Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
No, my post assumes they came up with this thing without using their brain.
Ok, so let's assume its basically impossible to decimate an ecology unless you actually try.
Why bother having this system at all then? All you have then is literally a way for organized groups to piss off individual players.
In what world is that a good thing to add to a game?
Just, like, dont have it instead. It would be better.
Or have a management system in place that doesnt allow for decimation, just alteration. Your R/P/S suggestion is basically that - you have removed the ability to decimate an ecology, and made it so player actions just alter it. This means ecological warfare cant really be a thing.
Again, my issue is with the ability for this to be used as a tool of war. If it is able to be used as such, it will drive players away from the game. It works on a high level kind of ideal, but most players play the game from an individual perspective, not a high level one.
Honestly, the whole thing seems as if it hasnt been considered from an individual players perspective at all as yet.
The reason this system is in place is so that it provides an interesting dynamic for those super active players who get to take advantage of more enemies or more carnivores, while also negating punishments for those who just log on. The reason you can be allowed to decimate an area is because of the advantage it may give during a siege, the affect of a decimated ecology should not be weeks long, it should be a few days MAX and it should only encompass that node directly, so even if you wage war on x node deplete its land score and siege it, just like how a player chooses to stay to protect from a siege that they probably played very little role in creating the politics or resources for, the player still has a choice to just leave and walk 2-3 minutes to the nearest node, or you know teleport to a family member.
hmmm
See, if someone at Intrepid used their brain on this (as my previous post suggested, so far no one has), they would realize that if a gatherer can just walk 2 or 3 minutes to get past the effect of this decimation, then it will not have any impact on the node during a siege.
This leads again to the question of - what's the point?
You can either make this so it has an impact in a siege, but also pisses off players to the point they will stop playing, or you have it so it doesnt drive players away from the game, but also will then not impact a siege at all.
The only middle ground here is a point where it will still piss off some people and see them leave, but wont be strong enough to have an impact on a siege.
The desire of a point where it is strong enough to have an impact on a siege, yet where it wont cause players to leave the game out of frustration just doesnt exist.
So the way to make it have an impact on the siege is quite simple. When the resources in a region are depleted, a corrupted state surrounds that region, spawning a boss, that boss will do several things, create mobs that attack players, disrupt caravan travel which we know there will be tax caravans that run automatically by npcs, and those mobs it spawns and itself can attack the node as well to destroy in node buildings, like say a gate or wall ballista/mongels etc.
So the strategy would be, focus deplete a nodes resources, let the boss disrupt the nodes resource respawn rate, the defenses and maybe even defend the boss so that it may become stronger (if it has a time based scaling mechanic) Then once in node buildings are disabled launch your siege. Also we already know there will be 8 and 16 player instanced fights within sieges that will provide buffs or debuffs to defenders based on the outcome, why would a boss spawned from the depletion of resources in the surrounding area not be one of the instanced fights that takes place? For example the attackers summon the boss by depleting the resources and during the siege this opens the option for them to summon the boss to their aid to destroy the node, but they can only summon it through a ritual that leaves the summoning players vulnerable creating said instanced scenario.
OR
The strategy is simply, destroy the nodes resources right before a siege declaration, then during the siege declaration phase of several days the resources won't be spawning preventing the additional defenses from being built directly before the siege or forcing the defenders to run caravans of resources right through the enemy so that they can accrue enough resources to fortify their node before the siege.
Why do I need to spell this out, you are obviously here for every stream and detail for AOC, this is obviously something they intend, stop acting like this ecology thing wasn't thought out. It really shouldn't be your assumption. We are going to break the system hundreds of times in Alpha 2 which should allow them plenty of time to figure out the balance they want to strike and I guarantee you for every ounce of thought I just put in fixing these problems they put in 10.
So, deplete a regions resources in order to do a thing that isnt at all to do with resources?
Again, not had much thought put in to it.
If Intrepid want to have a system for players to be able to initiate an NPC attack on a rival node, then that is it's own thing. It has nothing at all to do with gathering resources, and should continue to have nothing to do with gathering resources.
The reason why this wouldn't be the case is simple - it isnt inherently a part of a siege. It is it's own thing.
So now you are assuming a duration of a week, or the best part thereof.
All of the above would be fine if - and only if - this was a mechanic specific to sieges. If declaring a siege enabled you decimate a nodes resources to initate all of this, that would be fine.
The problem is, all of this is something people can do at any time.
You may be right, but you also may not be right.
Either way, I am going to start poking holes in this system today.
Is that not kind of the point?
The problem with "we'll test it during alpha and beta" is that all you can do during testing is test game mechanics for functionality , you cant actually test how players will use them. You cant even begin to look at that until the game is live.
As such, it is invaluable for *someone* to be pointing out the likely ways the worst humans will use such systems.
