Destruction of nodes.

What would incentivize a player to keep playing after their node is destroyed; other than revenge? I mean if you lose so much stuff even your housing and a % of things in the bank. I personally worry that a lot of players will be really into the node leveling aspect, but completely be turned off when it is conquered and they lose a lot of things. I wonder what would give them a reason to keep playing?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Nagash

Thats a main part of the game (the ever-changing world) so if people don't like it then ashes may not be the game for them

tautau

It will certainly be a strong motivation to defend your node with all you can, including bringing all your friends to help. I get the impression that to successfully siege a node with a determined defense will be a major undertaking.

FastLoaf

I think that is true, it may not be the game for them. But I wonder if the Devs have thought about this. The driving point they often talk about is the node leveling system, but they don't really talk about what a players options are if it all come crumbling down. Do players just migrate to another node, do they have to siege every node around them to destroy them to be able to level theirs back up again? Do the Devs have plans of what to do if a metropolis is taken down and a huge amount of the players quite because they don't have access to the things they worked for? I am not saying that this should not be a part of the game, but it might be a good idea to give people a reason to keep going. In real life we have survival a push to constantly keep going when things are lost, I just hope that there is something to help players feel like they are not losing so much that there is no reason to play anymore.

Dreoh

If they didn't know about the mechanic then sure they'd be pissed.
But people are generally more accepting of things like this when they know it's a possibility beforehand.

Furthermore, the victories, progress and such mean more when you have things to lose.

That aside, I'm pretty sure you don't actually lose that much personally when a node is destroyed.
You lose access to the crafting stations and stuff the node had but you keep your stuff. You even keep the layout of your house for you to just spawn back in when you get it back.

Nagash

The game is a true living world and it was sold on that so the devs know what they are doing. Nodes will rise and fall in ashes its just a matter of gameplay and if people find that bad then that's up to them.

tautau

Nodes can have treaties, formal and informal, with other nodes. I expect that mayors of area nodes will work out agreements to defend each other, when possible. There will probably be similar agreements between the guilds in each node and guilds between nearby nodes as well as between the mayors and the guilds...all of which will strengthen the defense of each node in the agreements.

In addition, I wouldn't be surprised if the more aggressive guilds tended to gravitate towards military nodes to get the PvP benefits from those nodes. So the big military nodes may want to protect the nearby scientific, divine and economic nodes which all provide benefits to the military node in the middle of them. So what may happen is the big PvP military nodes go after each other first.

But what do you think @FastLoaf ? I am just speculating.

Recluse74

People will definitely quit this game, and Node destruction may be one of those reasons. But, with Node destruction comes Node creation, and through this creation a whole new line of content opens up. Which is an awesome part of the game to many.

FastLoaf

@tautau I think that a lot of the early player base will be effected by losses more than anyone realizes, hopefully it wont cut into player numbers too much.

As for Alliances, If I understand this correctly guilds are separate from node citizenship. This means a large guild could decide a central node to level and focus on. Then the surrounding nodes taken over by different guild members via the mayoral system and making a guild run kingdom. This would allow them to muster forces quicker, pass treaties more effectively and quickly, have safer trade routs allowing them to distribute resources more effectively. They would probably actually need some guild members to be very focused on the logistics of their kingdom. This would be even more powerful if the guild owns both a metropolis and one of the five castles in the world.

I see a large guild, probably a streamers guild doing this first and then other large guilds following the formula and making several large kingdoms on the map. Then smaller kingdoms banning together to try and not get gobbles up by the larger ones influence or power. Kind of like medieval Europe.

The beauty and scary truth about the mayoral system is that is will allow a guild to take over a node with no military or siege. Economic nodes are especially susceptible to large guilds sending a member in with a lot of gold and just out bidding everyone who is actually local. In the long term I see less and less sieges and more mayoral takeovers, mostly because an already established city is way more useful and profitable.

This train of thought is dependent on if guild members can be citizens of different nodes. I have not seen information to the contrary.

I guess I just really hope a lot of players stick around long enough to see the world get beyond its chaotic beginnings.

Tyranthraxus

Destruction isn't necessarily TOTAL DESTRUCTION; Through a siege, a Node may simply be de-levelled.

Pre-launch here, yours truly has found that many players feel that they'll be settling down in a Node for a very long time, possibly for the life of the game. However, the more of the mechanics I've learned, the more it looks like the average player may change Nodes every so many months.

It kind of feels like the better question is: "Why would you quit just because your first Node was destroyed?"

tautau

I'm very interested in the node systems. @FastLoaf - you hit it on the head perfectly about the interactions between guilds and various nodes. Scientific (elections) and Economic (most cash) nodes will be easier to secure control of with Divine (quests) not far behind. The beauty of the different ways to become mayor (brilliant dev concept) is the Military mayor. An enemy guild just has to be able to win the PVP contests to undermine the entire Empire's structure, right? The Military node 1 on 1 PvP arena is going to be a lot of fun to watch, I love it!

