Getting a feel for the node progression distribution

Over the last weekend, I tried to figure out what kind of node progression distribution we can expect to see in AoC. I figured that patches of civilization would be surrounded by level 0 nodes. So, to test my theory I wrote a little script that would simulate the progression in a 10x10 hexagonal grid where different nodes progress randomly (if they can) and also get sieged (if possible) at some random point in time.

The visualization looks like this:

I think that kind of distribution looks pretty cool and allows for keeping all regions interesting and fresh as there are only a few of them developed at a time.

Note: Keep in mind that Nodes won't be strict hexagons, so some Nodes may have more adjacent nodes, other Nodes may have fewer, and/or may be stretched out longer. So the image only gives some rough estimation, not an actual or solid prediction. Also player behaviour won't be that random. It's more likely to have some large blobs of player activity forming the node progression (at least in the beginning)

What I found however is that sometimes when a metropolis gets destroyed a new metropolis pops up just an instant later and I started wondering whether that kind of stuff could happen in AoC as well.

So imagine this scenario: You are living in a level 5 node for some time now and your node can't progress because of that other metropolis near your node. When the siege is declared against that metropolis you are added to the defenders of that node. But the people in your city actually have an interest in that metropolis getting destroyed, so instead of taking part in defending the metropolis, they start questing in their area, because they know: Once the metropolis is destroyed there will be only a short time frame to become the next metropolis in this region.

Is this a realistic scenario? Is there some cooldown for the next metropolis to show up? Do the players who participated in the siege (attacking or defending) get XP for the node they are citizens of or something similar? (Maybe this would be a cool question to answer in the next stream)

You can find my script here. Feel free to play around with it and see how the node's distribution may evolve over long periods of time.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ostaff

Kinda reminds me of Minesweeper.

"Watch out for that...... Node!"

McMackMuck

I make a living from electronic design. When modelling behavior there is always a gap between reality and the model. Understanding that gap is vital. I think your model is valid - to an extent.
Intrepid (I hope) will never let us have their node algorithm, but I think you've done a good job of interpreting how it might work for a simplified hex map scenario.

Your model shows many of the things that I would expect to see, but the large number of level zero level nodes make me think that running the simulation for longer until all nodes hit the level cap caused by the ZOI of higher level nodes would look more realistic. Either that or the model is missing something?

The scenario where the citizens of a level 5 node have a vested interest in seeing the nearby level 6 node destroyed is definitely a real situation that will occur IMO. This is where alliances need to be built otherwise nodes will be pushed to level 6, popped and the nearest level 5 is free to level up to metro. Rinse, repeat.
The same revolution that takes you to the top may also take you to the bottom if you can't stop it at the right time.

achereto

You're actually right. There was a bug that caused each node to have too many neighbors. Here's a simulation run with the fixed version that shows more of a maxed-out map. I don't think that's realistic either, though as players will more likely play somewhere near the metropoles and less likely somewhere far away of them.

I totally agree about the discrepancy between the model and reality. Not only will the nodes be arranged differently, but also the players will play differently.

Jahlon

Even in the updated one there are still issues.

I see several places where a 0 exists where there is no neighboring 1.

Also I see places like the upper left. You have a 6,5,1. There is no reason why that 1 wouldn't go to 4 because there is nothing blocking it out.

Same side you have a 1 wedged next to a 6 and a 5, but nothing is blocking that 1 from going to at least 2.

Enigmatic Sage

Correct me if I am wrong, but say your central node is a 6, could you essentially have a 5-4-5-4-5-4 vassal pattern circling your 6 node.
Would that be considered the highest tier pattern for centralized vassals?

EDIT:

then your next rings from vassals could be based from that 6 node vassal ring:

5 in centre, then 6-4-3-4-3-4
4 in centre, then 6-5-3-5-3-5

Then recentralized from that 5 node being centre

4-3-4-3-4-3

just as long as no two nodes of the same level exist side by side

if so..
oh wow, that puts things into perspective for nodes and vassals, lol!

achereto

Jahlon wrote: »

Even in the updated one there are still issues. [...]

Yeah, it wasn't maxed out completely because the random sieges were still part of it. a really maxed out node progress distribution looks like this:

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong, but say your central node is a 6, could you essentially have a 5-4-5-4-5-4 vassal pattern circling your 6 node.
Would that be considered the highest tier pattern for centralized vassals?

EDIT:

then your next rings from vassals could be based from that 6 node vassal ring:

5 in centre, then 6-4-3-4-3-4
4 in centre, then 6-5-3-5-3-5

Then recentralized from that 5 node being centre

4-3-4-3-4-3

just as long as no two nodes of the same level exist side by side

if so..
oh wow, that puts things into perspective for nodes and vassals, lol!

Keep in mind that regularity of the nodes will not match the distribution of the nodes in the game. You may have some nodes with more adjacent nodes and several with fewer. Also, those max out ideas fall apart as soon as you have an odd number of adjacent nodes or other irregularities.

