Also they will be at their highest point of competition in the early areas surrounding the divine gateways. If someone was going to try this, i think they'd hoof it to an area further away.

Tyrantor

Wow. I've done plenty of reading and it's very easy to see how there could be confusion on the matter and that the general assumption being thrown around from yourself and others here regarding which nodes can attack who seems off to me.

1) "Vassal nodes cannot declare war on their parent node or any of their vassals." The key word here for your consideration for reading is 'their' on the 2nd half of the quote. This could easily mean one of two things. The current assumption of their being the parent node's vassals which would encompass all of the nodes in a parent cluster OR their could mean only the nodes directly under each dominant vassal /sub cluster. Per the diagram provided earlier in this thread this would mean each level 5 node and the two other vassals under them only. Not related to the entire parent cluster.
If there is a video other other quote that proves the 2nd option above incorrect please provide it. The 2nd option in my humble opinion is the most likely per the node rivalry comment I quoted as it would allow sub clusters to fight for dominance and citizenship/population within a parent node cluster.

2) Why do you think it's doubtful they could be camped? During a siege the guards will need to be killed right? Again unless the siege mechanic changes base stats for guards I do not see why this concept would be doubtful from the lack of knowledge on them now. Again I even stated it would be unlikely at early levels but it shouldn't be that far of a reach to consider this once people start maxing levels and gear, or again if guards scale per node level it could be possible at all stages of the game. You basically call me dumb by suggesting I haven't read anything but you provide points with no merit, even if mine have no merit unless you can prove them baseless than I'm doing nothing other than what this forum is designated for which is discussion.

3) Mayor powers: Declare war on another node and rally citizens to the cause.[21] - Reading 101.

4) Not following what you're trying to teach me on here.

5) Hoofing it to an area further away seems logical if a guild was trying to do what I suggested. It would limit exposure to random people passing through and if the members of the guild were fairly active I see no reason to think they can't get the citizenship first, especially if it's going to cost money to buy/rent real estate. Again think of pooling resource versus just individuals or random guilds. At this point I don't care if no one here agrees with me on the logic of guilds advancing nodes as groups and controlling them. I've already conceded the point above to avoid this discussion moving forward.

Child Item