Node Design And Why I Am Seriously Concerned

The current design of the game gives a lot of competitiveness at the start of the game to become a level 6 node as fast as possible. Who wouldn’t want to have access to the best of the best and be able to say they are part of the first level 6 node on their server? Fast forward five to six months after launch… We have our five level 6 nodes ruling over all.

Well you my friend didn’t make it to that level 6 node first, second, third, fourth, or fifth. You got stuck at level 5 and are now a vassal node to that level 6. They have enslaved you to follow their government, alliances, and wars they wish to rage. Ah but that is not the worst part, they tax you as well, because you fall within their zone of extraordinary influence.

As time goes on you grow tired of their tyrannical rule and think your level 5 node could do a better job of ruling over all the other nodes that fall under that node 6’s command. You gather resources, siege supplies, money, and most importantly allies. One of your allies is a level 4 node that resides in your zone of influence. He agrees with your reasoning and also wishes to fight because he has a strong possibility of having his node reach level 5 if you can make your node the next level 6.

The time has finally come to start the quest to be able to siege… Or so you thought.

Due to the current design of the game you can never go against that level 6 node. No matter how much you might not like them, no matter how much you are taxed without proper representation, you and all the other nodes in it’s zone of influence can not siege against them. The only way to do it would be to completely abandon your node, lands, and freehold. You’d have to completely renounce your citizenship.

You join the game with friends and find a node at level 3 with a great community. You all decide down the line you want to expand… Nope you can not. You are stuck at your level 3 node.

Currently besides renouncing your citizenship to fight a node the only other way to have that “master” node that enslaved you destroyed in a siege is to hire or convenience a completely unaffiliated node to attack.

Node sieges are a large draw to many people for this game. Understandably so… It is an awesome mechanic! But let's look at the reasons to attack a node in the current way the game is being designed (ignoring renouncing citizenship, and mercenary nodes).

For a group of people to siege a node they would want its valuables that are potentially dropped on winning, fame/notoriety, destabilize that area of Verra, or the chance to start building up a node in that area. Those first few options make sense and are great ones. But that last one I have listed… To start building again… From the ashes perhaps? Well if they do build from the ashes they are once again stopped from growing once their level 3 nodes runs into that pesky level 4 nearby that was able to level up because of the consequent node destruction they caused.
See every time a node is destroyed another node will come fill in its place. So that cycle of stunted growth is repeated.

“But what is the problem with that Wiplasher? Why does it matter that we can’t attack parent nodes but they can attack their vassal nodes?” Simply put it makes gameplay stagnant and it encourages bad behavior. The higher level node seemingly can bully you into following its agenda. Realistically we will also be seeing less sieges in this design implementation I would hazard to guess as well. Reason being because what I would garner to be the most valuable resource isn’t up for grabs… That being land.

My idea of the design change would make the parent nodes have a good relationship with their vassal nodes or else they risk facing an uprising. Alliances between those nodes will be tighter and symbiotic. This would benefit artisan classes and pvpers alike. More resources would be required because of an increase in sieges and obviously pvpers would love to participate in them more. The difficulty of starting the siege would also be higher however because the cost would most likely go up because of the greater demand for the resources required. I believe many other people want to grow nodes and level them as well.

No one wants to be told oh sorry you're stuck at level 3 unless some other node comes and wipes out your parent node at level 4. Hell I’d wager that the majority of people would want the enemy to win in that situation. Furthermore what is going to keep people at these level 3 nodes if they know there is a small chance of further development of their node while being stuck under rule of another node they do not like? I would think everyone would just try and go to the level 6 node and take full advantage of all its perks.

So what do you say? Do you want to be part of uprisings and rise from the ashes of tyrannical rulers or do you wish to bend the knee?

tl;dr
Vassel nodes are stuck for the most part in possible advancement and should be able to rise up against their parent node if they are not happy.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Balrog21

While I understand your thought about this, I dont see it as a major issue.
1. Because as soon as another server opens up a dungeon or some other content nearby, yes, this will happen if you listened to the asmon interview, in the same location do you not think 8k plus players won't want to do the same content?
2. I think a majority of players might even abandon the node just to get the higher level content opened up for them in one of the lower vassled nodes.