Mathematically you can always "color" a map with as few as 4 colors. So in theory, you'll always be able to have all nodes on level 5,4,3, and 2. It MAY be possible to have all nodes in state 6,5,4,3 if the metropoles are just in the right spots. But the game mechanics and the effort needed (time + coordination of ALL players) will render that impractical.

Enigmatic Sage

yeah, I figured they wouldn't necessarily fall in linear pathing depending on node locations. Was more for an understanding of rules for nodes, levels and blocking of developments in a perfect situation.

I watched Jahlons video not too long ago and that was one of my questions I was wondering about. if a 6 node would allow multiple nodes of same stage just as long as they spaced out properly or if it was more of a situation where you could only have one of each level surround it.

Regardless though, that's awesome! There could potentially be some very large empires and vast amounts of guilds in these area's contributing towards a purpose.

So im going to assume there would not be any upkeep costs once developed except for repairs and potential upgrades. There would be no way for a node to become abandoned and regress other than node siege battles?

example:
you wouldn't be able to go from a 6 to 5 obviously because of design, but could that 6 if abandoned for whatever reason become a 0

bloodprophet

In one of the Q&A portions of a live stream they touched on this. Pretty sure they stated the near by node will be locked at level 5 and 0% vs 5and 99% untill a siege is completed and the 6 drops to 0 then the 5's will have to race to see who makes it to 6 first.

Enigmatic Sage

bloodprophet wrote: »

In one of the Q&A portions of a live stream they touched on this. Pretty sure they stated the near by node will be locked at level 5 and 0% vs 5and 99% untill a siege is completed and the 6 drops to 0 then the 5's will have to race to see who makes it to 6 first.

yeah, that's not what I was referring to.

obviously by design they couldn't have it drop to level 5 as it would imbalance the games design intent by having various same levels nodes co-exist beside each other.

I was asking if there are upkeep standards in order to maintain the node at level 6.

example:

constantly feeding it a required amount of resources as upkeep to maintain it at level 6?
what if people abandon it, does it just exist at level 6 until destroyed in a siege?
do guards and npcs require upkeep?
defence upgrades?
does it require a specific numbers of citizens to reside in it before risk of failure?
does it just stay at level 6 once achieved until lost during a siege?

bloodprophet

Each node will require up keep yes.
So if people leave an area a node could delevel.

tabanar

Until I read this post I was under the assumption that all nodes would get to the max level for their situation (for instance a level 4 node is at their max level because they are in the zoi of a level 5 node) at least, but now I'm wondering if they will.

Unless if something has changed nodes will atrophy if they aren't populated enough. So a scenario where every node eventually goes to the max level for their situation will be unrealistic because if a node gets abandoned it will atrophy and reset to 0.

In addition, I remember reading somewhere that the goal is 50,000 players per server with 10,000 active at a time. If you take the 10,000 and divide it by 103 nodes (plus castle nodes) you get an average of 100 players active per node. Since the top tier nodes will have more than the average many nodes will have to have a below average number of players in them. It depends on how much experience deficit happens per day and how many players per day are required to keep a node from atrophying.

So really it's all up to intrepid. If they set the atrophy/experience deficit high there could be many level 0/1 nodes. If they set the atrophy experience low it would mean all of the nodes would hit the max level for their situation, but then what would the point of having atrophy experience be??

I will probably bring this point up in a future development discussion question because I'm curious what their goal is for nodes. Do they want all nodes to level to the max level for their situation (3 if they are in a zone of a 4, etc.) Or do they want many parts of the world that are level 0 wilderness. Or somewhere in between?

I think the world could be that much more interesting if there is vast unsettled land for people to cross to get to the next pocket of civilization. It makes trade more interesting and node wars more interesting. Rather than having a world full of cities and metropolises.

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_atrophy

Enigmatic Sage

bloodprophet wrote: »

Each node will require up keep yes.
So if people leave an area a node could delevel.

cool!

Glad there is something in place for this to maintain the status of the level 6 node.
has there been much discussion or information revealed on types of upkeep based on node type?

I suggested in another thread the concept of defensive tiers for node stages as well. A horizontal progression to boost a nodes defenses.

Not needing to have them in order to progress vertically.

Be interesting for guards and npc's to require upkeep such as food supply goals, armoury goals (weapons and armour grading), siege engines along with the nodes building erosion/deterioration rate.

Could be very interesting

achereto

tabanar wrote: »

[...]
I think the world could be that much more interesting if there is vast unsettled land for people to cross to get to the next pocket of civilization. It makes trade more interesting and node wars more interesting. Rather than having a world full of cities and metropolises.
[...]

It could give new players a place to experience the world as if it was new as well. They could choose some abandoned place, bring it to level 1 or 2 then see some other players joining and eventually seeing "their" node evolving to a small village, allowing them to buy a house in a village that might eventually become a big city.

Child Item