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

Alundril

Ah isn't there a node degradation where in if the exp received by the node is not maintained, a node might delevel?

grisu

I mean, I just show up to the siege as a defender and sabotage "my own team" by miss appropriating ressources. I don't see the issue not being able to attack. <smirk>

Shaladoor

Alundril wrote: »

Ah isn't there a node degradation where in if the exp received by the node is not maintained, a node might delevel?

Yes, that's currently a thing although I think they're still tossing the idea around. I like the idea, though, and it makes sense.

Because imagine if a level 6 node and it's surrounding area was suddenly abandoned due to whatever reasons (bad government, decline in server population, etc.). If that area suddenly sees sharp declines in activity, the nodes could go into ruin and start to delevel, and therefore would more accurately reflect the region. It's a balancing act, though, you don't want to make it too hard to keep a region up.

It could also be a VERY passive aggressive way to siege a level 6 node, by simply NOT questing in its ZOI. If left completely alone, the whole area could slowly go into ruin without ever needing to siege it.

grisu wrote: »

I mean, I just show up to the siege as a defender and sabotage "my own team" by miss appropriating ressources. I don't see the issue not being able to attack. <smirk>

LOL, I like your style, sir!

Mork

Nodes 6 in theory will have the most well equiped players, can't all node 6 people make an alliance and keep protecting their nodes together against other less well equiped nodes?

Shaladoor

mazh wrote: »

Nodes 6 in theory will have the most well equiped players, can't all node 6 people make an alliance and keep protecting their nodes together against other less well equiped nodes?

Theoretically, yes. And if node 6 mayors and guilds are actively working together, I very much see that happening. I think there are simply more incentives to see players work together than actively against another.

And imagine how pissed of players of a level 6 node would be if they lost a siege? They might forever remember the names of the players and guilds that took them down.

Bad blood, for sure

Caeryl

Shaladoor wrote: »

geographical region is equal to its base ZOI.

Yes, the initial geographic region is the node’s base ZOI size, and then it will level up and grow beyond that. The potential size of its ZOI however, is static. It can never grow beyond the reach of a metro.

It's been stated that at no point will you ever be on the map and not be within some nodes ZOI.

Yes you will be in constant contact with nodes’ ZOIs as you travel, I don’t see how this would change that nodes have changing ZOI sizes based on their level.

So what happens when a node levels up to level 1? Would its ZOI overlap with surrounding level 0's? Or are you suggesting that its ZOI would grow and then "push out" the level 0's, and the overall size of the ZOI of the 0's would shrink?

Nodes’ ZOIs only grow and shrink dependent on their own level. As nodes level up, their ZOIs encompass a wider area and more land, so yes they can and are intended to completely overlap other nodes’ ZOIs at a point. That’s how vassalage works, by a node’s growing ZOI encompassing lower level nodes nearby.

Here, directly from the wiki about nodes:

Ashes of Creation Wiki wrote:

The more advanced the node is, the larger its ZOI becomes.[1]x

Shaladoor

I appreciate the patience and the graphs Caeryl! So that all makes more sense and is definitely more complicated than how I was originally understanding it. I was stuck seeing the system in a particular way, and that first picture was enough to let me see things differently. I also think the most interesting part of that first picture is on the right side.

There is a blue area overlapping a pink area, and just judging by how the overlapped area appears to be highlighted blue, it appears that the blue area has overtaken part of the pink area.

I'm also wondering if it's going to be possible for nodes to be completely overlapped by more than one node. Judging by the second picture, that certainly seems possible.

I'm also wondering if it's going to be possible for a node to have more than one parent... I'm assuming not. That might make the whole hierarchy of nodes/vassals/parents get a little murky.

I find this whole system fascinating. I also wonder if players are going to have access to a map like the first one, and if they'll be able to see the boundaries of the nodes within the world.

Caeryl

Shaladoor wrote: »

I appreciate the patience and the graphs Caeryl! So that all makes more sense and is definitely more complicated than how I was originally understanding it. I was stuck seeing the system in a particular way, and that first picture was enough to let me see things differently. I also think the most interesting part of that first picture is on the right side.

There is a blue area overlapping a pink area, and just judging by how the overlapped area appears to be highlighted blue, it appears that the blue area has overtaken part of the pink area.

I'm also wondering if it's going to be possible for nodes to be completely overlapped by more than one node. Judging by the second picture, that certainly seems possible.

I'm also wondering if it's going to be possible for a node to have more than one parent... I'm assuming not. That might make the whole hierarchy of nodes/vassals/parents get a little murky.

I find this whole system fascinating. I also wonder if players are going to have access to a map like the first one, and if they'll be able to see the boundaries of the nodes within the world.

There’s plans for a cartographer profession, but we don’t have many specifics on it besides that they’ll be able to create and sell maps which... well I assumed as much lol.

