8 reasons why players should drop their equipment in sieges/battles

Many are against the idea of there being any penalty to sieges. You might be wondering why I might be behind such an idea. Let me explain firstly, that I do not support exp loss or corruption mechanics to exist in sieges upon death. Meaning, I do not support that if you die, you go negative with exp (which leads to a reduction in overall stats) and I do not support that if you kill someone during a siege, your corruption level will increase (which leads to ostracization as well as increased chance of dropping loot).

After reading the Ashes of Creation vigorously, I have come to the following idea. That during sieges, players drop the entirety of their loot.

You see I have an idea. Instead of players losing their personal loot that they worked for, players will lose loot that wasn't even theirs to begin with. It will be equipment given to them by the defenders, or the attackers of a siege.

So if I am mayor or guild leader, I have to fund my soldiers (players/you) with base equipment... weapons, armor, the whole lot. This can be incredibly high quality armor or low quality depending on the wealth of a guild/node. It is entirely their choice depending on how well they want their army to perform in combat.

(Know that I am receptive to any feedback.)

(Beware! Essay ahead!)

This would do the following:

(1) Increasing demand of artisans and resources. Also is a catalyst for trade caravans. As guilds and nodes require more equipment for their soldiers, it will also increase the demand of the resources needed to make them, and also increase the demand of the artisan occupation's related to it. For instance if a guild lost a battle, losing tons of equipment, they will need more. Assuming they have wealth left in the bank, they will issue out contracts to people who make those equipment, like blacksmiths, tanners, etc. It will also motivate traders to go out to farther nodes to make money by selling the materials that are needed, thus increasing the trade overall within the server.

(2) Migration. As a result of wars affecting nodes/guilds, people will be motivated to leave the land they are familiar with to other places in the server that aren't plagued with war. Meaning wars will affect the players decision to stay within the ZOI (zone of influence) of a node or a castle since there will be higher taxes, which affect prices of the general market. Which means that wars cause others to want to move because of the unhealthy circumstances war causes. You might be wondering why I want this? Well simply because war shouldn't just be a matter of excitement for those participating, but also a negative to the node, and the people who are involved. Migrating is also a healthy thing for a server, as certain parts of the map are more experienced instead of just one area, making wars a large event not just within that area, but the surrounding nodes as well as the server.

(3) Declaring war is costly. Instead of just having a scroll which allows you to declare war and having met the guild level to do so, you will also need a lot of money to fund people participating in it. You will also sacrifice the wellbeing of the realm that you rule over as mayor, or monarch in making the decision to go to war. Do I want to raise the taxes of my realm in order to fund the war? Or do I want peace and prosperity? It is not as simple as, "Nice! We can go to war for fun!" Instead there are actual consequences to the choice.

(4) Incentivize guild uniforms. Guild officials as well as node mayors will have to make a standard equipment set for their soldiers. Sick right? Players can enter sieges and battlefields with all the same uniforms of the guild they are a part of. If you are involved in a siege, you can see two opposing armies in uniforms of their side, vs your own. Naturally, intrepid plans to add some customization abilities to armor such as dyes to further flesh it out, or maybe the ability to even put the guild insignia on it. Further enhancing the cinematic effect. Moreover, making guild uniforms would make this game infinitely more entertaining, not even just in sieges. Your guild will have a sense of identity. The guilds with the coolest armors will be the most joined, and people will have a sense of belonging in their guild.

(5) Discipline within guilds. If players drop guild/node funded loot, then guilds will take war very seriously. They might condemn players who blindly rush into the enemy thus, losing the precious money it took to fund it all. Player who act stupidly, will not be viewed lightly as they are simply draining the resources of the guild they are apart of. Guild leaders will actually use strategy to win since there is money on the table if they lost. Meaning, war will be war, not a mosh pit of frenzied players, but orderly, and tactical. The cost is not just the prize of whatever ownership of a node/castle is lost, but also the personal funds of the people that occupy it.

(6) It is easier to distinguish between friend and foe. If allies use the same equipment as you, then it is easy to tell who is your friend, and who is an enemy during battle. In alpha one, there were many complaints about the name-plates being disorienting. Well this would help alleviate the issue of being unable to tell who is who.

[Counter argument] : Allies and enemies can just use their guild insignia to differentiate between friend and foe.

Well, no. Because then we'd have to look at the guild insignia above every player to tell which are friends and which aren't, which would be very distracting. Plus they will be very tiny, so how can we tell who is friend and enemy?

[Counter] : We can just outline enemies in red.

Yes we could. But don't you think using armor to tell who is friend and foe in a battle is more exciting? Moreover, the red outline may have some detriment to player experience during these sieges, as there will be about 250 v 250 sieges. It is an extra component our computers will have to load in among all the effects of combat of so many players. I can see how the red outline may be necessary, but why not improve it even further with this?

