Expand the Node functionality towards PvE hubs, and include more Risk vs Reward towards PvE.

1. When joining a fresh server, the life on the server should be established within the node system. *1
2. When dying from an NPC, we should risk the same as within PvP. Item loot and reagents/mats are dropped and put in the loot-table for that NPC. *2
3. Monster Coin events are linked to this.

1*. At the start of a server, the game should utilize the excellent and exciting node system to also include NPC's and general life on the server.

The nodes should already florsh with life, but designed in a way that makes sense per location. In the mountains the unlocking of a "node" can be as easy as a creature that have to be defeated to force it to let go of the node. In the forests, the system can be a group of NPC's that have established their own camp already. A group of herbivores that lives off of plants, nuts and berries - et cetera. and is a group that will fight back if their resources are taken by us.

All creatures linked to nodes outside of normal wildlife has a certain amount of IQ, wits, and are able to think. Typical mobs would be human like creatures, and the system would function the same way the node system works for us, where we evolve it up and down in levels. If we starve a creature of its plants or barries near its node, it evolves to fight back harder - trying to cooperate with other NPC's next week if the node it self is not shut down.They evolve to use more skills/abilities, they send harder NPC's to defend its habitat, and the node it self spawns more NPC's.

Lv0 Wilderness Node:
The same as todays system. Not much requirements needed to take it over, and logging trees, picking plants etc gives XP to it to get it over to "our side" and lv1 node.
Lv1 NPC Expedition Node:
The node is unlocked after an area is cleared of trees, rocks, bushes and NPC's.
Lv2 Camp Node:
An already established camp of NPC's have to be defeated. Its node have an area of effect for aggro from this campment if players try to harvest its area. NPC's don't tolerate that we come in and take their livelihood.
Lv3 Village Node:
An already established village of NPC's have to be defeated. Its node have an even bigger area of effect for aggro if players try to intervene and/or harvest its area, and we may expect NPC's to have established guards to travel around the village to keep it safe.

Lv4 Town, Lv5 City or Lv6 Metropolis:
They follow the same logic, but no node is at this stage this early in a new servers life, but if NPC's are left alone, they will grow bigger and bigger into Towns, Cities and even its own versions of Metropolises. Raids and sieges are needed to burn it to the ground and force the native away.

2*: Here is the kicker: NPC's that are big enough to feed on players have an ability to get their loot-tables increased based on players killed by them. Thus PvE comes with the same Risk vs Reward PvP currently has. If you die to an NPC, you may have died to a monster that likes to drag the corpse into its cave before it feasts on you. Thus items, gear, materials etc may be residing in its stomach, or at the location inside the cave. If a player kills this monster, there is a chance some of the items and materials is still left, thus killing random NPC's come with the potential added excitement that it has killed previous players. But its risk is also greater.

The bigger and badder the NPC is, up towards world bosses, the bigger the loot-table may become, and this alone can be linked to procedural quests put to the closest Player Controlled Node. At a certain point a trigger gets released making a quest to track it down, find it and kill it. Example: A sea monster dragged down a ship and killed its entire 8*3=24 player raid which triggers the procedural quest system, where romours starts to spread in the neighbouring nodes. "There is a rumor of a sea monster that sunk an entire ship, and killed its crew of 24 at X location. Go track it down".
This monsters loot-table consists of reagents from its hide, bones, teeth, but also the contents of the stomach. Items from a total of 24 players lies inside it, and Items may be hardened from its acid thus weapons and armor may be better than what they were once they were lost.

With added risk towards PvE, raids in dungeons also becomes more exciting. As previous raids may have tried to go too deep. Increasing the loot contents and its loot-table from previous players. Raids being controlled by gear lost at death, means that raids would need to bring caravans with them to prolong the raid with several tries. If they get killed, they have to re-gear up with the stash from the caravan, which again gets linked to bigger risk vs PvP.

(I'm not saying full loot risk, but copy whatever is used for PvP)

3*: Monster coint events would suddenly make sense. Nodes that we have stolen from them is the reason they try to fight back, and if successful they start over with their own node progression system, just like we do if we kill and burn down a player ran node. Too big of a NPC node, hinders the neighbouring nodes progress, thus players have bigger reasons to try and cooperate for those events before they turn on eachother again. With the NPC nodes being dynamic, we shift endgame content per server even more. NPC's being unattained to grow, gives big areas with end game content for farming, and a focused zone(s) towards all players.

