Vassal node rebellion

After discussing this idea on Discord I was suggested to post it here for the developers to consider. So here it is:

1. What I'm proposing
A mechanism by which a vassal node can declare a node siege on its parent mode. The exact details of how this happens is less interesting to me, but I will describe my own vision of how this could happen in section 3. The most important thing to me is that in some way a node can stand up to its masters and fight for freedom!

2. Why
If the citizens of a node want to keep growing their node, but can't because they are being blocked by their parent node, they currently have no direct means of solving this problem. The current system ties the politics of a vassal node to its parent, and prevents the citizens from aiding attacks against their current vassal chain[1]. The best the vassal citizens can do to rebel is to not show up to defend in case some external party declares a siege. The other rebellion option would be to revoke their own citizenship and join the attackers, but now they've lost their hard earned standing in their home node and have no reason to fight anymore. To me, this hope based passive approach to vassal politics could be made more interactive.

Also, in my opinion the enemies within are just as interesting as the enemies without. Giving vassals a chance to revolt would mean that the parent node now has an incentive to keep their vassals happy to prevent civil war, instead of just unilaterally taxing their vassals. It would also add an extra dimension to node politics, where enemy nodes could try to incite rebellion within the opposing faction with promises of future alliances and wealth.

Finally, I feel that adding the ability to revolt would aid in adding instability to the node system. One of the key considerations with the node system in my opinion is that it can't be allowed to grow stable, where the metropolises collude with each other to stay in power. Giving the vassals a tool that can shake the balance of power could be another check on the system.

3. An example implementation and cost analysis
Once a node has been vassalized by zone of influence changes, it will be put on a cooldown period of one real time week before it can revolt and declare a siege on it's parent. To revolt, the mayor of the node would have to initiate a majority vote for the node citizens on whether they should rebel. If the vote passes, I have two ideas on what could happen next:

a) The mayor can now use a siege scroll[2] and declare a siege on the parent node exactly like any other node siege, with the exact same proceedings. The only difference would be that once the siege timer is up, the rebelling node and its vassals would now be automatically registered as attackers instead of defenders of the parent node. The rebelling node risks the cost of a siege scroll and the parent risks losing their node, just like a regular siege. Should the rebellion fail, the ability to rebel goes on cooldown again. Additionally, the parent node might want to reconsider their tax and trade policies on their naughty children...

b) Same as above, but failure would mean that the revolting node would be destroyed instead of the parent. The rebels would additionally be branded as enemies of state by the old parent node[3]. Perhaps the cost of the siege scroll could be reduced because of the high risks involved to make rebellion possible for poorer nodes.

The development costs of this proposition shouldn't be very high code wise. Both rebellion options a) and b) use already in place code with no additional changes required on questing, trade or node dynamics, with two exceptions: How the node citizens are registered for attack and defense, and how the initial rebellion vote is called. The former could be solved with a more granular database search for the list of participants, while the latter would require the repurposing of economy type node election vote system for a more general vote called by the Mayor. This repurposing could be useful for the introduction of other mayor driven referendums, which could be included later into the system for other reasons. The main costs associated with the system would therefore be testing and balancing related, where the system would have to be examined for potential abuse and values tweaked so that revolting would be a viable option for a stuck node, but not so viable that Verra would plunge into an eternal cycle of uprising.

Conclusions and acknowledgements
I want to thank the Discord community for discussing this idea with me and showing potential flaws with it. I've merged some of the feedback into this write-up and given more thought to other parts that were initially questioned. In any case I think this proposal is sound and follows the risk versus reward principle of AoC. Just like you can attack your neighbor at the risk of corruption, you should also be able to betray your parent node and risk loss. I personally don't like the forced cooperation the current vassalization system imposes.

The revolt mechanic could also be extended in many ways, for example allowing rebellion during an ongoing siege declaration to join the attackers, or adding more custom penalties for failing a revolt, but I don't have the systems insight necessary to say how costly adding these extensions would be. Thus my proposal is as it is, in it's simplest form.

