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

Khronus

Bricktop wrote: »

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?

I'm sorry but I may have missed the part where anyone was catering to players who will just rage quit? He was asking for the phrase "maybe this isn't the game for you" (which indeed is used too much on these forums) to be used less in order to include more players to the game. Helping to build the community up is what Intrepid has asked of us. We do want everyone to know exactly what this game will be but there are better ways than "go away if you don't like it".

@FastLoaf this style of game is fun for a number of reasons. Ashes of Creation = from the ashes of destruction, we will create. Revenge is a given. Destroy a guilds area and naturally they will spend more time rebuilding to get revenge. I am assuming you mean the smaller groups or even solo players. In this case, smaller groups and solo players at that point in time can decide to move to a new area, go across the continent, join a new group, merge into the successful group and so much more. Yeah, some stuff got destroyed or stolen but we will still have the essentials to be able to make other choices.

If you look at games like Rust or Conan Exiles. People are relentless. You lose EVERYTHING and become naked when you get wiped out. In Rust there are weekly, bi-weekly and monthly wipes. Players look forward to wipe days to start fresh and go from naked to AK asap. I don't see AOC being nearly as bad as Rust in terms of losses.

@maouw The gaming community absolutely has been babied. I'm really hoping individual banked loot will be untouched to prevent any sort of total loss. I haven't done much research in this area.

akabear

From the wiki

A portion of all Materials (crafting components) and Gatherables that were stored in the destroyed node will become lootable to the victors of the siege as spoils of war.[119][120][121]

This includes gatherables and processed goods that were stored in in-node housing and apartment storage chests. These do not become lootable if the node survives the siege- even if the housing buildings are destroyed or damaged during the siege.[119]

Players are prohibited from moving goods out of depositories within the node following a siege declaration against that node

Impact on player housing
Player housing designs and decorations are retained and can be placed again later if the housing is destroyed during a node siege.[130][131]

Blueprints are mailed to the player to utilize for future placement.[27]
Destroyed freeholds are subject to material loss.[27]
Certificates will track major milestones (such as Furnaces and Homesteads, for example).[130][131]
A possible design idea is for items such as furnishings to be boxed in crates that are accessible inside the new home

Atama

Saedu wrote: »

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

This is my feeling. It would suck, sure, but it's not permadeath. Your character doesn't lose all of their stuff and drop down to level 1. Even your freehold gets packed up to be redeployed later. It's a setback but it's not the end of the world. You might even be more incentivized because now you want revenge against the scum that destroyed your home, and so will hundreds of other people.

Getting your base blown up was part of the game when I played Star Wars Galaxies. It sucked because it took a lot of investments to build it, and it really sucked when you and some allies did all you could to protect it, but couldn't stop the enemy. But it is SOOOO SWEET when you blow up the enemy's base.

I remember we got so angry on my server that my Player Association (the really stupid thing that they called guilds, that was an in-game label, it made no damn sense) joined with other PAs and built a ton of bases on the planet Lok. Dozens of them, and they formed a giant Imperial symbol from above. It was a middle finger to the Rebels and dared them to blow them up. I am pretty sure that was too much for them. Ah, I'm telling you, it's those losses that can somehow make the game more fun in the end.

maouw

Do you think it would help if you give players who experience loss, something they can ACTIVELY do after loss to recoup a portion of their losses?

This is basically equivalent to punishing rage quitting, since you lose more by ragequitting.
Is that weird?

Noaani

Bricktop wrote: »

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.

See, I agree with this.

There are some things the game could do to make some situations better, but at the end of it, this game is about losing things fairly often.

If a player is absolutely against the idea of losing their node at all, then Ashes isn't the game for them.

Okeydoke

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 literally just said this in another thread lol. I don't mean to be non inclusive saying it. It's just the truth. The game, quite literally, is not going to be for everyone. That goes for everything, everywhere, ever. Baseball is not for me. Neither are mushrooms. And if something has mushrooms inside of it, I am very appreciative of the cook letting me know beforehand.

But the more the merrier, I'm not trying to turn anyone off the game. Everyone should give it a try. It's gonna be absolutely epic.

Edit: And in many of my posts where I state that the game isn't going to be for everyone, I go on to explain how it might actually be the game for some people who might think it's not their cup of tea.