Big Data is more and more used to finetune MMORPG's, and this can and should be utilized to further expand on the node system. I'm not asking to have it at launch, but announcing something alongside it for a future expansion/DLC would be huge! Getting the feeling that AI is at work here too, and not only in other games. Server data can be analyzed to alter mobs dynamically, just lik the node system analyses the data from its neighbouring area to get XP.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Noaani

oophus wrote: »

1. You take stuff out of context. I wasn't talking about money or time, as that is a certain. I was talking about the idea it self. Plus most of the stuff I'm talking about us utilizing systems that is implemented already.

You may not have been talking about those things, but I was.

Intrepids limitation will never be a lack of imagination, as you seem to suggest. As I said, they have people on staff that have a cumulative amount of experience that is measured in the hundreds of years.

Their limitation is in regards to what they feel is valid to ask of players, and what the servers are able to cope with. While these suggestions may not specifically stretch the servers, I pointed that out because that is the actual limitation, as opposed to imagination as per your suggestion.

The suggestions in this thread do, however, go past what is viable to ask of players.

2. Why would you need to chase a wolf for some herbs? Its only added as a bonus in one wolfs loot-table. I suggest you go read the thread over again, as it seams you've missed what it is about.

You would chase it because you need the components that it drops. This should be obvious.

No, I'm not saying that stomach acid to be an ingredient. It was a side comment towards someone else who commented on the main idea, and it touched effects that could be put on items that were introduced within the mobs loot-table after a player died towards it.

Yes, I know. I can read.

If there is a component that comes from this, then there will by necessity be players that need this component. If the component is not needed, it should not exist.

If there are players that need this component, there will be players that have to go out and chase this wolf that killed a player and ate something from their inventory.

This is too convoluted, and shouldn't be in the game.

oophus

Noaani wrote: »

Their limitation is in regards to what they feel is valid to ask of players, and what the servers are able to cope with. While these suggestions may not specifically stretch the servers, I pointed that out because that is the actual limitation, as opposed to imagination as per your suggestion.

Why this comment? Shall they remove the forums and stop taking feedback? Feels like the only purpose you have is to quibble. .

The suggestions in this thread do, however, go past what is viable to ask of players.

Its meant for both players and developers for players to read and discuss it, and for developers to maybe take whatever in here as feedback and inspiration.

You would chase it because you need the components that it drops. This should be obvious.

Why would you specifically have to hunt a Wolf for herbs? The herbs would have been dropped from players it had killed if it had it, and players have harvested it from the world like normal. Nothing is changed outside of herbs being in the loot-table of a wolf by X trigger if a player it killed had it...

If you need X reagents, then go hunt for it as normal. No need for Wiki. If that is your beliefs around this suggestion, then I suggest you ask about it, or read it again as you've been mistaken.

If there is a component that comes from this, then there will by necessity be players that need this component. If the component is not needed, it should not exist.

Any addition to the loot-table is from us! We take it from the world! Refined or not.

This is too convoluted, and shouldn't be in the game.

The stomach acid stuff is a side comment for possible additions added to the idea. Its not the core of it. Get killed by a humanoid, and it may loot you just like a Player will in PvP. Kill that player back, and take your stuff back, just the same as vs that NPC.

Noaani

oophus wrote: »

Why would you specifically have to hunt a Wolf for herbs?

Because you specifically said that.

Side comment or not, you said it, and I disagree with it as being a good idea to add to a game.

The entire premise of your thread here is totally forgetting the fact that players will already drop materials on to the ground when killed in PvE, exactly as they will do when killed in PvP.

You are wanting to try and equate things that are already equal.

oophus

Noaani wrote: »

oophus wrote: »

Why would you specifically have to hunt a Wolf for herbs?

Because you specifically said that.

Towards a comment after the OP. The OP doesn't bring this in to the idea. The stomach acid thing was an addition to it if wanted. And no, you are still wrong. There is no need for Wiki because stomach acid makes some alternation towards ingredients and gear. The crafting system would not change, and there would never be a requirement to have it. The only difference would be stats for the end result. In any ways, this isn't the main point and idea to be discussed.