That is the beauty of this design. It will always be changing and keeping content relevant in nodes for new players.

nidriks

wiplasher4 wrote: »

I kind of took that approach to make the read a bit more engaging. I just want nodes and citizens of a node to grow and overthrow if necessary or wanted. I see no reason not to allow that.

Steven has specifically stated in the past that a vassal node's citizens will not be able to participate in the siege of a parent/master node.

I definitely think Steven will take feedback and analyze it as it is given to him. I am just expressing my concerns and opening up a discussion on it and looking for counter arguments so people can poke holes in my worries.

Like I said, I think it's very valuable to provide this sort of feedback. I hadn't read too much in to the depth of the node system before reading this, though I did look up the information in the wiki. Maybe I misread, but it seemed to suggest vassals could partake in the siege.

But, yes, I do agree that vassals should be able to siege a master node, and I think that the more diplomacy is available then the better the game will be for it.

I'd like to see members of a vassal node be able to do a number of things within the bounds of their master node, from owning property to running for mayor. Perhaps even as a mayor of a master node a vassal node citizen could allow a vassal node to advance at cost to the master.

I look forward to seeing how things might develop.

VmanGman

wiplasher4 wrote: »

So I don't think a node that is on the other side of the map would be blocking content from your node. When Steven is talking about content blocking I'd imagine he is talking about a level 5 node is blocking content for your node because you need to be level 5 or because something there ZOI is doing is disrupting that content in your ZOI.

The entire thing comes back to it being called a ZOI. If it doesn't touch you it shouldn't influence you all that much when it comes to content restrictions. Other than the 5 level 6 node caps.

@StevenSharif Maybe you could touch on this one little piece? I don't expect a response on my original post just yet haha

Here's how I understand it and I believe that both of you are right.

1. If a node needs to reach level 4 to unlock a specific quest or dungeon, it can be blocked by a nearby node if that node is itself locked at level 4. Steven has also clarified that some quests and dungeons will be shared among neighboring nodes. So maybe if another node near you reaches level 4 and has a ZOI that affects your quests and dungeons, you might still be able to have access to those quests and dungeons.

2. The cross map node blocking can also happen if there are already 5 metropolises around the world, but you want to unlock quests and dungeons in a specific ZOI and those quests and dungeons require a level 6 node nearby. Then you would have to go destroy a node far away to enable other nodes in your ZOI to reach level 6.

Wiplasher

nidriks wrote: »

Like I said, I think it's very valuable to provide this sort of feedback. I hadn't read too much in to the depth of the node system before reading this, though I did look up the information in the wiki. Maybe I misread, but it seemed to suggest vassals could partake in the siege.

I was in the same belief as you. Here is the link from the wiki. Read the quote from Steven. https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Citizenship#Affiliations

VmanGman

nidriks wrote: »

I do think vassals should be able to provoke dissent against a master, but I don't see that anything is stopping the vassal's population from participating in a siege against a master node.

Vassal nodes cannot declare war or participate in a war against their parents node:

"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."

Those are quotes from the wiki.

Wiplasher

Balrog21 wrote: »

While I understand your thought about this, I dont see it as a major issue.
1. Because as soon as another server opens up a dungeon or some other content nearby, yes, this will happen if you listened to the asmon interview, in the same location do you not think 8k plus players won't want to do the same content?
2. I think a majority of players might even abandon the node just to get the higher level content opened up for them in one of the lower vassled nodes.

That is the beauty of this design. It will always be changing and keeping content relevant in nodes for new players.

1. I am not saying they won't or that they will. But I really don't see that being a big thing. Simply because that would mean all the servers would end up looking the same in a lot of regards. I doubt that will even come close to happening. Could be wrong though but I am using other games as a reference. Servers have their own communities and ideals. Each one is like a living organism doing its own thing.