Give it a think and thanks for reading.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

maouw

Social implications of this would be interesting for sure.

A mechanic like this would also help stabilize freehold ownership, while complicating efforts to monopolize the system - since I fear the other end of the spectrum where the nodes are too unstable making the idea of a freehold not worth the effort/time because of the risk involved - especially if you get caught in the crossfire of a bitter rivalry that spawns endless node wars.

VmanGman

Big thumbs up. The fact that vassal nodes cannot fight against their parent nodes and are just stuck waiting for someone else to take down the parent node is my biggest gripe with AoC's systems and designs. I really hope they reconsider their current design. It just sounds horrible to be stuck at a lower level just because someone else advanced faster and to know that there is nothing you can do about it.

Saedu

Interesting idea. How about this thought: In order to rebel, the vassel node must be one level below the parent node (if its two or more levels below its too small). If the node rebels, then instead of sieging the parent node, its the one that gets sieged by the parent node (other vassel nodes get to choose who they side with).

If the vassel node wins, it goes up one level and the parent node goes down one level. If the vassel node loses, it goes down a level and the parent node gets higher taxes.

Perhaps make it so only one vassel node per every ~2 weeks can rebel so that the parent node isn't constantly fighting down rebellions, but still frequent enough that they will have incentive to work with the vassels.

Noaani

I'm not a fan of this idea.

Part of the idea of Ashes is that as the world changes, players are supposed to change with it. If you want to level up a node to a metropolis, but it is taken over and made a vassal of another node, then you lost, the world has now changed, and you are supposed to adapt to that changed world.

This could mean remaining in your original node under the understanding you are now essentially a subject of the parent node, it could mean moving to the parent node, or it could mean moving to a totally different node.

If there is a mechanism by which players can just siege their parent node (players initiate sieges, nodes don't), then there would be no reason to move on.

It would mean people would just pick a single node and stay put.

Very much not a fan.

FuryBladeborne

It's an interesting idea. The current intent is specifically that vassals cannot declare war on a parent node.
"Vassal nodes cannot declare war on their parent node or any of their vassals.[1]"
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Vassal_nodes

IS is clearly enforcing a specific grouping structure on the players. I'm not sure if that's a good idea. It could be better to start with stability and as the servers age, determine if vassals should be able to rebel for their own gain because the servers are too stable.

Under the current system, it seems that players that are attacking a metropolis must travel a significant distance since they have to be from outside the range of vassal nodes that is 20% of the world around the metropolis. Presumably, the rewards are high enough to justify the work. However, if vassals could rebel then they could attack the nearby parent node with relative ease and stand to potentially gain much more if their node is able to advance while also getting all the siege rewards that are normally good enough to siege for.

It appears that vassal nodes may be very incentivized to attack the parent node relentlessly. Should a metropolis be faced with a potentially constant barrage of sieges from the many nodes under its control in order to be a metropolis? Perhaps if the vassals rebel and lose, then they are fully subjected to the parent for a period of time such as a month that rebellion cannot happen. Also, perhaps rebellions should be limited to to 1 rebellion per 1-3 months out of all vassals.

Note, rebellion battles may be difficult as the metropolis is the node with the most citizens. Rebellions may need to rely on the help of anyone else willing to join into the fight on their behalf. Or, perhaps rebellions should require multiple vassals to join together to create the siege.

Shifting gears here, consider what would happen if a level 2 node rebels against a metropolis and wins (perhaps it had help) and reduces the parent from level 6 to 5. In this case, the level 2 node cannot advance to 3 until the level 3 nodes around move to level 4; and, then the level 4 nodes cannot advance until the nearby level 5 node advances to level 6. So, if rebelling level 2, 3, or 4 node wins, then that node will have difficulty advancing if at all. It certainly does not mean that node can become a metropolis. This could be solved by restricting the rebelling node level to level 5; or, only allowing a node to rebel against nodes that are 1 level higher.

