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

Ventharien

Tyrantor wrote: »

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.

1. Click the reference on that line and you'll see the quote is cannot declare war on their parent, or any of its vassals. This makes perfect sense since the main point of even having a vassal is to take advantage of their excess exp to advance further or stave of atrophy. Why would you want your minions to screw up that flow. In addition, they are locked to the diplomatic states of their parents, so it wouldn't make much sense to be able to declare war on someone your parent is at peace with.
2. It's doubtful they would be EASILY camped. Without knowledge about their exact stats, or connection to node advancement, we can't know for sure, but they exist to try to keep the peace, kill corrupted and defend against monster attacks, so they're going to have to have some ability to do some damage at least.
3. Yes. Which is not siege another node. These are two systems. a Siege razes a node to the ground leaving nothing behind. A war might have you steal relics, control areas, or meet some victory condition to halt the progress of an enemy. An individual from the aggressor node might indeed throw a flag down to start a siege, but that exists independent of the Node War.
4. Read above. I'm informing you that you are conflating two separate systems.
5. It will cost money, but again, you cannot see when the node will advance, and can't control peoples contribution of exp, or lack thereof. So if your active guild tries to lock down a spot that's node level 2, and people start logging off for the night, then in the middle of what would be the work hours for most of the guild a large group comes through and the node advances, but the first guild only has 4 guys online who work off hours, or live in a different time zone, and that new group rolls in and purchases the housing, your whole plan is shafted. This is just one possible scenario.
6. No one disputes your premise, there totally will be guilds that attempt this. It just won't be worth the investment vs the risks. And with those large guilds being at their heart super pragmatic any advantage they can get types, I don't see the guilds that try this being in the successful category. And whether you pool resources or not, if it's feasible for a individual to buy property within the time limit of village, it doesn't matter how much you've pooled. that person/s can only purchase for themselves. So if they aren't on when the flip happens, or they are, but the guildmates they could possibly give money to make new landowners aren't, you again are out of luck.

Ventharien

Also side note, none of my posts are intended to offend or belittle your experience, I've actually never heard of the MMO you referenced in your OP, or hear someone on here refer to it, so i'm sure you have some unique perspectives that will have pertinence and could give some perspective to future systems, or announcements the devs make. Just want you to know the nitty gritty of the systems that would diverge it from your past experiences with somewhat similar systems, especially in something so interconnected as the node system.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

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.

The problem is that we have been addresses the issue you bought up in the OP.

The reason it was such a big deal in the games you have ecperienced is because players lisr basically everything they and their guild had. This is a massive loss.

In Ashes, when you lose a siege it is almost exclusively a personal loss.

Your guild is still function and as powerful as it was, half of the members of your guild likely won't even be effected by it. You still have your freehold that you have invested in (though it may be a blueprint you need to find a new spot for). You still have your progress in your religion and social organization.

The loss from a siege in Ashes is designed to suck, but not crush.

This is *why* the developers are making the game in a way where guilds won't want to claim ownership of a node, but will instead want to spread their members out over many nodes.

Tyrantor

Ventharien wrote: »

1. Click the reference on that line and you'll see the quote is cannot declare war on their parent, or any of its vassals. This makes perfect sense since the main point of even having a vassal is to take advantage of their excess exp to advance further or stave of atrophy. Why would you want your minions to screw up that flow. In addition, they are locked to the diplomatic states of their parents, so it wouldn't make much sense to be able to declare war on someone your parent is at peace with.

I see what is messing me up on some of the concepts here.

The words war and siege mean two completely separate things in the game. I've been suggesting that the smaller nodes can SIEGE nodes within their parent cluster and the quotes coming back on that are related to declaring war on other nodes not siege. So by default it made me assume these were the same mechanism in the game.

Now that i've clarified this does it say anywhere that Nodes can not siege their vassals, parent node or other nodes within their respective parent cluster? If it does please share this because I can't find it anywhere.