2. Yeah but your lower level nodes contribute xp to your higher level parent nodes. Deleveling a node while it will happen, it runs a risk. Another node could take advantage of this and grow their node. I also doubt most people will want to delevel there node to move to another instead of just growing their node already as I've discussed this idea before I posted this entire thing.

I appreciate your input though. Got me thinking about it a bit more now haha.

zBucc

Valid point.

delghinn

vmangman wrote: »

nidriks wrote: »

I do think vassals should be able to provoke dissent against a master, but I don't see that anything is stopping the vassal's population from participating in a siege against a master node.

Vassal nodes cannot declare war or participate in a war against their parents node:

"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."

Those are quotes from the wiki.

wonder why the game design to restrict uprisings from vassal nodes? that essentially forces people to de-facto join the players running the metropolis.

also the leveling experience is going to be wild with people mad dashing to support whatever node they believe may prove most successful. assume as soon as one node surges ahead there is going to be a lot of band-wagoning from people leaving nearby soon to be enslaved vassal losing node to join the future metropolis.

the larger player guilds that are able to strategically level nodes in a city/state of sorts will likely be most successful. ie instead of each node leveled haphazard to their zoi cap they'll instead decide to level the economic node to metropolis, the nearby military and scientific nodes the next highest level capped and so on.

also due to the overwhelming dominance of players choosing human race characters the other race architectures are going to be exceedingly rare and especially the higher tier one goes.

Aardvark

wiplasher4 wrote: »

ninfosho wrote: »

Imagine there's a quest in a militaristic node that requires you to win a siege and destroy a lvl 6 metro in order to enable your node's superpower

Or other nodes quest line will require them to complete a certain dungeon that the metropolis is blocking and only by destroying it you can unlock that dungeon in order to progress

I really don't think you'll need to destroy a level 6 node for a quest other than the siege quest. That would another entire level of ridiculous. A metropolis shouldn't be blocking a dungeon either. It would stop another metropolis from from forming so you could assume a dungeon isn't being spawned because of that.

But you aren't going to get that kind of content blocking from a level 6 node. That would be nuts.

Correct they already confirmed if you want the dungeon over there instead you must take down the metro here and build one over there

CaptnChuck

Interesting post. This will indeed be an issue, hopefully they find the right solution during the test stages.

palabana

Due to the current design of the game you can never go against that level 6 node. No matter how much you might not like them, no matter how much you are taxed without proper representation, you and all the other nodes in it’s zone of influence can not siege against them. The only way to do it would be to completely abandon your node, lands, and freehold. You’d have to completely renounce your citizenship.

Nodes can siege each other, but parents and vassals cannot declare wars against each other. Node Siege and Node War are two different things.

Wiplasher

palabana wrote: »

Due to the current design of the game you can never go against that level 6 node. No matter how much you might not like them, no matter how much you are taxed without proper representation, you and all the other nodes in it’s zone of influence can not siege against them. The only way to do it would be to completely abandon your node, lands, and freehold. You’d have to completely renounce your citizenship.

Nodes can siege each other, but parents and vassals cannot declare wars against each other. Node Siege and Node War are two different things.

So I thought this was the case for the longest time. Obviously wars and sieging are two different things. You can wage war without there ever being a siege.

However if you continued reading the post I go on to quote Steven and show where we are all getting it wrong.

wiplasher4 wrote: »

Thanks for sharing. Unfortunately that is not correct and why I am concerned.

"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." - Steven from an interview on May 11 2018.

Caeryl

I would want the option of vassal citizens being allowed to participate in an attack on the parent node, but not be able to declare the siege. Opportunism more than direct rebellion, with no direct consequences for failing the siege since its not your node you attacked.