(7) It would make use of the taxation system. Right now, tax is only being used for infrastructure purposes (Yes it is in alpha 2 development, but where else would taxes come into play? It seems like taxes have a small reason to exist in ashes of creation). If you want to declare war, the officials of a guild might have to put up a higher tax in order to fund the equipment of the people fighting in battle. I mean where else would taxes be used besides building infrastructure? Including a mechanic where players drop loot (tax funded loot) during battle, would cause the war efforts, to directly correlate with the economy of the two nodes involved. Meaning if a war is current between two nodes, the wellbeing of the economy would crumble. An idea that I personally appreciate, as wars would have an impact on more than just the level of a node, but also the economy of that zone of influence as well.

(8) Money opportunities in wars increases PvP player base. Since guilds might make their own equipment to give to their members, it would naturally, give players some motivation to join guilds. Moreover as a result of the fact that players now drop loot from death in battle, there is wealth to be found in participating in battles and sieges. Besides money, what gets people to participate in wars? Nothing besides the pride and reputation in their guild, and just the excitement of it. The victors of either side, would not only win the regular toils of their victory, but battles become an opportunity for money as well. Soldiers of any side after victory, can loot the bodies of the dead on the battlefield, and sell them, or even dismantle the equipment themselves into raw materials to sell, or to craft with. Hell, even random people not even participating can acquire loot off the field, which would only contribute to the overall immersion of the game. We can even create the term, 'looters' since there will be bound to be players who follow battles just to steal some equipment to steal after it's done.

Any feedback is welcome, because I do want to know if what I am proposing is completely viable. Thanks for reading.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

FatWalrusJuices

JustVine wrote: »

Your getting terminology and analogies confused.

It is a regressive 'tax' on smaller guilds/coalitions because you now both require a higher threshold for committing to war and defending. Which is less of a problem for large guilds. Gear drop in Siege also significantly increases risk (the regressive 'tax' part) for coalitions and requires heavier defense infrastructure from them to make up for the logistical difference. So not only do they struggle to keep the node/castle, coalitions also are more likely to be the types of nodes people are now ok with overthrowing. A huge windfall for big guilds a huge blow for smaller guild and node coalitions.

You vastly underestimate large conglomerates ability to suffocate competition for their shared benefit. Ever heard of an Oligopoly? The same thing can easily happen in ashes if you are too regressive about competition. I for one would hate AoC to become equivalent to choosing between Comcast Spectrum, Charter, Roadrunner or AT&T (and yes several of those things are under the same company now. That's the point of the metaphor.) Maybe it wouldn't cause Oligopoly immediately but give it a year or two and it's far more likely to happen than if we simply didn't go with your proposal.

Also as a side crtique (though it relates back to my first point,) you are underestimating the value of node infrastructure. Economy and trades are power. Infrastructure is an efficiency bonus and a boost to income generation for crafting citizens if the devs built correctly. Defense should be only a part of the picture when a Mayor is deciding taxation and yet another reason I disagree with your reasoning.

You say a bunch of things about how 'the little guy will be encouraged to gave coalitions' and 'they will fight if they are unhappy.' But you again aren't paying attention to economics and risk vs reward. If people don't like the way a node is ruled in your proposed system it is less COSTLY to just MOVE NODES. And they will move. Until more and more of the map is guild oligopoly only and the game is miserable unless your in a big guild and sieges are rare.

You should post your views on the reddit post I made, your points are valid and should be more known.

Noaani

WalrusMan wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

So, the point being made in the OP is in regards to who is paying the cost for a siege.

I mean, there has to be a cap on what the total cost is, I think we can all agree on that.

The OP for some reason thinks this cost should be shouldered by the participants, as opposed to the organizers.

All this will do is discourage people not directly involved in organizing a siege to just not participate. This doesnt seem like a good idea.

No not the individuals. Just the guilds directly at war with one another.

If gear can drop in a siege as you suggest, and I join that siege, then my gear can drop.

I fail to see how this is anything other than the cost being on me, and not on a guild.