Side comment or not, you said it, and I disagree with it as being a good idea to add to a game.

With reasons that show you haven't really got the main idea. Ask about it instead so I can explain.

The entire premise of your thread here is totally forgetting the fact that players will already drop materials on to the ground when killed in PvE, exactly as they will do when killed in PvP.

You are wanting to try and equate things that are already equal.

1. No I don't forget the fact that we drop items when dying. I've addressed that, and said previously that the underlying systems is already implemented, which means my addition would not be that time consuming to add. The big difference is the game brings some of those items into the loot-table of the creeps we died for. And the fact they also skill up if they are able to kill players.

2. No, im bringing more risk towards the world, by having NPC's skill up, and become a boss in its entirety if they kill enough players.

Noaani

oophus wrote: »

Towards a comment after the OP.

I was unaware we were only allowed to comment on things contained in the OP.

Seems a rather arbitrary thing to say, honestly.

As to your points - the very first thing you need to take in to account with your situation is that it would require additional database space for literally every single mob that is ever spawned on each server in the game. In fact, it would probably require a field for each possible resource that each specific mob would be able to take from players, and it would need to hold on to that until that specific mob is killed.

This is not insignificant.

If this were for a major game feature, it may well be worth it. But it isn't. All this is for is taking items that players lose when killed in PvE from being left on the ground exactly as they are in PvP, and placing them instead in the loot table of encounters.

As to your second point, I am not sure how often you expect base population to kill you, but I would expect to kill several hundred thousand of them before any of them get the better of me.

This means the chances of one non-boss mob killing more than one player is extremely low. If there were a system implemented where this could happen though, players would game it by allowing a specific mob to kill them, their alts, and their friends until they become a boss, and then kill said boss.

So, the first part of your suggestion is a bad idea because the return on investment is far too low, and the second part of your suggestion is a bad idea because it opens the game up to players gaming it.

oophus

Noaani wrote: »

oophus wrote: »

Towards a comment after the OP.

I was unaware we were only allowed to comment on things contained in the OP.

I'm saying it has to make sense towards the contents in the OP. Your comment about needing a wiki is wrong. In this case you have assumed something about the idea that is not factual. Its way better to ask questions about it, than to jump to conclusions.

As to your points - the very first thing you need to take in to account with your situation is that it would require additional database space for literally every single mob that is ever spawned on each server in the game. In fact, it would probably require a field for each possible resource that each specific mob would be able to take from players, and it would need to hold on to that until that specific mob is killed.

That depends on how it is implemented. Storing some numerical values is not hard or expensive, and Big Data is often analyzed in MMORPG's anyway, so they should have access to most of the data needed for this from before.

There is no need to have every single mob "living" when players are not there. So this data is just stored, just like it is stored in games where you die to a mob, and have to run back to your corpse to pick up your items again. Its the same process. The game notes to which type of mob a player died for, and adds the items lost from the player to the loot-table of the mob. When a new player enters the line of sight for mobs in that area, the server spawns new mobs while making sure one of them have the added loot-table and contents from before.

Its an easy check. If player dies, check conents of loot-table for mob that killed it. Does it have a "player_killed+1"? Then add +1 to end up with +2 for players killed, and add the content that the player dropped. Basic text files that is stored.

What the mob actually takes from players would be based on normal logic. A wolf wouldn't take a chest piece. It would eat the player and maybe some of the contents in the players pockets. If the player had meat in its backpack, then maybe some of the contents in there. How the devs restrict the system is up to them, but storing numerical values for gear, reagents and mats doesn't require much space. Its the same process they use to track player activity while leveling up nodes. Check file for X and add+1 for it, and save.

If this were for a major game feature, it may well be worth it. But it isn't.

This would be linked up to the node feature, so it surely is. My addition is making a new state for the node feature, and links creatures, mobs and NPC's to it to where they also "live" in it doing their thing.

A + state for the nodes mean we own them.
A - state for the nodes mean NPC's own them.

Both progress the nodes towards +100 or -100 for example if 100 is used for the upper cap for an upgrade.
The difference is that our state is based on our progress in the area, while for the NPC's its based on the opposite. Our lack of progress and time spent in the area. If we're not around, the NPC's gets +X based on time.