I also think vassalage/level lockouts shouldn't start at level 1. It's just a bit too restrictive because players can and will level nodes by accident as it only takes a few hours of time. I'd say start the system once a node hits level 3, and don't have any level lockouts until then, so players can actually decide which sort of node they'd like to support and migrate there.

palabana

wiplasher4 wrote: »

palabana wrote: »

Due to the current design of the game you can never go against that level 6 node. No matter how much you might not like them, no matter how much you are taxed without proper representation, you and all the other nodes in it’s zone of influence can not siege against them. The only way to do it would be to completely abandon your node, lands, and freehold. You’d have to completely renounce your citizenship.

Nodes can siege each other, but parents and vassals cannot declare wars against each other. Node Siege and Node War are two different things.

So I thought this was the case for the longest time. Obviously wars and sieging are two different things. You can wage war without there ever being a siege.

However if you continued reading the post I go on to quote Steven and show where we are all getting it wrong.

wiplasher4 wrote: »

Thanks for sharing. Unfortunately that is not correct and why I am concerned.

"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." - Steven from an interview on May 11 2018.

That sounds stupidly boring, IMO. A fatal flaw in the system by being too restrictive simply because citizenship system exists. If vassal nodes have no rights to siege a parent node, then no one wants to be a part of a vassal node. There's no point since you cannot plan to destroy your parent node once you have enough resources and careful planning. There's no way for you to become the next Metropolis, just like you said.

Looks like Node Sieges isn't going to be as fun of a feature as they claimed it to be after all. At least, what I thought was that vassal nodes cannot declare sieges against their parent nodes but is allowed to participate as an attacker to their parent nodes. That's not gonna happen because citizens are automatically registered as a defender.

Noaani

palabana wrote: »

wiplasher4 wrote: »

palabana wrote: »

Due to the current design of the game you can never go against that level 6 node. No matter how much you might not like them, no matter how much you are taxed without proper representation, you and all the other nodes in it’s zone of influence can not siege against them. The only way to do it would be to completely abandon your node, lands, and freehold. You’d have to completely renounce your citizenship.

Nodes can siege each other, but parents and vassals cannot declare wars against each other. Node Siege and Node War are two different things.

So I thought this was the case for the longest time. Obviously wars and sieging are two different things. You can wage war without there ever being a siege.

However if you continued reading the post I go on to quote Steven and show where we are all getting it wrong.

wiplasher4 wrote: »

Thanks for sharing. Unfortunately that is not correct and why I am concerned.

"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." - Steven from an interview on May 11 2018.

That sounds stupidly boring, IMO. A fatal flaw in the system by being too restrictive simply because citizenship system exists. If vassal nodes have no rights to siege a parent node, then no one wants to be a part of a vassal node. There's no point since you cannot plan to destroy your parent node once you have enough resources and careful planning. There's no way for you to become the next Metropolis, just like you said.

Looks like Node Sieges isn't going to be as fun of a feature as they claimed it to be after all. At least, what I thought was that vassal nodes cannot declare sieges against their parent nodes but is allowed to participate as an attacker to their parent nodes. That's not gonna happen because citizens are automatically registered as a defender.

I think there are a few things you are missing about how the node system works here - things that make it obvious that citizens of vassal nodes shouldn't be able to participate in a siege against a parent.

You say that if you can't siege a parent node, no one will want to be a citizen of a vassal. This comment in itself is forgetting the fact that there are limits to node populations, and not everyone will be able to be citizens of metropolis nodes.

It is also forgetting that there is more to the level of a node that people care about. Many people would rather be in the highest level scientific node they can possibly be in, that is as close to their guild as is possible. Players may also place social organization or religion as their primary consideration as to which node to be a citizen of - which when you remember that each of these offer players augments for abilities, seems like a real possibility.

The idea with the node system and sieges isn't that you siege the next node over (though in the first few weeks it kind of is).

The idea is that you siege a node in the next metropolis cluster over.

palabana

noaani wrote: »

palabana wrote: »

wiplasher4 wrote: »

palabana wrote: »

Due to the current design of the game you can never go against that level 6 node. No matter how much you might not like them, no matter how much you are taxed without proper representation, you and all the other nodes in it’s zone of influence can not siege against them. The only way to do it would be to completely abandon your node, lands, and freehold. You’d have to completely renounce your citizenship.