I think IS may have been trying to avoid the mess in the previous paragraph by blocking vassals from rebellion. Personally, I think it is a good idea to keep on hand in case it turns out that servers are too stable as the OP pointed out; or, if servers are having a problem with metropolis nodes banding together to keep all lower nodes down.

VmanGman

Noaani wrote: »

I'm not a fan of this idea.

Part of the idea of Ashes is that as the world changes, players are supposed to change with it. If you want to level up a node to a metropolis, but it is taken over and made a vassal of another node, then you lost, the world has now changed, and you are supposed to adapt to that changed world.

This could mean remaining in your original node under the understanding you are now essentially a subject of the parent node, it could mean moving to the parent node, or it could mean moving to a totally different node.

If there is a mechanism by which players can just siege their parent node (players initiate sieges, nodes don't), then there would be no reason to move on.

It would mean people would just pick a single node and stay put.

Very much not a fan.

@Noaani The problem with AoC’s current design is that a node can reach level 3 very early on (a few days) and then instantly vassal everyone else around it... then all those other nodes around are just stuck at a lower level until an outside force liberates them.

You talk about the idea for AoC being that the world changes, but you are arguing for a system that allows less change (with nodes being stuck under their parent node). If you want to make an argument for AoC being about change, then vassal nodes having the option to rebel is how you get more change... not the other way around.

Noaani

VmanGman wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I'm not a fan of this idea.

Part of the idea of Ashes is that as the world changes, players are supposed to change with it. If you want to level up a node to a metropolis, but it is taken over and made a vassal of another node, then you lost, the world has now changed, and you are supposed to adapt to that changed world.

This could mean remaining in your original node under the understanding you are now essentially a subject of the parent node, it could mean moving to the parent node, or it could mean moving to a totally different node.

If there is a mechanism by which players can just siege their parent node (players initiate sieges, nodes don't), then there would be no reason to move on.

It would mean people would just pick a single node and stay put.

Very much not a fan.

Noaani The problem with AoC’s current design is that a node can reach level 3 very early on (a few days) and then instantly vassal everyone else around it... then all those other nodes around are just stuck at a lower level until an outside force liberates them.

You talk about the idea for AoC being that the world changes, but you are arguing for a system that allows less change (with nodes being stuck under their parent node). If you want to make an argument for AoC being about change, then vassal nodes having the option to rebel is how you get more change... not the other way around.

I mean, if you consider the only change to be node state, then sure.

Thing is, player behavior changes are far more important and far more impactful.

Your node being made a vassal should change your behavior - either live as a subject of the parent node, move to the parent node or leave the area.

These are real changes (well, the first one isn't).

Staying put so that you can eventually siege your parent node isn't encouraging or facilitating player change - it is literally encouraging people to stay put and not change.

VmanGman

Noaani wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I'm not a fan of this idea.

Part of the idea of Ashes is that as the world changes, players are supposed to change with it. If you want to level up a node to a metropolis, but it is taken over and made a vassal of another node, then you lost, the world has now changed, and you are supposed to adapt to that changed world.

This could mean remaining in your original node under the understanding you are now essentially a subject of the parent node, it could mean moving to the parent node, or it could mean moving to a totally different node.

If there is a mechanism by which players can just siege their parent node (players initiate sieges, nodes don't), then there would be no reason to move on.

It would mean people would just pick a single node and stay put.

Very much not a fan.

Noaani The problem with AoC’s current design is that a node can reach level 3 very early on (a few days) and then instantly vassal everyone else around it... then all those other nodes around are just stuck at a lower level until an outside force liberates them.

You talk about the idea for AoC being that the world changes, but you are arguing for a system that allows less change (with nodes being stuck under their parent node). If you want to make an argument for AoC being about change, then vassal nodes having the option to rebel is how you get more change... not the other way around.

I mean, if you consider the only change to be node state, then sure.

Thing is, player behavior changes are far more important and far more impactful.

Your node being made a vassal should change your behavior - either live as a subject of the parent node, move to the parent node or leave the area.