Caeryl

Tyrantor wrote: »

Ventharien wrote: »

1. Click the reference on that line and you'll see the quote is cannot declare war on their parent, or any of its vassals. This makes perfect sense since the main point of even having a vassal is to take advantage of their excess exp to advance further or stave of atrophy. Why would you want your minions to screw up that flow. In addition, they are locked to the diplomatic states of their parents, so it wouldn't make much sense to be able to declare war on someone your parent is at peace with.

I see what is messing me up on some of the concepts here.

The words war and siege mean two completely separate things in the game. I've been suggesting that the smaller nodes can SIEGE nodes within their parent cluster and the quotes coming back on that are related to declaring war on other nodes not siege. So by default it made me assume these were the same mechanism in the game.

Now that i've clarified this does it say anywhere that Nodes can not siege their vassals, parent node or other nodes within their respective parent cluster? If it does please share this because I can't find it anywhere.

Dude they’ve linked you the wiki and quoted the exact answer multiple times

No a vassal node cannot siege its parent, nor can it siege any of the other nodes in the cluster.

Undead Canuck

Please remember that a siege is a type of war (in reality...). This might be a good question to ask at the Livestream.

From the Wiki: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Group_dynamics#Affiliations

Quote by @Steven: There is guild affiliation, there's party affiliation, there's a raid affiliation, alliance affiliation, there's a citizenship affiliation, there's society affiliation, there's religious affiliation. All of these things have some hierarchy; and within that hierarchy there's the ability to participate within certain systems. So for example, if you have a node that has fallen under your vassal state and you're a citizen of the parent node, then you could participate in a siege against the vassal node but if you're a citizen of the vassal node you could not participate as an attacker against the parent node; so there's a hierarchy, unless you were to renounce your citizenship.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Now that i've clarified this does it say anywhere that Nodes can not siege their vassals, parent node or other nodes within their respective parent cluster? If it does please share this because I can't find it anywhere.

While it may just be wording, I feel it important to point out to you again that nodes do not declare sieges on nodes - individual players do.

Once a siege is declared, guilds and/or players can then opt to join one side or the other, and presumably the leader of each side (the person that declared the siege and the mayor of the target node) have the ability to accept or reject help.

However, if you are a citizen of a node, and the parent of that node (or the grandparent, for that matter) has a siege declared on it, you are automatically listed as a defender, and so can't participate as an attacker on the node without renouncing your citizenship.

It is probable that a citizen of a parent node won't be able to declare a siege on a vassal, but it may be the case that a citizen of a parent node can join the attacker of a siege on a vassal.

However, it is important to remember here that there are no systems in the game that compel an individual to participate in the attack of a node. If you are a large guild in a metropolis node and you organize a siege on a vassal for what ever reason, there is nothing stopping the remaining citizens of the node your guild is based in to decide to assist in defending the node, rather than helping you defeat it.

Also, any citizens of any other nodes in that same cluster are more likely to join the defense side - as if that node loses the siege, the whole cluster is worse off. Any citizens of a node that is a vassal of the target of the siege will also automatically be listed as defenders as well. And since that node is only blocking the progress of these vassal nodes, there is no one that is a citizen of a node that stands to progress further if this target node loses the siege that is also able to participate in the attack.

Further, if a member of your guild is still a citizen of that node, then they will automatically be listed as defenders - thus your siege will be against members of your own guild.

Steven has said in the past that he wants people to consider themselves citizens of their node above being members of their guild, so the notion of a siege with members of a single guild being on both sides perfectly fits in with that.

Tyrantor

How does it make sense that an "individual" is going to be launching sieges. If it takes roughly the same resources to develop the siege item as it does to level nodes? I do not understand why you keep saying it like this. If your point is that it requires ONE person to activate it sure, I understand that but it sounds like the questing and resources required for this is going to take a group(s) of players likely then by that theory guilds and/or mayor driven quests for citizens of that specific node who plan to lay siege. So retrospective of this do you not believe it will be guilds and mayors who ultimately siege other towns, even if only one person is capable of activating the siege?

The way you write your responses makes it sound like sieges are going to be so rare it's not worth discussing which I find hard to believe since it appears to be a core aspect of the game.