Edit 2: Pve players are more than happy to let us pvp players know that X game is not for us. And they're willing to actively vouch for and work towards neutering pvp games. It's all puppy dogs kitty cats and inclusivity until it goes against something in your own agenda.

tautau

So it will make sense to have several alts and to split your valuables between them, right? Only one character per account can be a CITIZEN, but all your characters have warehouses. If you are saving up mats for crafting, don't keep them all in the apartment or freehold of your main, spread them out. So the players who "I lost everything, gonna RAGE Quit' are also the dumber players. Web based Darwinism, if you want to call it that.

It is like your personal investment portfolio, you diversify it to decrease the risk.

If you are able and willing to have more than one account, it is even easier to diversify.

akabear

If I recall correctly, in L2 after a few updates they brought in a limited number of clan halls.
When the update became live, multiple clans set their eyes on particular halls in certain towns and it was a race to outbid for those halls. Some clans were successful to get a hall, some a second choice hall and some were utterly outbid.

Then came a new update with clan halls in a different town.. with, I think a re-set of current halls.

There was no outrage on the forums, it was accepted as that was how it was, and the same race again to bid for a clan hall within the expanded realm of clan halls.

Second time round, our clan got a clan hall in a location that was more useful than the previous, so we were all pleased!

My gut feeling is that, as others have stated, if it is all clear and transparent, and a little dependant your own outlook and expectations as it may end up as opportunity rather than loss.

Ramirez

If people are used with games like Eve, Albion, Rust, and go with the mindset that everything they own Isn t permanent except your currancy , now people that Isn t used to love is other story...

Noaani

Ramirez wrote: »

If people are used with games like Eve, Albion, Rust, and go with the mindset that everything they own Isn t permanent except maybe your currancy they Will be find, how people that Isn t used to love is other story...

Some people will go in to the game with this mindset - but that is the same group of players those games are aimed at.

Ashes is aiming at a larger player base. It wants those PvP players, but it also wants PvE players - as long as they are ok with some PvP.

These people will not go in to the game with this mindset, and most of them will not shift towards having it either. Those players will look at Ashes as they look at all MMO's. The world is persistent, so the value of their character is the sum total of the wealth they have gathered.

While there needs to be an acceptance of loss in Ashes - without a doubt - this is not and should not be on par with a non-MMO survival game like Rust, a niche PvP only game like Albion, or an MMO with PvP battles so infrequent they each get their own name.

Enigmatic Sage

rebuild the node or move in to a new one. It's how the game goes.

Percimes

Noaani wrote: »

These people will not go in to the game with this mindset, and most of them will not shift towards having it either. Those players will look at Ashes as they look at all MMO's. The world is persistent, so the value of their character is the sum total of the wealth they have gathered.

While there needs to be an acceptance of loss in Ashes - without a doubt - this is not and should not be on par with a non-MMO survival game like Rust, a niche PvP only game like Albion, or an MMO with PvP battles so infrequent they each get their own name.

How would you expect the players with this mindset fair/enjoy a game in which the loses were the same whether through PvE or PvP? Meaning, the penalties from a death were the same no matter what killed you. Same XPs dept, same material carried lost, suffering the same debuffs, etc. What if mobs could also initiate a siege and even destroyed your node instead of being passive in their hole waiting to be killed? It wouldn't be on par with survival games but the threat would always be present. Players are just mobs with weird aggro and more advanced AI in this scenario.

I don't expect this from AoC, but I would love a game where the mobs were in control of the world at launch, the players coming as explorers/conquerors and the mobs always trying to push back to reclaim their territory. Heck, some factions could instead want to form alliances with the players. Kind of like a slow pace Civilization/MMO hybrid.

Dreoh

Percimes wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

These people will not go in to the game with this mindset, and most of them will not shift towards having it either. Those players will look at Ashes as they look at all MMO's. The world is persistent, so the value of their character is the sum total of the wealth they have gathered.

While there needs to be an acceptance of loss in Ashes - without a doubt - this is not and should not be on par with a non-MMO survival game like Rust, a niche PvP only game like Albion, or an MMO with PvP battles so infrequent they each get their own name.

How would you expect the players with this mindset fair/enjoy a game in which the loses were the same whether through PvE or PvP? Meaning, the penalties from a death were the same no matter what killed you. Same XPs dept, same material carried lost, suffering the same debuffs, etc. What if mobs could also initiate a siege and even destroyed your node instead of being passive in their hole waiting to be killed? It wouldn't be on par with survival games but the threat would always be present. Players are just mobs with weird aggro and more advanced AI in this scenario.