These are real changes (well, the first one isn't).

Staying put so that you can eventually siege your parent node isn't encouraging or facilitating player change - it is literally encouraging people to stay put and not change.

I’m not sure if you fully read the post, but there are serious repercussions in the suggested system of a vassal node being able to siege its parent node. There is serious risk vs reward to that system and risk vs reward is THE main design pillar for AoC, much more so than players changing with world.

Noaani

VmanGman wrote: »

There is serious risk vs reward to that system and risk vs reward is THE main design pillar for AoC, much more so than players changing with world.

I would disagree with this assessment.

Risk vs reward is the 5th of five pillars that Intrepid talk about - hard to call it THE main design pillar.

The way nodes work (which includes the fact that players have a choice when their node becomes a vassal) touches on player interaction, player agency and reactive world - which are the second, third and fourth pillar Intrepid talk about.

You can't have five design pillars if you swap out everything to suit just one of them.

VmanGman

Noaani wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

There is serious risk vs reward to that system and risk vs reward is THE main design pillar for AoC, much more so than players changing with world.

I would disagree with this assessment.

Risk vs reward is the 5th of five pillars that Intrepid talk about - hard to call it THE main design pillar.

The way nodes work (which includes the fact that players have a choice when their node becomes a vassal) touches on player interaction, player agency and reactive world - which are the second, third and fourth pillar Intrepid talk about.

You can't have five design pillars if you swap out everything to suit just one of them.

The fact is that risk vs reward is a design pillar and the player having a choice when the their node becomes a vassal is not a design pillar. Risk vs reward also touches on player interaction, player agency, and reactive world.

I'm just saying that if we're talking about design pillars and ideas that AoC revolves around, then a vassal node being able to rebel against a parent node (with great consequences) lines up a lot more than a vassal being stuck there until who knows when.

Noaani

VmanGman wrote: »

The fact is that risk vs reward is a design pillar and the player having a choice when the their node becomes a vassal is not a design pillar.

The suggestion is not adding risk vs reward, it is adding a chance to have your node destroyed, which is risk vs reward, which is a design pillar.

Player choice of node home is not a design pillar, but it is a factor of a reactive world, which is a design pillar.

In both cases, there are mechanics at play that touch on design pillars. I'm not arguing that because the status quo works towards some design pillars it needs to be kept, I am saying that because the status quo works towards some design pillars you can't use the argument that the suggestion would work towards some design pillars.

VmanGman

@Noaani You started your first argument by explaining that the current node design is in line with AoC's idea and I'm just pointing out that having agency to create risk vs reward through vassal nodes attacking parent nodes is just as much in line with AoC's idea. If not more.

Edit: word

Noaani

VmanGman wrote: »

You started your first argument by explaining that the current node design is in line with AoC's idea and I'm just pointing out that having agency to create risk vs reward through vassal nodes attacking parent nodes is just as much in line with AoC's idea. If not more.

Edit: word

I'll try again.

Both alternatives under discussion here meet different aspects of the games design pillars.

Risk vs reward is also met in many, many other places. The reactive world aspect of the game is basically restricted to the node system.

The status quo is as it is in order to encourage players to move around to different nodes, as this is one of the two major catalysts for change.

Making this adjustment removes one of the two major avenues for change in the game world, leaving sieges as the only way for the world to realistically change if this went ahead.

Since there are already many other reasons for nodes to be sieged, the very slight increase that this would see in new sieges (and thus new change) would not be enough to counter the lack of player migration (and thus change) between different nodes.

If we assume that the suggestion at play here does indeed add risk (see below), then at best, what we are doing is taking one of the design pillars that has very few systems assisting in realizing it, gutting one of those systems and handing the remains to a pillar that has many, many systems in place to help realize it.

That just isn't a good swap.

Also, I would argue that this doesn't add any risk vs reward at all, it simply shifts it. As it stands now, you are putting yourself in a position of risk if you start working towards leveling a single node. There is reward in the potential for property value, and amenities that suit you - but there is risk in that your node may be made a vassal of another node, holding up it's progression.