And WHAT lol. I've never played a game that was guild oriented in the least where members of the guild were like "yo my bank is in this city sorry I can't let you have it". I see no scenario where the same guild ends up fighting each other over node defense. If that is a reality in this game i'll be completely stunned.

Ventharien

Tyrantor wrote: »

How does it make sense that an "individual" is going to be launching sieges. If it takes roughly the same resources to develop the siege item as it does to level nodes? I do not understand why you keep saying it like this. If your point is that it requires ONE person to activate it sure, I understand that but it sounds like the questing and resources required for this is going to take a group(s) of players likely then by that theory guilds and/or mayor driven quests for citizens of that specific node who plan to lay siege. So retrospective of this do you not believe it will be guilds and mayors who ultimately siege other towns, even if only one person is capable of activating the siege?

The way you write your responses makes it sound like sieges are going to be so rare it's not worth discussing which I find hard to believe since it appears to be a core aspect of the game.

And WHAT lol. I've never played a game that was guild oriented in the least where members of the guild were like "yo my bank is in this city sorry I can't let you have it". I see no scenario where the same guild ends up fighting each other over node defense. If that is a reality in this game i'll be completely stunned.

While a group may well assist in the gathering of whatever materials are needed for the War Dec, it will in the end, be a single person "putting" that declaration down. That's why everyone keeps telling you Sieges are started by the individual. And they are saying that guilds/ mayors may be part of the process, but they are not inherently so. The guild leader or mayor don't have a button on their UI's that says siege this. And once that dec is down, it doesn't say X guild raid. Anyone can come sign on as participants in the attack.

How often sieges occur, especially Metro Sieges, will have to be seen through testing.

And yes, if your guild ends up splitting up between two nodes, and Node A declares war against Node B, your guild will be flagged against itself for as long as they remain citizens of their respective homes. Citizenship is the highest in the hierarchy of affiliations, and supercedes guild connection. And if you are a citizen of a Node you are automatically listed as a defender once it has been targeted by a siege.. So if your guild was mostly made up of people from elsewhere and they showed up for the fight they would be flagged as your enemies. (In practice I'm sure you would renounce your citizenship and leave prior to the war dec if this was the case)

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

How does it make sense that an "individual" is going to be launching sieges. If it takes roughly the same resources to develop the siege item as it does to level nodes? I do not understand why you keep saying it like this. If your point is that it requires ONE person to activate it sure, I understand that but it sounds like the questing and resources required for this is going to take a group(s) of players likely then by that theory guilds and/or mayor driven quests for citizens of that specific node who plan to lay siege. So retrospective of this do you not believe it will be guilds and mayors who ultimately siege other towns, even if only one person is capable of activating the siege?

The way you write your responses makes it sound like sieges are going to be so rare it's not worth discussing which I find hard to believe since it appears to be a core aspect of the game.

And WHAT lol. I've never played a game that was guild oriented in the least where members of the guild were like "yo my bank is in this city sorry I can't let you have it". I see no scenario where the same guild ends up fighting each other over node defense. If that is a reality in this game i'll be completely stunned.

The point I am making is that siege defense is a node thing, but siege attack isn't.

In my opinion, node sieges are going to be initiated mostly by guilds - the rewards for a successful siege will be tempting for them, but so will the change in PvE content.

I will be shocked to see a node siege ever initiated by a mayor. They have other things to focus their time on.

I have never once said or suggested that sieges will be rare. There is likely to be one somewhere on any given server every few days. Successful sieges on a metropolis will be rare, perhaps one or two a year per server.

As to the last point, if you do end up playing Ashes, you probably should prepare to be shocked. Not just about the fact that there will be sieges with members of the same guild on different sides, but also about many other things you think you understand about the game.

It is unlikely that guilds will be involved in initiating a siege against a node that a member is a citizen of (you would siege a node that is in a different cluster, as all nodes in your cluster are making you stronger), but it would be in any guilds best interests to have a plan in place for when someone else initiates a siege in a node in your cluster, and different members of your guild have reason for it to both succeed and fail.

On the other hand, if a guild were dumb enough to siege nodes in their own cluster - that will result in them eventually sieging a node that a guild member is a citizen of. Such guilds won't keep members very long, as there really is generally no need to siege nodes in your own cluster.

