Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Node citizenship supersedes everything, including guild and family.
Nerror
Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
This isn't news or anything, but I just came across the video where they talk about it, and I wanted to hear from all y'all what you think. Especially about one specific point: raid/party.
First the quote from Steven:
That's totally fine and cool I think. It places the nodes first and as the central feature of the game. I am actually even cool with it if it means guild members are still hostile to each other in a party/raid situation, if it is even possible for them to join each other in one. It makes nodewars a big deal and forces people to take sides
In Alpha 1, enemy combatants and corrupted players could join your party/raid and become green, which meant the party/raid affiliation superseded everything else there, but since nodewars weren't implemented, maybe that is as intended. Maybe the hierarchy is node > party/raid > family > guild for all we know.
There is certainly something to be said for having party/raid supersede everything else, including node affiliation. It makes it easier for people who feel guild or family affiliation is more important to still group up and do shit together even if in a nodewar. But, it also comes at the "cost" of decreasing the importance of choosing the right node to be citizen of, and by extension a slight decrease in the importance of nodes overall.
What do you all think about this?
First the quote from Steven:
There's node citizenship. There's guild. There's alliance. There's party. There's raid. There's family. All of these types of affiliations have a hierarchy. The highest of which is your node affiliation: So your citizenship is your greatest superseding relationship, which means if you were a part of a guild and the guild has multiple nodes in which its members are citizens of, if there was a war between two of those nodes, the members of those nodes would be first and foremost citizens who defend that node, even against their own guild members.
That's totally fine and cool I think. It places the nodes first and as the central feature of the game. I am actually even cool with it if it means guild members are still hostile to each other in a party/raid situation, if it is even possible for them to join each other in one. It makes nodewars a big deal and forces people to take sides
In Alpha 1, enemy combatants and corrupted players could join your party/raid and become green, which meant the party/raid affiliation superseded everything else there, but since nodewars weren't implemented, maybe that is as intended. Maybe the hierarchy is node > party/raid > family > guild for all we know.
There is certainly something to be said for having party/raid supersede everything else, including node affiliation. It makes it easier for people who feel guild or family affiliation is more important to still group up and do shit together even if in a nodewar. But, it also comes at the "cost" of decreasing the importance of choosing the right node to be citizen of, and by extension a slight decrease in the importance of nodes overall.
What do you all think about this?
2
Comments
Indeed! Well, not only node siege, also node war. Not the same thing
Node sieges and wars are more likely to be against nodes from further away - and due to little fast travel, it is unlikely that you will be in a guild that is based that far away.
Neighboring nodes of a higher level node have no reason to be friendly with that node as it will only limit their progression and everything to gain by being hostile. There might be some exceptions to this if say a guild is able to dominate multiple nodes but this definitely wont be the norm.
Far away nodes have little reason to travel far and do a siege on a node whose neighboring nodes are friendly with it, if they are capable of plundering their nearby nodes more easily. Unless they have a sort of server domination or it is a low population server or basically some non-ideal scenario.
So yeah.
Once things get settled down, many people are going to find that they are happy being in a tier 5 economic node that is next to a parent tier 6 scientific node, as an example. Since the node structure of any given server isn't going to be static, everyone in both nodes knows that at some point, that tier 5 node is likely to be a metropolis.
The tier 6 node also probably likes having that high level economic node nearby, as even though it isn't max tier, it still has some things going on that the scientific node simply isn't going to have.
Since most guilds in the area will have players in both nodes, most players will have friends in both nodes, and most economic activity relies on both nodes, there is little incentive for either node to be hostile to the other.
Nodes that are a long way away have very good reasons to attack. There is the economic incentive that increases with time (which is the reason the above tier 5 node knows the tier 6 node won't always be there), and there are the relics on offer.
Then there is the desire to change the content that is nearby.
Since players in those far away nodes have no economic tie to that tier 6 node, and likely have no friends or guildmates there, yet have very good reasons for wanting to conduct a successful siege on it, they are the ones that are likely to attack.