So I absolutely wouldn't say that the suggestion is adding risk vs reward, it is simply moving it.

daveywavey

I like the idea. Currently, it feels a little too static and restrictive. History is littered with examples of rebel factions rising up to attack their rulers. Verra shouldn't be an exception.

It'd be interesting if a vassal siege didn't destroy the parent node entirely, but maybe just de-levelled it to their own level. That way, there'd be a race to earn xp to out-level each other.

Nepoke

@Noaani If I've understood you correctly, your main concern with the rebellion mechanic is that it could possibly incentivize citizens to never move, and ironically cause more stagnation than it resolves.

I think the core disagreement I have with this view is the concept of change in AoC as you see it.

You correctly identify that the two main driving forces of change are people moving about on their own will and people being forced to move because the node dies. But in my opinion one is much lesser than the other.

For a thought experiment, consider a player moving around in other MMOs. When a player decides to move his general hanging around spot from Stormwind to Ironforge, how much has the world changed? What about someone moving their house from one part of the continent to other in AA? I'd say very little. Only the local social context has changed and one area loses a small bit of services while another gains, but the rest of the world goes on.

Now consider if one day Stormwind just vanished off the map? What if one day the pirate town in AA would just sink? Now this to me feels like an actual change to the world, and is the thing that's revolutionary about Ashes. Not only has the actual geography of the world changed, but now the whole population of a node has to move instead of just individuals. I would favor any system that promotes more of this world level change over individual level change, if I had to choose. (With the caveat that it's not so frequent nothing ever gets built, thus the risks and cooldowns involved in my proposal.)

Finally, while I acknowledge that individuals moving around is more impactful in AoC compared to other MMOs, I'd also like to point out that the possibility of rebellion in no way prevents this. If a master crafter is dissatisfied with the resources their node has or the taxes levied on them, they can just leave the node and not care about staging a revolution. Similarly other fortune seekers are just as free to hop around Verra to find the most profitable location for their ventures. The ability to rebel would only apply those deeply attached to their node, and would rather risk for further gain than sit idly hoping someone else fixes their problem. As I understand, driving players to be attached to their nodes is the core principle of getting solo players invested into the social aspects of the game. Having a dead end state a player can't do anything about seems like a let down.

So in summary, how I see it is that a rebellion mechanic would increase the big scale world change while not really preventing the small scale change. Additionally it would give node citizens more agency over their own fate and promote more social interaction in the form of node politics, while also enriching player attachment to their nodes. I don't see how any of the core design pillars are violated with this proposal.

In any case thanks for the feedback. I've also read the other comments but decided Noaani's post was the one I wanted to address the most. I'm also surprised as this post got way more interaction than I expected and I'm hopeful it'll reach the devs for consideration instead of going directly into the trash.

Enigmatic Sage

sounds like treason to me, lol.

Noaani

Nepoke wrote: »

Additionally it would give node citizens more agency over their own fate

It only gives players in one specific more agency - and it removes it from others.

As the system stands now, if you are leveling a node, a big part of that is knowing that if you turn a node in to a vassal, then you have no real need to worry about that node any more. Altering that removes that aspect of player agency from the players in the larger node - and now they are essentially at the mercy of the many nodes they have as vassals.

Basically, this suggestion completely removes the ability for players of one node to effectively subjugate another node - which is a fairly massive chunk of player agency.

And that is the thing with player agency - it is a finite thing and so any time you are giving some to one group of players, you are taking it from another group.