I'm with @Noaani on this one. I don't think they weren't using their brain or anything quite that aggressive haha, but I do think they planned this system with 'nodes' as the agents instead of individual players. Whenever you design a system where the actors are a collective (population of players in this case), you run the potential of a number of problems, many of which ring true for the land management system as it is presented. The system currently seems to have more utility to be used for punishing a node than rewarding it, it pits the interest of individual players against their own group, has weak association between individual player action and outcome and more. I've already outlined my thoughts here and in other threads (including my own...) so I will not give more detail, but Noaani is not quite as crazy as you make him sound here imo.
I almost want to make this my signature.
The introduction of benefits for a node that keeps its ecology healthy through various efforts of regrowing trees or little "blessing of nature" events started by the major at local sanctuary.
In this way the ecology would feel not just a punishment but also a thing people want to keep on the " healthy side" for adittional bonuses while gathering. Like for example, trees that grow in a healthy land giving more wood or having chances of providing with better quality wood or something.
This is literally already true. We just have little information on how to make the land score 'good' and the methods we are aware of mostly involve killing the right mobs or not gathering. I hope I don't need to explain why that's bad.
Okay but lets be honest, you are basing the assumption that an individual player needs to be apart of the ecology management. I mentioned earlier the advantage of having a system that is impacted by the players using it but does not simply deplete and provide those negative impacts by standard use. The land management will likely be used to bring more dynamic events to players experience, today you can farm a forest of trees, next week you find packs of bandits and wolves prowling the shrubs instead.
It makes no sense for them to create a scenario where you over farm a location and it simply punishes you. Every part of the ecology system will have an offsetting value, again unless you simply focus farm deplete an area, which ought to yield significant punishments, IE adding more depth to a siege, or the occasional punishment for players attempting to speed level their node.
The proposed system is meant to reflect player decisions, that's not an assumption it is the stated purpose of the system. I think you are the one assuming that it will be a passive system meant to provide variety and events for players. The distinct lack of details in your description "Every part of the ecology system will have an offsetting value" is kind of the point here. It sounds great in vague terms, but when the rubber meets the road, it does not enhance sieges or provide a layer of depth to the rest of the game, at least not in a fun way. I think you are projecting what you hope it accomplishes =/.
So for example, planting seeds to up the tree land value is a good way to offset player's degrading the land value. Apparently a game "Wakfu" did this, but from my current understanding didn't have any rewards for doing so, so gatherers typically would just gather and then let someone else worry about ecological preservation.
So what you have to do is have quests within social organizations, religions, or node reputation systems, that give people rewards for planting seeds or whatever is helping the land value. That helps offset the problem of your average gatherer ruining their own home nodes.
But to stop enemy node attacks you have to have mayor's be able to implement node policies to make resources off-limits. The best way would be that if a mayor is trying to save their own wood from an enemy attack, they can declare that wood cutting is off-limits for a time while they're trying to up the land value. Then if someone attempts to chop down a tree they get a notification letting them know by doing so they'll turn purple for 90 seconds. Then your home node can have a fun PvP battle with the attackers without having to worry about corruption, and things like diplomacy can matter a lot.
For sieges, I really hope that siege materials have to be brought to a war camp for attackers, because then there'll be huge resource wars leading up to a siege. I know in Jerusalem during the Crusades, their governor ordered literally every tree in sight cut down so that the attackers couldn't build a siege tower. The Crusaders eventually won because allied ships from Florence brought them the wood necessary for their siege engines. That would be cool to see happen in Ashes in my opinion, but I get Noaani's concerns.
Just a reminder that while a 'Land Management System' strictly speaking 'can make this worse', it isn't actually required for this 'problem' to happen.
There must ALWAYS be a point at which there are no resources left for anyone to gather.
Optimally, you reach that point OFTEN early on until people stop going 'this is worth my time economically' and leave it to the people for whom it is useful AND fun.
You're never going to have a sane game where resources aren't basically 'always gathered' unless those resources are dangerous to get to. If you have areas where resources are dangerous to get to, and those are counted in Land Management, it's unlikely that it will wreck the system.
I'll agree that if Intrepid gives us 'you can cut down every tree!' and then goes 'no, not like that' when people DO this to every mature tree near a node, it will be silly, but it SHOULD be difficult, and not just 'time consuming' to strip-down a whole node.
I think you may be on to something here 😉
I am hoping all PVE is challenging and all mobs in all areas have mechanics to make them a challenge. Someone mentioned in other post about an anti aoe train mechanic for mobs, also to prevent people just aoeing everything too easily. Like mobs aggro range Increased if players are bringing too many people at once for aoe farming etc. I really hope PVE is aas difficult as possible in AOC. Would make the game super enjoyable unlike the aoe fest we see in all other mmos
The caravan system is kind of telling players "go out, gather, fill tour inventory 100 times over, and then move those materials to where they are most valuabe",but this system is just saying "hey, hold on a minute, you dont actually want to do that thing we just suggested you do".