The game isn't all just about progressing your node. There is far more subtilty and nuance to the system than that.
I don't see Guild member pitted against Guild member happening often in a decent guild. Guild management should decide the political stance for the entire guild with respect to each node siege and support those disadvantaged by any losses if they can't be warned to leave in advance.
For sure. But you will be flagged as combatants against those guildies in the other node your node is at war with. Actually fighting them is optional, but you can if you wanted to. The question is really if you can even group/raid with them while the node war is happening.
My Dygz character will be in the TheoryForge guild...and the guild will choose a Node.
My Briarthorn character will probably be in a DOP Crew guild... and the guild will choose a Node.
But, my main character will be a Vek Rogue, probably a citizen of a Nikua Scientific Node. That character will probably choose a guild after choosing a social org. Node --> Social Org --> Guild
I'm not quite sure "planting roots" is a concept I would be thinking about for Ashes.
To be fair, the old logo did have roots in it...
If you are a citizen of a node, you are automatically signed up on the defense side of a siege on your node, and any parent nodes if your node is a vassal.
So, the only way to participate in a siege on your parent node is to drop citizenship.
You are right about lower level nodes fighting it out though.
Then in theory, if my entire guild are members of node 1 which is a vassal node of node 2. Node 2 is a higher rank than node 1. My guild has 300 members in it. We show up as part of the army of 500 players defending the node. We sit on our ass while 500 members of our alliance siege node 2. Node 2 is turned into rubble. Now node 1 can progress to a higher level because Node 2 no longer exists. We can then rebuild node 2 with members of our alliance. Doing nothing is also a form of participation.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Vassal_nodes
You better hope that node loses then. Because I wouldn't want to be a citizen of a node that is known to have sat out. There could be some nasty consequences. Higher taxes might be the least of it. You could also have the node declare a war on a neighbor, and then let it be known that citizens of your node are fair game and won't be protected. As a vassal node you're automatically included and anyone from the other node can kill you with impunity.
In addition, you miss out on the rewards of participating. If you choose to defend the other node in the siege, you could receive titles or loot. I'm also not sure if node reputation might be influenced as well. So it might be a dangerous thing to do this.
You're assuming the surrounding vassal nodes like the parent node. What if no one likes them. Welcome to the Game of Thrones.
If they’ve ticked off all of their vassals, then duh, they screwed themselves and were doomed already.
EU server?!
First, if you have a guild of 300 players in that area, some of them will be citizens of that metropolis node. Guilds don't and won't stick to a single node - you would be putting your whole guild at a massive disadvantage if you did this.
Second, you aren't the first person to come up with this as a general idea. We have talked about stuffing a siege with players that do nothing for years now.
It is likely that if a siege has more players signed up on one side than the cap, the leader of the siege (either the mayor of the node being sieged, or the player that declared the siege) would be able to remove players to make space for others.
It is also likely that a siege will prioritize citizens of the node itself over citizens of vassal nodes.
This is the thing with problem solving - it works from both sides.
Since Intrepid don't want you to negatively impact the outcome of a siege on a parent node of your node, and since they will probably out problem solve you, it is probably safe to assume that you won't be able to influence such sieges without dropping your citizenship.
It is probably worth pointing out that a metropolis node will need vassal nodes in order to remain a metropolis node. It is unlikely that a metropolis node in itself will be able to support the population needed to hold back entropy. If you are in a node that is a vassal of a node that everyone hates, all you need to do is move to a node that isn't a vassal of that metropolis. It may be a bit of effort for you, but if you do it as a guild it really won't be that hard.
If a few large guilds all leave, that metropolis will fall to entropy soon enough. A slow, painful death seems fitting for a node that acts like this.
Sorry, Davey - I'm in NA.
I'll be on EU server showing off my Corgi to you
This will absolutely be a thing.
I would hope that such guilds would be decent enough to supply their affected guild members with assistance towards relocating. I mean, if you are purposely trying to destroy a guild members house, it's the least you could do.