Biccus

I hope you don’t mind me adding my thoughts on how to implement your proposed idea.
I am a huge fan of the risk vs reward systems I hope this game utilises. On the subject of vassal “rebellion” I believe the idea is great! Nobody should ever enjoy living under the rule of another indefinitely.
I’ve been wracking my brain as to a suitable risk vs reward for vassals attacking their Lord and here is my ideas;
The reward: a vassal that successfully sieges their Lord city should absorb anywhere up to 50% of the current node xp towards the next level node (along with the usual looting rights which may or may not extend to freehold looting)
Thoughts: If the initiating vassal gains extra node xp that also causes a risk for any other node with the COI from just banding together to take down the highest level node whenever they want.
The risk: a vassal node that is unsuccessful in sieging their Lord city should be blocked from using that cities buildings for a span of time relative to the level of node being sieged. Potentially also add a resource debt for any buildings destroyed or damaged.
Thoughts: my biggest fear of vassal sieges is the abuse of having them siege a Lord city just to reset the grace period between sieges. I think locking then out of city buildings would be able to prevent that from happening. I also think it could be a good option to let the vassals pick whether to attack or defend

Nepoke

@Noaani I dunno, what you're describing is literally the opposite of player agency. The ability to "effectively subjugate another node" can be just restated as the ability to "remove the agency of the other node." While to a degree, player agency can be a zero sum game, there are some options that just reduce agency for everyone involved. The current system has objectively less agency than the one I'm proposing. Allowing rebellion would take a small bit of agency from the parent node and give a large chunk of it to the vassals.

Additionally the vassalization system as it is doesn't involve much agency to begin with. The only way to vassalize something is to try to outgrow other nodes the best you can. Players don't get to choose who they vassalize and the vassalized party never gets a chance to defy the vassalization. I can't quite understand how you see the current system having more play agency than the proposed one.

@Biccus I personally like the idea of stealing node xp, as well as the idea of deleveling the parent node proposed earlier in the thread, but I'm not sure how viable they are development cost wise. My idea is just an example made out of the building blocks that are already within the game. I can't personally advocate for additional functionalities that won't be used by anything else than the rebellion mechanic. But yeah stealing xp would be more interesting than the all or nothing design if it is added to the game.

As for abuse potential, I think it's limited due to the fact it uses the same siege scroll and siege resolution as a regular siege. The attacker has to pay the cost of the expensive siege scroll (and other possible repercussions.) The defender can't "fake siege" itself through vassals because, well, anyone can join that siege and raze your node. You just gave them a free opportunity. But I guess I should have made it clear that the rebellion I propose follows the same grace period rules as normal sieges. No rebellion during the grace period.

Noaani

Nepoke wrote: »

Noaani I dunno, what you're describing is literally the opposite of player agency.

Player agency is a term that is almost impossible to define, as there is no "official" definition for it, and it does mean different things to different people.

However, the simplest definition that I have seen that actually works is that player agency is the ability for players that are playing the game to affect the game - whether the story or the world.

You can't make the claim that me picking a node next to yours, getting a load of friends in to help, leveling that node and thus making your node a vassal is anything other than player agency.

Since the story and the world of Ashes are completely defined by players, any player agency you give to one group - any ability to affect the world you give them - you are inherently taking from another group. You are right that player agency can be a zero sum thing in some games, but not in Ashes - as the level of over all player agency is fairly well defined already.

Also, we do have a choice as to which nodes we make vassals, we make that decision when we pick which node we are going to level up.

To be clear, I am not against the idea of there being a mechanism for revolt or rebellion between vassals and their parent, I am simply against this suggested implementation of it. Any such mechanism needs to take in to account the need the games design has for players to move around, and the desire the games design sets out for players around a metropolis node to all essentially work together (there is a reason metropolis nodes can send aid to vassals - and it isn't because they are supposed to be enemies).

At the very least, there should be specific criteria that the vassal node needs to meet - or more specifically that the parent node needs to fail to meet - before something like this could happen. This could be as simple as the vassal node "losing" when attacked in a monster coin event - the parent node didn't help out enough, and so the game first gives the parent node a window in which to aid in rebuilding the vassal, and if not rebuilt in that time gives the vassal a window in which to rebel.

This I am ok with, because it doesn't allow players to plan on rebelling as soon as their node becomes a vassal - which in turn means players in that node still have that same choice of staying as a subject, moving to the parent or moving out all together.

Child Item