On top of this is the looting system that adds our lost contents to theirs, which makes sure every mob defeated comes with added risk and excitement in case it has killed a player before we approached it. It also are able to roll in an ability list for example, to skill up if it kills enough players to make it harder and harder to get revenge on.

As to your second point, I am not sure how often you expect base population to kill you, but I would expect to kill several hundred thousand of them before any of them get the better of me.

This means the chances of one non-boss mob killing more than one player is extremely low. If there were a system implemented where this could happen though, players would game it by allowing a specific mob to kill them, their alts, and their friends until they become a boss, and then kill said boss.

I completely agree for your first point! Mobs are easy targets most of the time, but sometimes a player is AFK and gets killed for example, or he aggros too many mobs at the same time. Videos online already shows some players dying to mobs. So this just adds another layer to mobs, where its loot-table is never 100% certain. Thus it creates excitement for us the players. Maybe not that much in easier mobs, but some places you'll know that some mobs may surprise players and get the best out of them at times.

For the second point, this is up to how its implemented. If the loot-table only increases by player dropped items, it doesn't make sense to exploit it as you would only take back X% of what you lost while dying. Remember that some items will be lost here. Y% is destroyed in combat, and X% is put in the loot-table. So this wouldn't work if implemented correctly.

So, the first part of your suggestion is a bad idea because the return on investment is far too low, and the second part of your suggestion is a bad idea because it opens the game up to players gaming it.

Only if you jump to conclusions, and assume stuff like you do. Ask questions instead if you think you find problems in the idea.

Noaani

oophus wrote: »

This would be linked up to the node feature, so it surely is.

Oh, so you are redesigning the entire game.

Cool - have fun with that.

oophus

Noaani wrote: »

oophus wrote: »

This would be linked up to the node feature, so it surely is.

Oh, so you are redesigning the entire game.

What? No! Jesus..

Noaani

oophus wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

oophus wrote: »

This would be linked up to the node feature, so it surely is.

Oh, so you are redesigning the entire game.

What? No! Jesus..

It sure looks like it.

The node system is the actual core of this game, any changes to it are changes to the entire game.

oophus

Noaani wrote: »

oophus wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

oophus wrote: »

This would be linked up to the node feature, so it surely is.

Oh, so you are redesigning the entire game.

What? No! Jesus..

The node system is the actual core of this game, any changes to it are changes to the entire game.

I don't touch the current node system, I build on top of it and utilize the same logic that is already implemented. The server logs player activity for it anyways, so utilizing the same datapoint to further expand on it is just logical for further progress. Its not like the devs will stop developing the game after launch.

Noaani

oophus wrote: »

I don't touch the current node system

Well, only in the same way some brat kid places his hand barely in front of another childs face, yelling "I'm not touching you!".

Your suggestion takes the game from being one where players build all civilization (which is a basic requirement based on what little we know of the lore), to one of "for some reason, player characters and NPC's each have their own cities, and can't co-mingle", which is just straight up not what Ashes is.

Basically, you are coming up with a game that is not this game.

oophus

Noaani wrote: »

oophus wrote: »

I don't touch the current node system

Well, only in the same way some brat kid places his hand barely in front of another childs face, yelling "I'm not touching you!"..

Wow! No, its not.

Your suggestion takes the game from being one where players build all civilization (which is a basic requirement based on what little we know of the lore), to one of "for some reason, player characters and NPC's each have their own cities, and can't co-mingle", which is just straight up not what Ashes is.

The basis of the game is nodes is meant for us. I'm adding that nodes can be utilized to build further life in the game in the opposite direction. How far or how deep, and how fast is not something I've touched upon that much as this is an initial idea - discussing it to improve it is kinda the point.

We've already got the "Monster Coin" event, where NPC's interact with us through the node system. I'm simply builing more on that, which creates a logical reason as to why they have further incentives to do so imo. So that logic is already there for them to launch an attack towards us. The difference now is that if we leave that area alone if they win, they start to build up a harder camp/village for us to take over again later.

What kind of camp/village they build surely depends on where in the world it is. If its a bunch of dragons that is attacking, then it makes no sense for a "dragon-village", but a "dragon-den" in contact with the zone in the mountains for example would build it self up. Over time dragons fly over the zone, and it becomes an endgame zone procedurally. To take it over, we fight back and kill off the dragons with the main finale in the dragons-den. Its the same logic that follows now for our node system where it goes in the opposite direction.