Having that plan in place to deal with conflicting interests like this will serve your guild far better than having a plan to attempt day one "ownership" of a node.

Tyrantor

Caeryl wrote: »

Dude they’ve linked you the wiki and quoted the exact answer multiple times

No a vassal node cannot siege its parent, nor can it siege any of the other nodes in the cluster.

None of the wiki pages i've read specify siege restrictions on who can siege whom. Please share this if you see it specifically. Again as I pointed out above since it keeps being quoted the "Can't attacking Parent node or other nodes" is specific to war not siege.

Furthermore they state that removing a mayor through siege is a mechanism they want in the game- who would be doing this than possibly the members of their own Node Sub nodes or neighboring nodes within the same metro cluster etc.

You all keep acting like i'm an idiot and i'm happy to eat my words as I've done multiple times in this thread if you can show me exactly where it says this for sieges.

Thanks.

Caeryl

Tyrantor wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

Dude they’ve linked you the wiki and quoted the exact answer multiple times

No a vassal node cannot siege its parent, nor can it siege any of the other nodes in the cluster.

None of the wiki pages i've read specify siege restrictions on who can siege whom. Please share this if you see it specifically. Again as I pointed out above since it keeps being quoted the "Can't attacking Parent node or other nodes" is specific to war not siege.

Furthermore they state that removing a mayor through siege is a mechanism they want in the game- who would be doing this than possibly the members of their own Node Sub nodes or neighboring nodes within the same metro cluster etc.

You all keep acting like i'm an idiot and i'm happy to eat my words as I've done multiple times in this thread if you can show me exactly where it says this for sieges.

Thanks.

For node sieges, citizens of the node or provincial nodes being attacked are automatically registered as defenders

Found directly on the Node Sieges page

If you are a citizen of a vassal node, you will never be able to attack your parent node.

If you’re a citizen of the parent node, you can seige its vassal nodes.

Plateau

Caeryl

leonerdo wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

Dude they’ve linked you the wiki and quoted the exact answer multiple times

No a vassal node cannot siege its parent, nor can it siege any of the other nodes in the cluster.

None of the wiki pages i've read specify siege restrictions on who can siege whom. Please share this if you see it specifically. Again as I pointed out above since it keeps being quoted the "Can't attacking Parent node or other nodes" is specific to war not siege.

Furthermore they state that removing a mayor through siege is a mechanism they want in the game- who would be doing this than possibly the members of their own Node Sub nodes or neighboring nodes within the same metro cluster etc.

You all keep acting like i'm an idiot and i'm happy to eat my words as I've done multiple times in this thread if you can show me exactly where it says this for sieges.

Thanks.

For node sieges, citizens of the node or provincial nodes being attacked are automatically registered as defenders

Found directly on the Node Sieges page

If you are a citizen of a vassal node, you will never be able to attack your parent node.

If you’re a citizen of the parent node, you can seige its vassal nodes.

I don't have any skin in this argument, but that specific statement is not on that specific page.

Unless you are inferring it from this statement: "For node sieges, citizens of the node or provincial nodes being attacked are automatically registered as defenders.[20]"
Or confusing it with this statement which only applies to warring nodes: "Vassal nodes cannot declare a node war on their parent node or any of their vassals.[73]"

I can understand why Tyrantor would want a better citation that that.

It could not be less vague. “If you’re a citizen of the node or the vassal nodes, you are automatically made a defender in the event of a siege.”

If that somehow really wasn’t obvious enough, that means you will never be able to attack your own node or your parent node in a siege

Node sieges are started by individuals and others can enlist to attack and defend, except for citizens of that node or any of its vassals, which are automatically defenders which obviously means they can’t attack their parent bodes in a siege.