Wiplasher

Caeryl wrote: »

Shaladoor wrote: »

I appreciate the patience and the graphs Caeryl! So that all makes more sense and is definitely more complicated than how I was originally understanding it. I was stuck seeing the system in a particular way, and that first picture was enough to let me see things differently. I also think the most interesting part of that first picture is on the right side.

There is a blue area overlapping a pink area, and just judging by how the overlapped area appears to be highlighted blue, it appears that the blue area has overtaken part of the pink area.

I'm also wondering if it's going to be possible for nodes to be completely overlapped by more than one node. Judging by the second picture, that certainly seems possible.

I'm also wondering if it's going to be possible for a node to have more than one parent... I'm assuming not. That might make the whole hierarchy of nodes/vassals/parents get a little murky.

I find this whole system fascinating. I also wonder if players are going to have access to a map like the first one, and if they'll be able to see the boundaries of the nodes within the world.

There’s plans for a cartographer profession, but we don’t have many specifics on it besides that they’ll be able to create and sell maps which... well I assumed as much lol.

I was discussing this with people when we were talking about the scribe profession. We pretty much came to the conclusion the same great thing allowing us to play the game ruins the idea.

The internet lol

Caeryl

wiplasher4 wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

Shaladoor wrote: »

I appreciate the patience and the graphs Caeryl! So that all makes more sense and is definitely more complicated than how I was originally understanding it. I was stuck seeing the system in a particular way, and that first picture was enough to let me see things differently. I also think the most interesting part of that first picture is on the right side.

There is a blue area overlapping a pink area, and just judging by how the overlapped area appears to be highlighted blue, it appears that the blue area has overtaken part of the pink area.

I'm also wondering if it's going to be possible for nodes to be completely overlapped by more than one node. Judging by the second picture, that certainly seems possible.

I'm also wondering if it's going to be possible for a node to have more than one parent... I'm assuming not. That might make the whole hierarchy of nodes/vassals/parents get a little murky.

I find this whole system fascinating. I also wonder if players are going to have access to a map like the first one, and if they'll be able to see the boundaries of the nodes within the world.

There’s plans for a cartographer profession, but we don’t have many specifics on it besides that they’ll be able to create and sell maps which... well I assumed as much lol.

I was discussing this with people when we were talking about the scribe profession. We pretty much came to the conclusion the same great thing allowing us to play the game ruins the idea.

The internet lol

Yep. Even though the servers will be different, unless maps made by scribes update in real time to look monitor nodes growing, falling, etc. Then word of mouth and screenshots will be faster than anyone could be in the game.

Yuyukoyay

The game is kind of too far off from completion for me to have a proper opinion on it. However it makes sense that the people closest to the node would have the biggest reason to fight it. I think it would be better that if nodes can pick their vassal nodes and if the vassal node responds with a yes it happens. Until then just not have vassal nodes naturally.

Kneczhevo

Castles are occupied by guilds. Guilds will control a metro or more nodes. If you want to increase your node to a metro, your guild will have to siege the castle controlling the unwanted metro, so you can dictate the controlled nodes growth.

Xenantaya

So just to follow up on this and retract my prior statements, someone asked basically this question on Jahlon's stream last night. Jahlon (a knowledge content creator who hosts lengthy Q&As) responded that the players from the vassal node that wanted to participate in the siege of the parent would need to drop citizenship. Thus, sounds like OP is correct that citizens of vassal nodes cannot siege parent nodes, even though those vassal citizens have the most to gain from a siege.

I suppose we'll see how things work over the course of testing and the early game, but I remain concerned that this limitation will make the game too static once all 5 metropolises are established, with each controlling 20% of the world. At that point, only citizens under Metropolis B (or C, D, or E) will be able to siege Metropolis A, but I doubt they'll have much incentive to do so on their own, unless Metro B is lead by aggressive PvPers who just want siege content, or if they know the only way to pop a new raid or some other content is to destroy Metro A. Of course, the citizens of a City that is Metro A's vassal could offer gold, resources, etc. to entice Metro B to siege Metro A, creating diplomacy opportunities.

And in the end, it's an MMO and I hope Intrepid will change the rules as needed after launch so that sieges play a role in changing the world. Hell, Albion Online has radically changed the basic rules of territory control and access repeatedly after launch.

ServNiQ

While it's understandable that vassal nodes might be unhappy with their metros and parent nodes and what not, you forget that they'll also be benefiting from things like the reliquary (I think that's what it was called) which gives the city and citizens benefits from their accomplishments, which gives an incentive to grow with their parent node. Sure it might be a little sad that maybe your city can't become a metropolis, but not everyone wants to live in the big city. If you're unhappy with the state of things, well the mayor changes pretty frequently, (you can always just suck it up), there's nothing stopping you from leaving, and if you really want you can always make a stand of some sort, be it rebellion or what have you.