Asraiel

Node sieges are a mechanic that forces pve players to do pvp however the vast majority of mmo-rpg players are pve players and not pvp players now adding a system that makes them loose their stuff if they decide to participate in defending their home and their goods.

simply said pissing of players from the game itself

doesnt seem to be a good idea. shure pvp players would love it somehow but there are many good statements not to do such a thing. major part, there aint a lot of full loot pvp players in MMO-RPG and while the winner is happy the looser might quit the game as seen in other games that support such a system. if a players dedicates several 100 hours in collecting and crafting their gear they are not pleased to see it vanish in a few seconds. but if your investet that amount of time into a gear you want to wear it and not lock away somewhere and if pve players allredy get forced to do pvp wy not give them an advatage in gear stats cause they might not be so used to pvp and so their skill rotarts and playstyle demands better stats to be equal to less geared pvp players.

i never heard that sieges in any way build up corruption, since the siege zone is set to pvp and no corruption is gained. might re read the wiki https://ashesofcreation.wiki/PvP

corruptiuon is only gained by pking in non pvp zones and only if the attacked doesnt fight back. however once you are corrupt only other corrupt pks or hunter kills doesnt increse the coruption malus

Dygz

Guild v Guild is really more Castle Siege than Node Siege.
But, even then, loot should not drop during Castle Siege's either.

Asraiel

i hate it allredy that in case of a loss all storrages will be looteble in the node itself dont remember if full content is lootebl'e but i thought some of the items stored might not be

but giving out quests and such would maybe a get the particiators exited no matter the outcome of the siege

Dargron

I'm not sure I understand this idea or it's purpose. As far as I can tell, it doesn't add anything that the current proposed siege mechanics won't already achieve organically.

Sieges will presumably be a big deal for everyone who has chosen to live within the affected node. A loss means a downgrade to your node and potential for pillagers to rampage through your home, looting everything you have worked hard for. Residents of a node will already have ample motivation to be involved and do their part.

Crafters would already be in high demand. Equipment might not drop, but it presumably will still wear down. Everyone planning to be involved would want to employ crafters to have all their gear in top shape before a siege begins, to avoid it breaking on them at a really inconvenient time... and depending on how fast gear degrades and how slow it is to repair, it might even be wise to have a second healthy set on hand to instantly swap over to in a pinch. Crafters would presumably then be in high demand once again after the siege, repairing everything that that was damaged. Add in the production of siege weapons and defenses, and sieges seem to already be a massive drain on an economy without needing additional help.

Likewise, I already see plenty of motivation for large guilds to invest in helping to arm and support defenders as a whole. I'm predicting they will already take a siege seriously, not just because they are invested in their home (seems a potentially mammoth task to relocate guild resources safely in this game), but also because big guilds are prideful and their reputations will be on the line. Node populations that don't co-operate and work together will quickly fall to a more organised invading force, and smart guilds will see the benefit in encouraging their neighbours to join the fight and ensuring everyone is equipped to support them properly.

There are many mechanics in this game that seem designed to foster a more community mindset than most games are used to. I see no reason for Guilds not to already be motivated to behave in the manner this idea seems to be trying to encourage.

Dygz

Asraiel wrote: »

i hate it allredy that in case of a loss all storrages will be looteble in the node itself dont remember if full content is lootebl'e but i thought some of the items stored might not be

but giving out quests and such would maybe a get the particiators exited no matter the outcome of the siege

It's not full loot. It's just a portion of resources and materials.

McMackMuck

The title is misleading. "8 reasons why players should drop their equipment in sieges"

You then explain that the siege attack/defense leadership provides all the gear that is used.
So players on the losing side don't lose their gear, they lose the gear that they were provided with.

I want to use the gear that I worked hard to obtain (or not, I'll take guild hand-me-downs if it's better. I sucked up to da management for a reason!). Otherwise it's like playing an immersion breaking mini-game where so many things I did previously are irrelevant. Why bust a gut obtaining the "ultimate longsword of destruction" only to have it swapped out for a bog standard iron shortword due to a fiscal risk averse siege organiser?

I never want to lose my gear under any circumstances, not PvP, PvE. That would be a serious deal breaker for me. I only accept it in Minecraft (dying in lava, etc.) because it's a light hearted time killer. If I have to repair things before they break then I expect to have fair warning so that I can put them on one side until I get chance to repair them, or make the decision to use them into destruction.