I don't expect this from AoC, but I would love a game where the mobs were in control of the world at launch, the players coming as explorers/conquerors and the mobs always trying to push back to reclaim their territory. Heck, some factions could instead want to form alliances with the players. Kind of like a slow pace Civilization/MMO hybrid.

To add further on this, this argument from @Noaani is a bad faith argument because how can you expect innovation and change in gaming if you just cater to "those people/players".

They should make the game they want to make, it's on "those players" to realize not every game is WoW.

Noaani

Dreoh wrote: »

They should make the game they want to make, it's on "those players" to realize not every game is WoW.

I don't think you nor Percimes got my point.

I thought I was being very clear in stating that the games used as an example were simply not appropriate as games to compare to this aspect of Ashes.

I even gave my exact reasons for each game as to why it was not appropriate to compare to these aspects of Ashes.

I did not, have never and will never suggest that these aspects of Ashes should be altered.

bloodprophet

Seen the combat tracker threads?

Noaani

bloodprophet wrote: »

Seen the combat tracker threads?

I haven't.

Where are they? I have thoughts I'd like to share on the matter.

Percimes

Dreoh wrote: »

Percimes wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

These people will not go in to the game with this mindset, and most of them will not shift towards having it either. Those players will look at Ashes as they look at all MMO's. The world is persistent, so the value of their character is the sum total of the wealth they have gathered.

While there needs to be an acceptance of loss in Ashes - without a doubt - this is not and should not be on par with a non-MMO survival game like Rust, a niche PvP only game like Albion, or an MMO with PvP battles so infrequent they each get their own name.

How would you expect the players with this mindset fair/enjoy a game in which the loses were the same whether through PvE or PvP? Meaning, the penalties from a death were the same no matter what killed you. Same XPs dept, same material carried lost, suffering the same debuffs, etc. What if mobs could also initiate a siege and even destroyed your node instead of being passive in their hole waiting to be killed? It wouldn't be on par with survival games but the threat would always be present. Players are just mobs with weird aggro and more advanced AI in this scenario.

I don't expect this from AoC, but I would love a game where the mobs were in control of the world at launch, the players coming as explorers/conquerors and the mobs always trying to push back to reclaim their territory. Heck, some factions could instead want to form alliances with the players. Kind of like a slow pace Civilization/MMO hybrid.

To add further on this, this argument from @Noaani is a bad faith argument because how can you expect innovation and change in gaming if you just cater to "those people/players".

They should make the game they want to make, it's on "those players" to realize not every game is WoW.

I don't think it's in bad faith. There is a reason we've seen so many WoW clones over the years, I think many developers have tried to tap into that type of player base because they thought or hoped it would bring success to their games. I don't think Ashes has them as a main target, it's looking like the game will be its own thing.

@Noaani My questions are more hypothetical in nature, not really applicable to Ashes. How would very PvE-focused players react to a game in which there wasn't really a big difference between the PvE experience and PvP one? Same challenges, same gains, same loses whether you fight against other players or mobs. I don't think we're there yet on technical side of things, but, well, once we are, what then?

I guess I should ask the same to everyone. What will happen when it's possible to have the same kind of gameplay in PvE and PvP? I'm not suggesting any mobs should be able to pass a Turing test, group with players and not being recognized, only having AI with enough complexity to emulate a semi-organized group of players during fights. Enough complexity for mobs factions to have their own agendas and be on the offensive instead of waiting in their dens and lairs. A game in a virtual world instead of a game world..?

Asgerr

Percimes wrote: »

I don't expect this from AoC, but I would love a game where the mobs were in control of the world at launch, the players coming as explorers/conquerors and the mobs always trying to push back to reclaim their territory. Heck, some factions could instead want to form alliances with the players. Kind of like a slow pace Civilization/MMO hybrid.

@Percimes
Well, there will be Monster Coin events - these are monster attacks on a node.
Players will need to defend their node or risk some of the services and buildings going offline for a period of time, effectively crippling the node's functions. (There will be no node destruction with this).

Also some players who'll have earned Monster Coins as drops from certain monsters/dungeons/raids, can transform into a monster and join the attack. This allows for Node vs Node content outside of Node Sieges.

Other events may also cause natural disasters that will affect the node's ability to function at full efficiency.

Also, at launch, castles will be guarded by monsters and NPCs and players will need to siege and assault them to gain control of them. From then on, it will pass from player to player, unless the castle is abandoned somehow (unsure how that would occur).

Child Item