Nodes can siege each other, but parents and vassals cannot declare wars against each other. Node Siege and Node War are two different things.

So I thought this was the case for the longest time. Obviously wars and sieging are two different things. You can wage war without there ever being a siege.

However if you continued reading the post I go on to quote Steven and show where we are all getting it wrong.

wiplasher4 wrote: »

Thanks for sharing. Unfortunately that is not correct and why I am concerned.

"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." - Steven from an interview on May 11 2018.

That sounds stupidly boring, IMO. A fatal flaw in the system by being too restrictive simply because citizenship system exists. If vassal nodes have no rights to siege a parent node, then no one wants to be a part of a vassal node. There's no point since you cannot plan to destroy your parent node once you have enough resources and careful planning. There's no way for you to become the next Metropolis, just like you said.

Looks like Node Sieges isn't going to be as fun of a feature as they claimed it to be after all. At least, what I thought was that vassal nodes cannot declare sieges against their parent nodes but is allowed to participate as an attacker to their parent nodes. That's not gonna happen because citizens are automatically registered as a defender.

I think there are a few things you are missing about how the node system works here - things that make it obvious that citizens of vassal nodes shouldn't be able to participate in a siege against a parent.

You say that if you can't siege a parent node, no one will want to be a citizen of a vassal. This comment in itself is forgetting the fact that there are limits to node populations, and not everyone will be able to be citizens of metropolis nodes.

It is also forgetting that there is more to the level of a node that people care about. Many people would rather be in the highest level scientific node they can possibly be in, that is as close to their guild as is possible. Players may also place social organization or religion as their primary consideration as to which node to be a citizen of - which when you remember that each of these offer players augments for abilities, seems like a real possibility.

The idea with the node system and sieges isn't that you siege the next node over (though in the first few weeks it kind of is).

The idea is that you siege a node in the next metropolis cluster over.

Forget about the citizenship limits. That's irrelevant. This is only a matter of the citizens of a vassal node vs their parent node.

In my opinion, allowing your direct neighbours (which are also your vassals) to be able to attack you can bring more dynamics and politics into the game. It means you have to manage your relationship with your neighbours to make sure they're always happy to be under your umbrella.

Should the system allow direct neighbours to choose whether they should attack or defend their parent's node, while also preventing them from declaring the siege themselves, situation like below may occur:

Let's say there's Node A and B. Community 1 is in Node A. Group 1 wants Node A want to make Node A to be Metropolis.

Meanwhile, there's also Group 2 in Node B. Group 2 is also planning to make Node B as the Metropolis.

At this point, both are racing to get their node to Level 1 first. Time goes on and Node A gets to Level 1 first. Now, because of the parent-vassal system, Node B is now locked to one level behind Node A. However, Group 2 says, "Okay, it's alright. We'll get you next time. We'll make sure Node B will triumph and destroy you in the future." Time goes on, Node A is now a Metro and Node B is a City.

Fast foward, the world now have 4 Military Metros, including Node A and 1 Scientific Metro. Node B is an Economic City.

Here comes the fun part, Node B wants to destroy Node A because they want to enable some new economic systems in their server, which they couldn't have because there's no Economic Metro in their server. Node X, the one and only Scientific Metro decided to join with Node B to take down Node A.

Node X declares the siege to Node A. Node B's Mayor decided that their node will participate as the attacker and won't defend Node A. The other direct vassals are happy being the vassals of Node A, therefore they decided to defend Node A against the siege. The other 3 Military Metros also decided to help defend Node A because they're somehow best friends.

Now, since the other nodes who are not vassals of Node A can participate in the siege as well, they decided to join Node X+B to destroy Node A so that Node B can rise as the Economic Metro and enable some features that an Economic Metro may bring to the server.

The siege happens. Node A lost. They got destroyed. After a few days, Node B is now an Economic Metro.