Tyrantor

Well I guess what you and everyone else seems to think is that you can't do it just because you're a citizen of that node but there are no restrictions on leaving that node in order to siege it (minus 2 week window to become a citizen elsehwhere). The other misconception here is that an "individual" is going to initiate the siege mechanic. While the technicality of it is accurate I highly doubt individuals are just going to quest up the resources required to siege nodes without the political aspects of allegiances behind it. Since it will take week(s) to grind up the siege mechanic these guild(s)/alliances can simply denounce their node by declaring citizenship elsewhere or nowhere as it could be. So in theory you can siege any node in the game, I guess not while you're actively a citizen but I suppose it would make sense if you were going to siege it with intent to win you likely wouldn't want to have a home there that could deposit loot after a successful siege.

Since Nodes appear to be nothing more than slightly player driven NPC cities I see no reason based on the walls of text provided in this thread to the contrary that .anyone is going to develop some keen level of ownership to a node outside of questing and/or if they are one of the 1-3 primary guilds within the node. Therefore it seems more than reasonable that citizens of nodes will siege their own node or rather the node they've made their own for some period of time, possibly for intelligence gathering prior to a siege.

I'll agree from a point of view that it's unlikely the person who has citizenship within the node will be the same person to initiate the siege but I do find it completely likely they will be participating in the node attack. Yes they will be required to disown a node prior to the siege but it doesn't seem that unreasonable based on the preparation phase in addition to the likely inner planning from a group perspective.

[Content that revolves around alliances specifically and progression within the development of that alliance; and the ability to share some common services between guilds that are part of that alliance. I think that additionally allowing alliances to toggle certain relationships with nodes as an interaction is beneficial. That's going to provide an interesting dynamic for players who are either members of the particular node that has the relationship established or members of the Alliance. So I think that obviously building systems is is about creating the channels by which these players can form bonds and the more layers you have around those you know channels of bonding between the different guilds or players, the more sustainable that relationship.[24] – Steven Sharif]

And below seems like a prime example of what I describe above- siege your own node:

[Node politics
There won't be a civil war mechanic within nodes but there will be scope for internal political conflicts; such as undermining the current leadership and disrupting trade.[60]

The only way to remove an elected mayor prior to the end of their term is by destroying the node.[61]
We want consequences to matter and if that person got elected then you need to work within the means of the mechanics to get them unelected.[61] – Steven Sharif] I.E. Siege own node.

I think the reality here is that based on how the node system is set up it's only inevitable that people are going to be involved in a siege of their own nodes frequently, yes they may have to sell real estate or just move on and if we all want to get into technicality sure you won't siege your own node the exact second it happens but if you've been a citizen of that node for a month and you just have to leave an hour before the siege is initiated does it make the node yours more than not?

Caeryl

Man, you have one really bad understanding of the functions of nodes if all you see in them is NPC cities.

Almost no one is going to be leaving their node to siege it. Why would they? They don’t gain any benefit in destroying all the services they use. They don’t profit from destroying their own freehold. They don’t benefit from their social organization getting destroyed. They don’t benefit from deleveling the nearby content. They don’t get any benefit from disrupting their neighboring trade routes.

There’s no world in which it’ll ever be commonplace to wreck your own home grounds

The only way to remove an elected mayor prior to the end of their term is by destroying the node.[61]
We want consequences to matter and if that person got elected then you need to work within the means of the mechanics to get them unelected.[61] – Steven Sharif] I.E. Siege own node.

Wtf no that’s not what that means, no one with a brain cuts off their nose to spite their face. It means you actually use the governmental system and take steps to get someone better as mayor next time

Noaani

I don't get why someone would put down all stake they have in a node, destroy said mode (not just delevel it a few times - destroy it), and then go back to that same node once it has leveled back up to node level 3.

I mean, you have already removed all assets you have in the node, all infrastructure the node has, everything is gone. Due to the way nodes work, there is almost no chance that your node will be able to reach the same level again, as well.

If you dislike the leader of your node, and can't get rid of them during an election, you wouldn't leave the node to siege it and rejoin it - you would leave the node to join a different node. You may then siege that first node, you just wouldn't wait around to rejoin it.

The idea that people would do that is just... odd.

Tyrantor

Caeryl wrote: »

Man, you have one really bad understanding of the functions of nodes if all you see in them is NPC cities.