If we agree that a games system inform players as to how they should play, what are Ashes systems so far saying about harvesting?
Cool, so, a developer initiated system by which I can put my guild to use to fuck over dozens - or even hundreds - of players.
@Vaknar as has been said, this is the kind of thing that sounds like a good idea from a top level perspective - from the perspective of the handful of players that are managing players, this is fine.
From the perspective of individual players though, its absolute garbage game design.
I can detail a theory but come up with it yourself, its really not hard. I also gave a basic one to naonni in a prior post
You are assuming that every single gatherable results in a negative affect instead of merely an equal and opposite one? IE kill a bandit, spawn a wolf, kill a wolf spawn a rabbit, kill a rabbit spawn 10 shrubs and trees
You did, but it was very easy to point to a number of flaws in it.
Coming up with *a* theory is easy, coming up with one that can withstand scrutiny is harder.
While you may say "Surely Intrepid can come up with better theories than us players", I would then say that "Surely Intrepid can do a better job of scrutinizing any ideas than us players".
Thus, if us players cant come up with a scenario that us players cant essentially debunk, then surely Intrepid cant come up with a scenario that Intrepid cant debunk.
I never said anything about developer-initiated events. Events in Ashes of Creation will be activated by various means of development in the world of Verra. You can learn about events here: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Events
What Dygz was saying was simply calling out the event system and how this could potentially play into it. These new gathering systems are still in early development, but I like where Dygz' head is at! It's neat to think of ways the event system could react to players changing and interacting with the world!
I mean, if it's a thing that the game does, and is put in to the game on purpose, it is developer initiated. Developers literally out it in to the Game.
Sure, players may opt when and where to abuse each other via this system, but developers out this system in to the game seemingly for no reason other than for players to use to abuse each other.
I'm curious what your interpretation of this scenario would be:
Say Guild X is the main guild behind the development of node Y and a neighboring guild A is racing to develop Node B. The two guilds and all of the citizens of their respective nodes are competing for which node will gain supremacy and will become a parent node.
If Guild X decided to go near Node A to take as many resources as possible, would you call this player abuse, or behaviors and systems working as intended? 🤔💭
Your scenario is a little too small scale for what I am thinking about in terms of problems.
I am thinking about larger nodes where there are hundreds - or even thousands - of people involved.
Not dozens.
If this system is designed in a way where it just stops functioning if a node reaches stage 4, then cool, what ever. It is an odd system still with no real reason for existing, but hey, not my game.
When you start getting nodes with thousands of players though, the vast majority are in the game to do their own thing. They aren't there for the node, they are there for either themselves or their guild (note; potentially the biggest design issue in Ashes right now is the desire for node loyalty to trump guild loyalty - it will not).
So, you have this node with hundreds (or thousands) of people that aren't in the game to experience the larger power plays of the handful of people at the top (node leadership, select guild leadership, etc). These people are just going to he continually pissed off by this whole system.
It is literally just a system for those few leaders to piss off the many.
Going back to your scenario, there is no inherent loss to the people from node A. If guild X wants to come and gather materials from that node, that is their choice.
The thing is, the way the game is designed, if guild X went to node A to harvest materials to then bring back to node Y, they are inadvertently assisting node A in leveling, due to the experience from their harvesting activities going to node A rather than node Y. Guild B in this scenario is probably best off letting this guild take the materials, leveling up node A, which will then see node Y become a vassal. Keep in mind, leveling a node is a function of experience, not materials.
It is essentially already a self governing system, it doesnt need messing with.
Would node A not level up faster because the harvesting of resources in node A gives it more xp and those players are no longer harvesting in node B meaning that node B is simultaneously gaining less xp?
Very interesting! I understand what you're saying. We appreciate all the feedback we can get, so thank you for sharing your thoughts! ^_^
YES!
Now go to war with them.
You Need Friction, you need conflict. You Need Drama.
Now the victim needs to get a guild to fight back.
YOU are a citizen of Node A and decided to raze and bully over dozen/hundreds of players on Node B.
Node B can send their best guild to fight you, if they cant win, node B can then decide, hey, we got a problem with this guild from Node A, Dear Mayor, you need to reign them in. We dont have the number to beat them guild vs guild. Node A mayor cant reign them in or IS ALSO the guild in question - then Node B - DOES have the number to initiate a node war and get assistance. This is good - we need things to facilitate positive pvp and opt in pvp mechanics such as wars.
Now, same scenerio but this time, you are doing it to your OWN Node. Maybe the city votes/kicks the guild out. If the guild owns the city - then they lose citizenship, taxes, all that jazz. If the guild can sustain itself and run it's own town, cool bean... Highly doubt that guild can make it node 6 tho.