What a long story. Okay, so... This can still happen with the current system since since Node B, even though registered as defender, can simply ignore the siege and not help Node A defend themselves. But that sounds so boring. Isn't it more fun to join as an attacker rather than sit there and watch the world burn, even though you really want to destroy your neighbour so bad?

Noaani

palabana wrote: »

Forget about the citizenship limits. That's irrelevant. This is only a matter of the citizens of a vassal node vs their parent node.

It is relevent.

The thing with the node system is that it is designed in a way where exactly which node in a cluster is the metropolis at any point in time will change quite often.

Rather than pitting neighboring nodes against each other, the system is designed where people from opposing node clusters will want to come in and siege nodes of other clusters. Rather than the citizens of a vassal node wanting to siege their parent node - they will want to siege nodes of a rival cluster along with people from the metropolis node.

Eventually, when a rival node is successful in sieging the metropolis, that vassal node is then in the positino to rush to be the metropolis in that cluster.

This is the idea behind the node system - encourage sieging more distant nodes, not those right next to you.

Wiplasher

noaani wrote: »

Rather than pitting neighboring nodes against each other, the system is designed where people from opposing node clusters will want to come in and siege nodes of other clusters. Rather than the citizens of a vassal node wanting to siege their parent node - they will want to siege nodes of a rival cluster along with people from the metropolis node.

Eventually, when a rival node is successful in sieging the metropolis, that vassal node is then in the positino to rush to be the metropolis in that cluster.

This is the idea behind the node system - encourage sieging more distant nodes, not those right next to you.

I really don't think that its. Even if you watch Lazypeons video that he just put how he even talks about being able to siege the node next to you that is locking you out from growing. He didn't specifically say parent node but if you are being locked out of growing its probably going to be the parent node from what we know so far.

noaani wrote: »

I don't see working how you think at all.

I'll give you a run down on what your thinking.
Background: You are in a metropolis node cluster/family, you are a level 4 node being locked out of growth by a level 5 node.
1) A neighboring node cluster has a level 6 node
2) You, your buddies, and everyone else in your node cluster decide they wish to siege the neighboring node for a reason, one of which is unknown at this time(I am still in belief that land is the king item people want).
3) After careful planning and a high cost you successfully siege that node.
The End... Or not? Well you don't get any land from them unless we do what you recommend so lets see how that would play out.

I believe you are saying that the vassal node (level 4) that participated in the siege could be the next metropolis in that cluster... But that is so far from likely to happen. In order for that to work these conditions would have to be met.
1) No other nodes under the zone of influence of the former metropolis
2) If there are nodes in that cluster people are so very slow at providing XP to their node growth.

That level 4 node is going to give up everything they have and that they built to move to another cluster to start back out at the crossroads level and attempt to start over? Not going to happen on most if not all occasions.

---Edit----
Also can you explain how citizenship limit plays a role? Yes it would stop the mass rush of people living there now ungrowable level 3/4/5 node but that in my head would give people more of incentive to want their node that they live at succeed and maybe even grow to the next level. That citizenship limit makes you care even more about your node and will make you not want to live it in most situations, especially if the better nodes are full. This would have people grow bitter about the system that is chaining them down as well.

nidriks

I can see where people might be jumping the gun without knowing the full ins and outs of the node system, as I said last night in reply. I especially think ti is too early to be doubt a major game mechanic will work as is being spoken of.

I do however think that there would be a benefit to furthering the diplomacy of nodes. I would love to see agressive diplomacy between master nodes and their vassals, though I appreciate i do not know the full scope of what is currently planned.

I think it is a worthwhile avenue to look at, but I'd hate for newcomers to come on here and see people already assuming the node system won't work with the game still pre-alpha. I did think last night that some people seemed to have made up their mind already.

Noaani

wiplasher4 wrote: »

(I am still in belief that land is the king item people want).

This assumption is possibly the foundation upon which all other assumptions you have made are resting on.

Since this assumption is wrong, anything resting on it probably is too.

And youtubers are wrong all the time about this game.

Child Item