If we reach a LV6 Metrolopis this type of boss encounters opens anyway, and same would be true the opposite direction where they are left to roam and rule at will without interruption to grow.

The same underlying systems are still there, and how much my idea gets involved is up to discussion.

Noaani

oophus wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

oophus wrote: »

I don't touch the current node system

Well, only in the same way some brat kid places his hand barely in front of another childs face, yelling "I'm not touching you!"..

Wow! No, its not.

It really is.

Ashes is all about node rivalry - but that rivalry is supposed to be with other players, not with NPC's. You are trying to take the primary rivalry in the game and lessen it by making it PvE rather than PvP.

Again, that is a totally different game to what Ashes is.

BobzUrUncle

Why would they take a game that is built on the foundation of PVP and change it?

Think of a house. You can make cosmetic changes any time you want. If you want to change the foundation, you have to start over.

oophus

Noaani wrote: »

oophus wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

oophus wrote: »

I don't touch the current node system

Well, only in the same way some brat kid places his hand barely in front of another childs face, yelling "I'm not touching you!"..

Wow! No, its not.

Ashes is all about node rivalry - but that rivalry is supposed to be with other players, not with NPC's. You are trying to take the primary rivalry in the game and lessen it by making it PvE rather than PvP.

Why do players fight in the game in the first place? To get control over resources. If you control NPC's you get resources. A player ran node can perfectly fine want to protect and remove players from the neighboring node which is controlled by NPCs because that zone is their grinding spot.

I also introduced an extension towards the caravan system that could and most likely will produce a lot of good PvP content.

If a NPC gets big enough to be characterized as a boss, a procedural quest system spawned caravans in neighbouring Player controlled nodes to drive towards the NPC, where it would arrive at the same time.

What would the players do in an open world sandbox PvP game? Will they cooperate to beat the boss? Will they kill off eachother first to be able to get the boss alone to not share the loot?

A Sandbox game is about options. The more options the game give players, the more intrigues will results from is, for us to make our own history.

BobzUrUncle wrote: »

Why would they take a game that is built on the foundation of PVP and change it?

Think of a house. You can make cosmetic changes any time you want. If you want to change the foundation, you have to start over.

If you introduce higher reward, you also introduce more incentive to control those rewards. This isn't about PvE, its about PvX.

The foundation is the same, its utilizing the same logic the game already have. No changes would be needed on the "+" stage of the node system. I introduce a "-" stage on the other end.

So instead of nodes only having a minimum state of 0 where no one controls it up to state 6 where its a Metroloplis for Players, it also have a "-" stage going towards NPC controlled content.

Guilds having control to utilize the "-" stage is of course something that would have been seen, and players would fight over the right to farm this area to progress them selves. The difference is at "+" zones, you farm reagents for crafting. At "-" states its best to farm mobs since they are automatically bigger, and badder there where all of this is controlled procedurally based on our movement in the world.

Nagash

The devs have said from day one this is how its going to work and you want to change it?

oophus

Nagash wrote: »

The devs have said from day one this is how its going to work and you want to change it?

Please read the thread properly. I'm not changing the current system, I'm adding on top of it. If you got questions about it, then please ask.

Nagash

oophus wrote: »

Nagash wrote: »

The devs have said from day one this is how its going to work and you want to change it?

Please read the thread properly. I'm not changing the current system, I'm adding on top of it. If you got questions about it, then please ask.

to add or take away is changing

oophus

Nagash wrote: »

oophus wrote: »

Nagash wrote: »

The devs have said from day one this is how its going to work and you want to change it?

Please read the thread properly. I'm not changing the current system, I'm adding on top of it. If you got questions about it, then please ask.

to add or take away is changing

Well, then if we shall follow your logic then I'm asking to change it to expand in it, to make it better and give even more depth to the game.

Nagash

oophus wrote: »

Nagash wrote: »

oophus wrote: »

Nagash wrote: »

The devs have said from day one this is how its going to work and you want to change it?

Please read the thread properly. I'm not changing the current system, I'm adding on top of it. If you got questions about it, then please ask.

to add or take away is changing

Well, then if we shall follow your logic then I'm asking to change it to expand in it, to make it better and give even more depth to the game.

and why is your idea better than what we have already?

Child Item