Caww wrote: » yeah, I confused accounts with players but with 50k accounts, whose to say the concurrent players will not be much higher than 8-10k? the wiki has this "Population limits will be enforced on each server. Around 8-10k concurrent users per server is projected. Initially there will be a limited number of registered accounts (approximately 15,000) per server to help mitigate login queues. This limit will increase over time to around 50,000 registered accounts per server."
Azherae wrote: » Atama wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Atama wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » So i have a small concern of how we keep smaller nodes relevant aka village and town nodes. I feel most players are gonna live out of the metropolis or city nodes due to having more access to things such as crafting benches and AH and things like that alot of people will neglect smaller nodes which we kinda saw in New world where people only realy upgraded the 2 middle towns where all the other kinda got neglected because there was nothing there for them realy. I feel ashes has the potential to go the same way. Did you know that nodes have a citizenship cap? People are going to become citizens of smaller nodes if they want to be a citizen at all. Otherwise, the whole node system won't work. They need to have citizens in smaller nodes who will work to make their nodes better, and the only way to improve your node over an adjacent higher-level node is for that other node to be brought down. That will fuel the conflict between nodes. Otherwise, every player will just stay in the biggest nodes with the most benefits and the smaller nodes will be ghost towns, and the whole node system will be stagnant. Your concern has not only been addressed, but the entire way the node system works will require your concern to not be happening in the game. Why does anyone want to be a citizen of a node exactly, though? Because all I see is this stuff. While I'm sure some of it is relatively important to above-average players, I don't see anything here that would cause the average or more casual player to live outside the biggest node they can find. Which one of these do I not understand? Looking at that list, anyone that isn't a citizen is probably gimped. Understanding the psychology of the average player, who often will go to great lengths for minor upgrades, I expect it's going to be rare for a player to decide to ignore citizenship. It looks like it will lock you out from advancing crafting at the high levels, from being able to fully enhance your gear, or increase your stats. It's not just about titles and cosmetic fluff. You are not going to be as strong as a citizen. I expect that citizenship is going to be a given as an advancement path for all but the most casual of players. Steven has been very explicit that he considers node citizenship to be the most important kind of allegiance that a player can have in the game, even more important than guild membership. Their systems are designed with that philosophy in mind. If Ashes is to be successful, they're going to need to make citizenship attractive. The node-vs-node conflict is the engine of change in this game, and they're going to need people to care about nodes for that to matter. If citizenship is just something that a minority of players care about, then nodes will probably stagnate. Well, seems we have similar thoughts on 'what may happen one way or the other', but widely differing expectations on what it will do and how important it will actually be. I don't expect it to be possible for more than 70% of players to be Citizens of nodes, and therefore I also don't expect 'not being a Citizen' to have a very large effect on a player's ability to participate in content that isn't based around core Node stuff. Intrepid could make it so that 'there are significant downsides in general play for not being a Citizen', but then would face the 'discomfort' of all the players who can't achieve Citizenship because of how Nodes are built.
Atama wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Atama wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » So i have a small concern of how we keep smaller nodes relevant aka village and town nodes. I feel most players are gonna live out of the metropolis or city nodes due to having more access to things such as crafting benches and AH and things like that alot of people will neglect smaller nodes which we kinda saw in New world where people only realy upgraded the 2 middle towns where all the other kinda got neglected because there was nothing there for them realy. I feel ashes has the potential to go the same way. Did you know that nodes have a citizenship cap? People are going to become citizens of smaller nodes if they want to be a citizen at all. Otherwise, the whole node system won't work. They need to have citizens in smaller nodes who will work to make their nodes better, and the only way to improve your node over an adjacent higher-level node is for that other node to be brought down. That will fuel the conflict between nodes. Otherwise, every player will just stay in the biggest nodes with the most benefits and the smaller nodes will be ghost towns, and the whole node system will be stagnant. Your concern has not only been addressed, but the entire way the node system works will require your concern to not be happening in the game. Why does anyone want to be a citizen of a node exactly, though? Because all I see is this stuff. While I'm sure some of it is relatively important to above-average players, I don't see anything here that would cause the average or more casual player to live outside the biggest node they can find. Which one of these do I not understand? Looking at that list, anyone that isn't a citizen is probably gimped. Understanding the psychology of the average player, who often will go to great lengths for minor upgrades, I expect it's going to be rare for a player to decide to ignore citizenship. It looks like it will lock you out from advancing crafting at the high levels, from being able to fully enhance your gear, or increase your stats. It's not just about titles and cosmetic fluff. You are not going to be as strong as a citizen. I expect that citizenship is going to be a given as an advancement path for all but the most casual of players. Steven has been very explicit that he considers node citizenship to be the most important kind of allegiance that a player can have in the game, even more important than guild membership. Their systems are designed with that philosophy in mind. If Ashes is to be successful, they're going to need to make citizenship attractive. The node-vs-node conflict is the engine of change in this game, and they're going to need people to care about nodes for that to matter. If citizenship is just something that a minority of players care about, then nodes will probably stagnate.