(1) Repairing gear already requires Artisans, just a lot less than making two sides worth of mundane gear solely for use in the node siege.
(2) The desire to migrate away from war zones isn't changed by your idea.
(3) Declaring war can still be costly. We haven't seen yet how much prep will need to go into both sides. A1 wasn't a content test.
(4) Guild uniforms aren't changed by this idea, other than maybe forcing members to wear them. Guilds and Nodes are two different things, so I don't see guild uniform being an issue in Node defense. If a guild choses to impose/enforce mandatory uniforms for members during Node sieges then that is a matter for the guild and its members.
(5) Guilds have enough invested in the battle otherwise they wouldn't be present. Reputation alone is enough to make the guilds standing on the server increase or diminish, affecting alliances and trade deals.
(6) Identification Friend or Foe. Bar above character will be okay, why sell cosmetics if players aren't allowed to use them when they want?
(7) Use of taxation. It is easy to list all the things taxes will be spent on and add more as new buildings are added and need more maintenance items. I would start with a quick list of building maintenance, NPCs, NPC gear, NPC food and lodging, new buildings, caravans to send taxes to the local Monarch, caravans to send taxes to the next node up the chain. A node siege might require an emergency tax to help with preparations, but the node already has a lot more (trapped resources, accommodation, artisan facilities, etc.) to lose than the attackers.
(8) Loot opportunities need to be balanced. With too much loot handed out it could become _too_ worthwhile to go round trashing every major node, constantly resetting the level of gear available to zero. Gold is only worth something when you have somewhere that you can spend it. You need a network of facilities associated with nodes and other players to craft the more desirable items. If an item can no longer be crafted because you (yes, you personally!

) trashed the surrounding nodes then the laws of supply and demand will see the price soar through the roof.

There's some nice content but several "reasons" don't support your main idea.

Nerror

George Black wrote: »

This topic wont reach the devs, but I want to see how many pages we can fill arguing.

I actually like the idea as far as ideas go, but for another game. Not for Ashes.

RAYZZ

Okay. I will say that. I dont want to fully agree, because i can not develop all the consecuences that might happen in fact but i will say that i really want the devs to read this and take this into consideration. Gj! @WalrusMan

George_Black

RAYZZ wrote: »

Okay. I will say that. I dont want to fully agree, because i can not develop all the consecuences that might happen in fact but i will say that i really want the devs to read this and take this into consideration. Gj! @WalrusMan

akabear

Personally, I don`t think there should be any or if xp dept from death during seiges, at a much lower rate than in regular game play.

I do like the idea that players have a nomial item of value by joining a seige and it is up from grabs by an enemy upon death.. that sounds like a great idea.

But I guess it might depend on how the drop pickups are organised/set during siege as I can see front line fighters getting all the rewards, and the support not..

Sathrago

I really like the idea of this sort of system for sieges. The main reason being it gives actual form to the material/gold cost that you would otherwise just stock up on and use to purchase the rights to the siege. It adds another element for a node's taxes as well.

Now the thing that needs to be addressed is that 3rd parties can also join in these Node battles. No single guild will have control over an entire node. What solutions do you have for this? As far as I can tell this would work better in a guild castle siege and not a node siege, so again I ask, do you have a solution for this?

Edit: Even guild castle sieges seem to allow for alliance members to join so that might also be a complication to this.

Enigmatic Sage

full loot or looting in PvP would be detrimental to this games longevity.

Sathrago

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

full loot or looting in PvP would be detrimental to this games longevity.

Did you read the post? Please do so if you have not. It's not about losing your crap, it's about your guild funding the necessary armaments for a battle beyond just siege gear and consumables.

Enigmatic Sage

Sathrago wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

full loot or looting in PvP would be detrimental to this games longevity.

Did you read the post? Please do so if you have not. It's not about losing your crap, it's about your guild funding the necessary armaments for a battle beyond just siege gear and consumables.

It's about more than just that if you go through all the points. But I stand by my perspective. I'm not saying that it is a good idea or a bad idea (or idea's for that matter as it is tangential). Just letting people know that turning it into a looting/dropping equipment PvP during sieges game would cause a lot of problems.

Enigmatic Sage

during sieges, the risk of your node being destroyed and plundered should be more than enough incentive for players to want to engage without rewarding them or punishing them to have to get their items back as an example per se. Additionally to what Steven mentioned in the latest stream, You can still cause problems to that node even if the attackers lose the battle. The buildings you razed would slow that node down by having to rebuild etc. There is a lot of risk vs reward already intended for the node sieges.

As far as guild armaments go, I imagine some guilds would already want people to dress up/transmogrify to a certain look to be recognised on the battle field. Many guilds like to match and represent even down to using the same mounts. It's part of the immersive personal RP side of the game. But that is usually up to the guild for those choices.

Interesting idea's though

JustVine

The number of people beating dead horses despite the fact that op said they closed up shop makes me concerned about animal cruelty in Ashes' animal husbandry industry.

Enigmatic Sage

JustVine wrote: »

The number of people beating dead horses despite the fact that op said they closed up shop makes me concerned about animal cruelty in Ashes' animal husbandry industry.

Lol... the things that go through peoples minds

Sathrago

JustVine wrote: »

The number of people beating dead horses despite the fact that op said they closed up shop makes me concerned about animal cruelty in Ashes' animal husbandry industry.

Look I'll beat any dead horse that I feel deserves it. YOU HEAR ME!?!?!?

Child Item