However, it should be understood that the metropolis is not the end all be all of the game. For example, you could always be an influential figure in your religion's faction or say something like the scholar or thieves' guild. You could always start your own business in the big metro where there's more people while your home is back in your level 4 town. Or maybe you go it alone and do some PvE content. Point is, there are so many different systems other than the node system that, while the problems you're talking about could be an issue if the game was solely based on just the node system, the node system is really just one of many different systems meant to enhance your experience in the game.

Also, it should be hard to attack a metropolis. There should be actual effort to siege one successfully. You think you can just rebel or attack the land's capital willy nilly? There are not only high level adventurers in there, you got the mayor's giant mount with AoE damage coming your way, they got city benefits from the reliquary, and they got their city fortifications, in addition to any guilds that might be stationed there. You're gonna need a whole lot more than a group of friends to take that on. And honestly, that's how it should be. If you're asking for an easy way for your city to become the local 'numero uno', then it should be just as easy for your city to get taken down to.

We'll see how things turn out though, I could always be totally wrong, but this is going to be a game where you have to invest, and there's always someone who has invested more than you into something. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I honestly don't think it's going to be an issue, and if it is, then the devs will do something about it.

LegendaryIII

Long story short seems to be:

If your node is progression blocked, you need to drop citizenship to siege the higher node. ( are you locked out of reclaiming said citizenship for 2 weeks?) They however can bully anyone at anytime.

There is no purpose attacking nodes in other kingdoms other than loot / pvp.
Those victories will not progress your node.

Long story Long seems to be:

Local uprisings to grow your node:

If you win, you now have to race any and all same sized nodes in the area from growing to that progression size first, thus ruining all your plans and hard work.

Win or lose, there will be repercussions. The people who just lost their homes will want revenge. The other same sized nodes will be happy to help. ( it removes 1 competitor). Every node below you will be happy to help. (they can grow 1 extra level). Now it's in everybody's self interest to wipe you out.

Example:

City A wants to become the Metropolis. They drop citizenship, recruit help, lay Siege. Lose: Metro comes after them, to prevent further uprisings.
Win: Former Metro comes after them, revenge
Everyone else hops on board either way, because it opens up a progression slot.

Worse yet?:
City A wins and continues to exist. ( cooldown period? or just survives retaliatory stike) City B & C didn't waste any time or effort preparing for a siege, but now have an equal chance to progress to Metropolis level. (assuming 3 cities / kingdom)

Worse worse yet??:
You place a siege banner against the Level 6, but then the next day a siege banner is placed at your doorstep. ( this may not be possible, but I cannot see why not, perhaps unlikely though ) Whilst you were planning your coup... That friendly ( or so you thought ) level 4 town has chosen to take advantage and crush you while you're off in the big city.

I am new to AoC, and I do realize not every scenario here is a "likely" outcome. But is any of it wrong? Growing nodes seems a very...very risky business. ( all is conjecture and subject to change)

Also, if citizenship slots are fewer than housing available in a node, you might never regain your citizenship even if you achieve the optimal outcome.

TeaGeek

vmangman wrote: »

"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.

While I have not found anything explicit about such in my admittedly lazy reading into the topic, doesn’t this heavily imply that vassal nodes will have some sort of representation? I understand the role of node mayor will not be a layabout position; seeing as benefits are conferred to vassal nodes from parent nodes, shouldn’t diplomatic ties require the vassal mayors to work as representatives for their nodes. Is there any information I’m not seeing regarding expansion of leadership selection into vassal nodes, so leaders of parent nodes may be beholden to vassal nodes they levee taxes from?

This thread seems, at times, to treat the term “diplomacy” as though it solely refers to aggressive conflict with a ruling body. I’m fairly sure that groups of like-minded players will advance these fastest, so comparatively few will be stuck under the umbrella of a different specialization than desired. Still, it seems vassal nodes would be more like provinces in a nation than territories that must give more than they benefit, with little means of voicing dissent.

Quintus

ServNiQ wrote: »

While it's understandable that vassal nodes might be unhappy with their metros and parent nodes and what not, you forget that they'll also be benefiting from things like the reliquary (I think that's what it was called) which gives the city and citizens benefits from their accomplishments, which gives an incentive to grow with their parent node. Sure it might be a little sad that maybe your city can't become a metropolis, but not everyone wants to live in the big city. If you're unhappy with the state of things, well the mayor changes pretty frequently, (you can always just suck it up), there's nothing stopping you from leaving, and if you really want you can always make a stand of some sort, be it rebellion or what have you.