Azherae wrote: » Atama wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » So i have a small concern of how we keep smaller nodes relevant aka village and town nodes. I feel most players are gonna live out of the metropolis or city nodes due to having more access to things such as crafting benches and AH and things like that alot of people will neglect smaller nodes which we kinda saw in New world where people only realy upgraded the 2 middle towns where all the other kinda got neglected because there was nothing there for them realy. I feel ashes has the potential to go the same way. Did you know that nodes have a citizenship cap? People are going to become citizens of smaller nodes if they want to be a citizen at all. Otherwise, the whole node system won't work. They need to have citizens in smaller nodes who will work to make their nodes better, and the only way to improve your node over an adjacent higher-level node is for that other node to be brought down. That will fuel the conflict between nodes. Otherwise, every player will just stay in the biggest nodes with the most benefits and the smaller nodes will be ghost towns, and the whole node system will be stagnant. Your concern has not only been addressed, but the entire way the node system works will require your concern to not be happening in the game. Why does anyone want to be a citizen of a node exactly, though? Because all I see is this stuff. While I'm sure some of it is relatively important to above-average players, I don't see anything here that would cause the average or more casual player to live outside the biggest node they can find. Which one of these do I not understand?
Atama wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » So i have a small concern of how we keep smaller nodes relevant aka village and town nodes. I feel most players are gonna live out of the metropolis or city nodes due to having more access to things such as crafting benches and AH and things like that alot of people will neglect smaller nodes which we kinda saw in New world where people only realy upgraded the 2 middle towns where all the other kinda got neglected because there was nothing there for them realy. I feel ashes has the potential to go the same way. Did you know that nodes have a citizenship cap? People are going to become citizens of smaller nodes if they want to be a citizen at all. Otherwise, the whole node system won't work. They need to have citizens in smaller nodes who will work to make their nodes better, and the only way to improve your node over an adjacent higher-level node is for that other node to be brought down. That will fuel the conflict between nodes. Otherwise, every player will just stay in the biggest nodes with the most benefits and the smaller nodes will be ghost towns, and the whole node system will be stagnant. Your concern has not only been addressed, but the entire way the node system works will require your concern to not be happening in the game.
Veeshan wrote: » So i have a small concern of how we keep smaller nodes relevant aka village and town nodes. I feel most players are gonna live out of the metropolis or city nodes due to having more access to things such as crafting benches and AH and things like that alot of people will neglect smaller nodes which we kinda saw in New world where people only realy upgraded the 2 middle towns where all the other kinda got neglected because there was nothing there for them realy. I feel ashes has the potential to go the same way.
Veeshan wrote: » I honestly would like to see lower level nodes have higher spawn chance on resources like node rank 0 is a wilderness so there should be more resources allocated in that node tree/plants and leather should all be more abundant in these area although ore could also work too since in more dense area say a city most ore/mine would tend to be heavily mined out so resources having more or faster respawn in lower rank nodes makes sense aswell as making those node still relevant to farm/travel to so you can harvest the higher density of resources. This also then means u would want to caravan them back after you get a stockpile which then feeds into that system aswell
Azherae wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » I honestly would like to see lower level nodes have higher spawn chance on resources like node rank 0 is a wilderness so there should be more resources allocated in that node tree/plants and leather should all be more abundant in these area although ore could also work too since in more dense area say a city most ore/mine would tend to be heavily mined out so resources having more or faster respawn in lower rank nodes makes sense aswell as making those node still relevant to farm/travel to so you can harvest the higher density of resources. This also then means u would want to caravan them back after you get a stockpile which then feeds into that system aswell I don't think this is necessary? If you think about it directly, as long as Metropolis nodes don't spawn too much EXTRA gathering points within their special dungeons or whatever, then just 'being a Metropolis and having more people around' would achieve most of this goal, depending on respawn timers. Making it so that big nodes have to import from their Vassal villages simply because that's where things are, and then adding basically any incentive to actually live in the Vassals for a certain type of player, would handle it. In the end, a Metropolis node still technically only has a certain amount of space near it. Players may hang around for convenience, but honestly, this one basically solves itself by population alone.