@Tyranthraxus I believe that the idea used to be that a node defeated in a siege decreased by one level, but that is different now. A node which loses to the attacker in a siege now goes down to Wilderness! So any city level adjacent nodes can now race to become the new Metropolis. Check the wiki, of course, to make sure that I am correct here.

I agree that citizens should hopefully be tough enough to push through the adversity of losing a node and keep playing for the long game. I would submit that any player who quit because their node lost a battle is the kind of person who is going to quit over SOMETHING pretty soon anyway, so that kind of player we really don't need, IMHO.

Saedu

If your node gets destroyed I don't think most people will work to build it up again. They will probably move into other more established nodes...

View it as an opportunity for a new beginning and a change of scenery, not the end of fun in the game.

But yea, people will quit the game over this for sure. Oh well

FastLoaf

@tautau I was thinking about the military battleroyal and I can see a guild entering a lot of people into it and working together as much as possible until only guild members are left. I think the best way to help combat this (although not totally possible to stop) is to make sure that everyone looks the same and has no identifiers for the battleroyal. I love the idea of kingdoms rising and then falling because some group undermines the authority, or there is a civil war. I also wonder if people will use the marriage mechanic to seal treaties.

maouw

This a really good question to consider from a Player Experience perspective, and I think it's going to be a HUGE issue because the gaming community in general has been babied.

What ways can we help players cope with loss, and encourage them to pick up the pieces and go again?

Nagash

maouw wrote: »

This a really good question to consider from a Player Experience perspective, and I think it's going to be a HUGE issue because the gaming community in general has been babied.

What ways can we help players cope with loss, and encourage them to pick up the pieces and go again?

there are two types of node player

1. why would you burn down my home after so much work, you monster!

2. blood for the blood god skulls for the skull throne let Verra burn!

BigRamble

Perhaps a post node destruction quest could spawn for dispossessed citizens, ideally a fast paced one, that can distract and lead a player to other opportunities before the loss fully sets in.

McShave

Nagash wrote: »

so if people don't like it then ashes may not be the game for them

@Nagash

You really got to stop saying this, my guy. I'm not sure if it's you every time, but I read this a lot. let's try to be a little more inclusive, help new people adjust, eh?

McShave

Tyranthraxus wrote: »

Destruction isn't necessarily TOTAL DESTRUCTION; Through a siege, a Node may simply be de-levelled.

If a Node loses a siege, it goes to level 0 and is basically destroyed. A citizen of that node keeps some of the stuff from the bank, and the layout of their house and/ or freehold, but the node is gone.

Bricktop

McShave wrote: »

Nagash wrote: »

so if people don't like it then ashes may not be the game for them

@Nagash

You really got to stop saying this, my guy. I'm not sure if it's you every time, but I read this a lot. let's try to be a little more inclusive, help new people adjust, eh?

No no, we should make sure people are completely aware of the type of game they are getting into. Why would we want to cater to a player if they are gonna rage quit the first time their node is destroyed and they lose a portion of their banked materials? Isn't node sieging going to be a VERY large part of the game considering it's how you unlock new PvE content in the world?

It's not going to be a matter of "If" your node is going to be destroyed, it's a matter of "When" chances are. If people quit the game over that, this game isn't exactly built for them is it?

McShave

Bricktop wrote: »

No no, we should make sure people are completely aware of the type of game they are getting into. Why would we want to cater to a player if they are gonna rage quit the first time their node is destroyed and they lose a portion of their banked materials? Isn't node sieging going to be a VERY large part of the game considering it's how you unlock new PvE content in the world?

It's not going to be a matter of "If" your node is going to be destroyed, it's a matter of "When" chances are. If people quit the game over that, this game isn't exactly built for them is it?

Yes, i understand it is good to educate people. but saying "go home, we don't want you here" just doesn't sit right with me.

Nagash

McShave wrote: »

Nagash wrote: »

so if people don't like it then ashes may not be the game for them

@Nagash

You really got to stop saying this, my guy. I'm not sure if it's you every time, but I read this a lot. let's try to be a little more inclusive, help new people adjust, eh?

I understand what you been but I'm sticking to my point that if people find ashes, not to their taste then they should not force themselves to play. An example I suck at platformers so when I play one and I complain that it's too hard or that there is a mechanic that I don't like and I demand that the game should change to fit me then that's my fault and not the games. The same is said of ashes. Some of the mechanics in ashes will not be for everyone and that's fine as some games are just not for everyone some games have a niche and we should accept that.

Child Item