However, it should be understood that the metropolis is not the end all be all of the game. For example, you could always be an influential figure in your religion's faction or say something like the scholar or thieves' guild. You could always start your own business in the big metro where there's more people while your home is back in your level 4 town. Or maybe you go it alone and do some PvE content. Point is, there are so many different systems other than the node system that, while the problems you're talking about could be an issue if the game was solely based on just the node system, the node system is really just one of many different systems meant to enhance your experience in the game.

Also, it should be hard to attack a metropolis. There should be actual effort to siege one successfully. You think you can just rebel or attack the land's capital willy nilly? There are not only high level adventurers in there, you got the mayor's giant mount with AoE damage coming your way, they got city benefits from the reliquary, and they got their city fortifications, in addition to any guilds that might be stationed there. You're gonna need a whole lot more than a group of friends to take that on. And honestly, that's how it should be. If you're asking for an easy way for your city to become the local 'numero uno', then it should be just as easy for your city to get taken down to.

We'll see how things turn out though, I could always be totally wrong, but this is going to be a game where you have to invest, and there's always someone who has invested more than you into something. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I honestly don't think it's going to be an issue, and if it is, then the devs will do something about it.

This. ^

I think most people will see the city as their home. If they don't live in the city then they will see the metropolis as the guardian of their home. If they don't like how the metropolis is being run they can leave or they can stand up and do something about it. They can campaign. Even if they don't have the resources to win they can change the conversation.

A siege, or series of sieges over time, should be memorable. The events leading to war and the war its self should leave a lasting impression for you to look back on with nostalgia. You won't get that if there's a siege every week and they all blur together.

CROW3

Hm... I tend to think of node development and stability from an inertia perspective. It takes an amount of energy to advance a node. If there is more energy to advance the node than oppose its growth, then the node will advance.

Likewise, each time a node advances it will take a larger force to counter the stability of that node. It will take a huge amount of effort to get a node to level 6, and therefore should take a massive effort to siege that node.

I think this is pretty intuitive & acceptable. It also brings a bit of stability to a node / nation and the freeholds / allies that depend on the node.

CaptnChuck

CROW3 wrote: »

Hm... I tend to think of node development and stability from an inertia perspective. It takes an amount of energy to advance a node. If there is more energy to advance the node than oppose its growth, then the node will advance.

Likewise, each time a node advances it will take a larger force to counter the stability of that node. It will take a huge amount of effort to get a node to level 6, and therefore should take a massive effort to siege that node.

I think this is pretty intuitive & acceptable. It also brings a bit of stability to a node / nation and the freeholds / allies that depend on the node.

Yea but that isn't the problem @CROW3 . Assume that you and your friends are working on a lvl5 node and are on the way to make it lvl6. Just before you do so, another lvl5 node near you, levels to 6 and turns your node into a vassal node. All that effort you put into leveling your node, is now gone. That is what @Wiplasher is concerned about and it is indeed a valid concern imo.

Birthday

I think more weight, work and emphasis should be put on the citizenship status.
What I mean is:

If someone is a citizen in one of the vassal nodes, he should be able to be such a big contributor to the vassal and master node that losing him would bring serious aftermath for all the close vassal nodes and the master node.

This way by making the citizen powerful, we add diplomatic leverage. So if that citizen is unhappy about the fact that he is a vassal node citizen, he should have the option by denouncing his citizenship to inflict serious trouble to the vassal node and the vassal nodes close to it and the master node.

This opens up more possibilities - like for example:

-The citizen could just straight up leave, hurt the vassal and master node by doing so and go find himself a new kingdom where he is happy and perhaps try to support them in planning and executing a siege on his previous master node with which he was unhappy. Citizens should have enough power to actually be able to do this sort of thing because from what I gather right now being a citizen doesn't mean much, if you leave someone else will take your spot and even if no one takes your spot it wont matter much.

-The citizen could talk to other powerful citizens in his node and the surrounding nodes about making a threat to the master node for a collective citizenship denouncement. This sort of coup should inflict severe or devastating damage (depending on the size of the coup) on the master node and it's vassals. Thus giving the master node an ultimatum demand - give is this, that and this (lower taxes etc.). Or demand that just straight up make one of the vassal nodes the new master node or we all lose everything.

On the idea of vassal nodes being able to rebel by using a siege - I like it but I'd like to see some rules restricting when a vassal node can make a siege. It's prime function should somehow be obstructed by the master node for a siege to be able to commence and/or it has to meet certain conditions.
So for example:
Military vassal nodes can start sieges against the master node whenever they want. (They are more of a dictatorship/tyrant/conquerAll sort of place from what I gather) or (if there is such a mechanic for the master node) when the master node denies the military node to engage in a siege/guild war more than 2 times in a row.

Scientific vassal nodes can only start sieges against the master node when most of it's citizens vote to start the siege.

Economic vassal nodes can only start sieges against the master node if it has the lowest profit compared to close-by economical nodes which are vassals(or a master node) to a different master node.

Child Item