Veeshan wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » I honestly would like to see lower level nodes have higher spawn chance on resources like node rank 0 is a wilderness so there should be more resources allocated in that node tree/plants and leather should all be more abundant in these area although ore could also work too since in more dense area say a city most ore/mine would tend to be heavily mined out so resources having more or faster respawn in lower rank nodes makes sense aswell as making those node still relevant to farm/travel to so you can harvest the higher density of resources. This also then means u would want to caravan them back after you get a stockpile which then feeds into that system aswell I don't think this is necessary? If you think about it directly, as long as Metropolis nodes don't spawn too much EXTRA gathering points within their special dungeons or whatever, then just 'being a Metropolis and having more people around' would achieve most of this goal, depending on respawn timers. Making it so that big nodes have to import from their Vassal villages simply because that's where things are, and then adding basically any incentive to actually live in the Vassals for a certain type of player, would handle it. In the end, a Metropolis node still technically only has a certain amount of space near it. Players may hang around for convenience, but honestly, this one basically solves itself by population alone. If it does fantastic however if it doesnt it be a good idea to do something like this for example we dont want nodes to far away from metropolises being neglected it hard to tell how it all gonna work when a game comes out without being in the game so we can only go though hypothesis senarios and come up with solutions to these issues if they are an issue if there not well no harm no foul. I like to see this period as trying to see what could go wrong and have suggestion for it if does if works then no issue it not needed however in alpha one for early release and we see it become an issue then devs can come back to these kinda posts and be like ohh thats a good idea lets try that for a solution to problems Im not saying the "the system is broken atm however we all know players in these games like to find way to break the game so i tend to try and find a solution incase the situation does arise. Another possible solution would be to add node events that can be triggered in nodes ever x amount of time (Shorter cooldown for lower level nodes) that could boost resources around the node (New world had a bit of this with there town buff where you got like 10% more resources from logging for 2-3 days when the governor chose it in AoC though you could have forest nodes get a boost to logging, mountain nodes get a boost on mining and so on that occurs every so often more often on lower level nodes this will be a little bit of a hotspot for player to go to when it does occur to see a boost of players in a portion of the map if they lived nearby
Azherae wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » I honestly would like to see lower level nodes have higher spawn chance on resources like node rank 0 is a wilderness so there should be more resources allocated in that node tree/plants and leather should all be more abundant in these area although ore could also work too since in more dense area say a city most ore/mine would tend to be heavily mined out so resources having more or faster respawn in lower rank nodes makes sense aswell as making those node still relevant to farm/travel to so you can harvest the higher density of resources. This also then means u would want to caravan them back after you get a stockpile which then feeds into that system aswell I don't think this is necessary? If you think about it directly, as long as Metropolis nodes don't spawn too much EXTRA gathering points within their special dungeons or whatever, then just 'being a Metropolis and having more people around' would achieve most of this goal, depending on respawn timers. Making it so that big nodes have to import from their Vassal villages simply because that's where things are, and then adding basically any incentive to actually live in the Vassals for a certain type of player, would handle it. In the end, a Metropolis node still technically only has a certain amount of space near it. Players may hang around for convenience, but honestly, this one basically solves itself by population alone. If it does fantastic however if it doesnt it be a good idea to do something like this for example we dont want nodes to far away from metropolises being neglected it hard to tell how it all gonna work when a game comes out without being in the game so we can only go though hypothesis senarios and come up with solutions to these issues if they are an issue if there not well no harm no foul. I like to see this period as trying to see what could go wrong and have suggestion for it if does if works then no issue it not needed however in alpha one for early release and we see it become an issue then devs can come back to these kinda posts and be like ohh thats a good idea lets try that for a solution to problems Im not saying the "the system is broken atm however we all know players in these games like to find way to break the game so i tend to try and find a solution incase the situation does arise. Another possible solution would be to add node events that can be triggered in nodes ever x amount of time (Shorter cooldown for lower level nodes) that could boost resources around the node (New world had a bit of this with there town buff where you got like 10% more resources from logging for 2-3 days when the governor chose it in AoC though you could have forest nodes get a boost to logging, mountain nodes get a boost on mining and so on that occurs every so often more often on lower level nodes this will be a little bit of a hotspot for player to go to when it does occur to see a boost of players in a portion of the map if they lived nearby I agree with you and I have similar concerns, I like the second solution more than the first, but I already play a game that has 'Nodes' like this and certain changes like this, and in that game, whenever one of these 'Events' triggers, all the players who rely on the game to direct their activities and behaviour, move to it at the same time. The designers of that game just decided to use that instead of trying to change the system. Maybe Ashes will do that too. The availability of resources being based on a Node specifically 'being wilderness' changes player behaviour in stranger ways. For example, a Town Node that is relatively close to a Village, close enough for the travel between them to be short, would then have a very strange incentive to destroy the Village Node so that they could gather more resources in the Wilderness. Mitigating player psychology will be one of the biggest challenges that Intrepid faces in the design of Ashes, and we don't know which things they will want to happen, because some things that you or I might feel 'this is a negative experience, why would you want that?' sounds like really great gameplay to others. Other posters in this thread, for example, have already made this very valid point: :"Do we even consider this to be a problem?"