Well I actually put a lot of stock in the nodes when I started this thread but I've been beat into submission for suggesting they would hold that much substantial value. Outside of the supernode powers I'm not sure at this point what value a node would really have to individuals much above a NPC city if they were not part of the node's IC or primary guild(s).

Furthermore the way nodes have been described here people will freely be able to move between them and find Nodes that best suite their interest(s). It's hard to imagine there will only be a single node capable of this especially at any of the non metro nodes - again per the feedback in this thread.

If people can "rent" for citizenship they would have limited financial ties to the node.

If your guild or alliance was going to siege a node why would you stay? If your guild/alliance wins the siege you will lose your citizenship, items from your stash AND then get the boot from your own guild... seems like the cost to stay and defend it would be higher in the event of a razed node.

noaani wrote: »

I don't get why someone would put down all stake they have in a node, destroy said mode (not just delevel it a few times - destroy it), and then go back to that same node once it has leveled back up to node level 3.

I mean, you have already removed all assets you have in the node, all infrastructure the node has, everything is gone. Due to the way nodes work, there is almost no chance that your node will be able to reach the same level again, as well.

If you dislike the leader of your node, and can't get rid of them during an election, you wouldn't leave the node to siege it and rejoin it - you would leave the node to join a different node. You may then siege that first node, you just wouldn't wait around to rejoin it.

The idea that people would do that is just... odd.

Honestly I feel like you you're a true board warrior and i'm not sure if you're responses are more detrimental to me, you or both of us as this continues. I just quoted something Steven said, I didn't make that theory up. However unlikely it is - it does at a minimum prove that you can Siege your own node via individual, guild or alliance if you choose to.

I would venture to guess the concept behind Steven's point is that maybe a rival guild member got elected to the Mayor position and then by virtue is going to add members of his guild to the IC - while it's possible in theory there isn't a TON to be gained by this, I still would like to disagree on the point that having your guild members in control of the node will have more benefits to the guild than not. This could simply just result in the other guild taking that leadership position away by force for spite, greed, jealousy or to prove they are bigger and badder.

Just to add something else to my theory that controlling the nodes will have value to guild members. One of the recent video interviews Steven specifically mentioned that mayors could set "rewards" for specific quests the node needs completed however it was at least noted these rewards would be limited to a sliding scale. However if you consider that a guild could then set specific quests geared around each node they control at prime time of their playerbase so that they can come in and scoop up all those quests and gain financial rewards directly from the Node's gold reserves.

Caeryl

Tyrantor wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

Man, you have one really bad understanding of the functions of nodes if all you see in them is NPC cities.

Well I actually put a lot of stock in the nodes when I started this thread but I've been beat into submission for suggesting they would hold that much substantial value. Outside of the supernode powers I'm not sure at this point what value a node would really have to individuals much above a NPC city if they were not part of the node's IC or primary guild(s).

Furthermore the way nodes have been described here people will freely be able to move between them and find Nodes that best suite their interest(s). It's hard to imagine there will only be a single node capable of this especially at any of the non metro nodes - again per the feedback in this thread.

If people can "rent" for citizenship they would have limited financial ties to the node.

If your guild or alliance was going to siege a node why would you stay? If your guild/alliance wins the siege you will lose your citizenship, items from your stash AND then get the boot from your own guild... seems like the cost to stay and defend it would be higher in the event of a razed node.

noaani wrote: »

I don't get why someone would put down all stake they have in a node, destroy said mode (not just delevel it a few times - destroy it), and then go back to that same node once it has leveled back up to node level 3.

I mean, you have already removed all assets you have in the node, all infrastructure the node has, everything is gone. Due to the way nodes work, there is almost no chance that your node will be able to reach the same level again, as well.

If you dislike the leader of your node, and can't get rid of them during an election, you wouldn't leave the node to siege it and rejoin it - you would leave the node to join a different node. You may then siege that first node, you just wouldn't wait around to rejoin it.

The idea that people would do that is just... odd.

Honestly I feel like you you're a true board warrior and i'm not sure if you're responses are more detrimental to me, you or both of us as this continues. I just quoted something Steven said, I didn't make that theory up. However unlikely it is - it does at a minimum prove that you can Siege your own node via individual, guild or alliance if you choose to.