Veeshan wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » I honestly would like to see lower level nodes have higher spawn chance on resources like node rank 0 is a wilderness so there should be more resources allocated in that node tree/plants and leather should all be more abundant in these area although ore could also work too since in more dense area say a city most ore/mine would tend to be heavily mined out so resources having more or faster respawn in lower rank nodes makes sense aswell as making those node still relevant to farm/travel to so you can harvest the higher density of resources. This also then means u would want to caravan them back after you get a stockpile which then feeds into that system aswell I don't think this is necessary? If you think about it directly, as long as Metropolis nodes don't spawn too much EXTRA gathering points within their special dungeons or whatever, then just 'being a Metropolis and having more people around' would achieve most of this goal, depending on respawn timers. Making it so that big nodes have to import from their Vassal villages simply because that's where things are, and then adding basically any incentive to actually live in the Vassals for a certain type of player, would handle it. In the end, a Metropolis node still technically only has a certain amount of space near it. Players may hang around for convenience, but honestly, this one basically solves itself by population alone. If it does fantastic however if it doesnt it be a good idea to do something like this for example we dont want nodes to far away from metropolises being neglected it hard to tell how it all gonna work when a game comes out without being in the game so we can only go though hypothesis senarios and come up with solutions to these issues if they are an issue if there not well no harm no foul. I like to see this period as trying to see what could go wrong and have suggestion for it if does if works then no issue it not needed however in alpha one for early release and we see it become an issue then devs can come back to these kinda posts and be like ohh thats a good idea lets try that for a solution to problems Im not saying the "the system is broken atm however we all know players in these games like to find way to break the game so i tend to try and find a solution incase the situation does arise. Another possible solution would be to add node events that can be triggered in nodes ever x amount of time (Shorter cooldown for lower level nodes) that could boost resources around the node (New world had a bit of this with there town buff where you got like 10% more resources from logging for 2-3 days when the governor chose it in AoC though you could have forest nodes get a boost to logging, mountain nodes get a boost on mining and so on that occurs every so often more often on lower level nodes this will be a little bit of a hotspot for player to go to when it does occur to see a boost of players in a portion of the map if they lived nearby I agree with you and I have similar concerns, I like the second solution more than the first, but I already play a game that has 'Nodes' like this and certain changes like this, and in that game, whenever one of these 'Events' triggers, all the players who rely on the game to direct their activities and behaviour, move to it at the same time. The designers of that game just decided to use that instead of trying to change the system. Maybe Ashes will do that too. The availability of resources being based on a Node specifically 'being wilderness' changes player behaviour in stranger ways. For example, a Town Node that is relatively close to a Village, close enough for the travel between them to be short, would then have a very strange incentive to destroy the Village Node so that they could gather more resources in the Wilderness. Mitigating player psychology will be one of the biggest challenges that Intrepid faces in the design of Ashes, and we don't know which things they will want to happen, because some things that you or I might feel 'this is a negative experience, why would you want that?' sounds like really great gameplay to others. Other posters in this thread, for example, have already made this very valid point: :"Do we even consider this to be a problem?" on your city and village scenario, destroying the village would also make it so you loose a bank so you then have to run to the old village spot harvest for a bit then run all the way back, now if it a village still you can harvest alot of thing and bank them there then caravan it back saving time from individual runs. Im also not against the destorying village part too to access wilderness nodes which have slightly more resources than how it was a village cause it add conflict and diplomacy between the 2 node which isnt inheritably a bad thing imo atleast. Perhaps the village come up with a deal with the city and provide them with x amoutn of resources each month for them not to attack or to protect them for example.
Azherae wrote: » For example, a Town Node that is relatively close to a Village, close enough for the travel between them to be short, would then have a very strange incentive to destroy the Village Node so that they could gather more resources in the Wilderness.