I would venture to guess the concept behind Steven's point is that maybe a rival guild member got elected to the Mayor position and then by virtue is going to add members of his guild to the IC - while it's possible in theory there isn't a TON to be gained by this, I still would like to disagree on the point that having your guild members in control of the node will have more benefits to the guild than not. This could simply just result in the other guild taking that leadership position away by force for spite, greed, jealousy or to prove they are bigger and badder.

Just to add something else to my theory that controlling the nodes will have value to guild members. One of the recent video interviews Steven specifically mentioned that mayors could set "rewards" for specific quests the node needs completed however it was at least noted these rewards would be limited to a sliding scale. However if you consider that a guild could then set specific quests geared around each node they control at prime time of their playerbase so that they can come in and scoop up all those quests and gain financial rewards directly from the Node's gold reserves.

You weren't beat up about nodes being important, you were beat up because you suggested a guild would find it easy or worthwhile to try being supreme leaders of a node.

Nodes depend on many players participating in the surrounding area, otherwise it atrophies. Obviously no guild can lock people out then expect the node to thrive due to the basic mechanics of node growth.

A guild could try to control the mayorship, but if people who live in that node hate what they do with that leadership, no one is going to vote for them, and you can be sure people would be willing to sink more funds and more fighters in to avoid a bad mayor. People also may just leave the node when the guild doesn't do what the population wants, which leaves you in the same situation as if you locked people out: risk of node atrophy.

"Furthermore the way nodes have been described here people will freely be able to move between them and find Nodes that best suite their interest(s)."

Yeah as in you don't have to be a citizen to make use of most of the amenities. Citizenship matters more than guild membership, that's a basic heirarchy established by the game. Who'd even know if you defended the area you've set up your housing and storage and crafting systems in? It's not like there's a detailed list with every user who participated in a siege.

Anyone who wants to lead a node HAS TO do what's good for the general population, or else people will leave. If your guild tries to overtake an economic node and starts removing a lot of crafting station to replace them with housing for your guildies, people will be unhappy. If your guild tries to take over a military node, then heavily restricts any bounty quests given out to benefit your guild specifically, people will leave.

You cannot as a guild screw over the rest of the node's population and expect your leadership to do anything but make the community dislike you.

Noaani

To add to the above

Tyrantor wrote: »

Honestly I feel like you you're a true board warrior and i'm not sure if you're responses are more detrimental to me, you or both of us as this continues. I just quoted something Steven said, I didn't make that theory up. However unlikely it is - it does at a minimum prove that you can Siege your own node via individual, guild or alliance if you choose to.

I'm in this thread to make sure there is no outright misinformation left unchallenged - that is my primary reason for posting in this specific thread.

Since I am posting in this thread, a secondary objective here is to attempt to correct you in things you are completely incorrect in, and point out things you are likely incorrect on or things you are making a massive, unfounded assumption on.

For some reason though, you spent a whole lot longer than you should have refusing to believe that you were incorrect in your initial assumptions - and that the fact that those assumptions were incorrect makes the actual question in the OP that you asked essentially obsolete.

By the second time you replied to me in this thread - at the latest - you should have realized how incorrect your assumptions were, and rather than continue to attempt to take developer quotes out of context, you instad should have said something along the lines of...

Ok, so it seems my assumptions about the relationship between guilds and nodes in this game is completely off base, which I put down to my experience in previous MMO's coloring those assumptions.

So, since the premise behind the actual question I asked in the OP is no longer valid, I was wonder, what exactly is it you people that have been following the game for years think in terms of the relationship between nodes and guilds?

With this one basic post, you would have put yourself in a position to actually learn a thing or two about the current general understandign of the game.

Basically, rather than coming here and telling us what you think, you should have come here and asked us what we think.

Most people would have done that from the very start. Of those that didn't, the vast majority would have pivoted after the 10th poster came in here and pointed out that the basic premise of your question wasn't actually correct.

Maybe you'll get around to that at some point, but I'm not holding my breath.

Child Item