Overthinking Numbers of Nodes and Their Populations

So I'm sick and bored and decided to do some theorycrafting about what number of node stages will work with the population and the number of total nodes(85) one can become a citizen of.

THIS IS ALL THEORY

Note: excluding the castle nodes as they aren't relevant in regards to citizenship of a node.

So just to get a sort of baseline I looked at the node stage simulator Intrepid showcased. At the peak of the progress of the timeline I counted the different nodes and their stages out of 111 and got the numbers as follows

Percents rounded down
Stage 2- 46 (41%)
Stage 3- 20 (18%)
Stage 4- 20 (18%)
Stage 5- 15 (13.5%)
Stage 6- 0

While there were no Stage 6, the maximum of 5 would put them between 4% and 5%.

So after using this as a basis, I noticed a sort of issue with having extra lower level nodes that aren't vassal nodes to try to overthrow established late Stage nodes. The issue being noticed where 5 Stage-6 nodes take up 10 Stage-5 nodes, 10 Stage-4 nodes, 20 stage-3 nodes, and 20 Stage-2 or less nodes. This only leaves 25 other nodes to work with for competition to take down high level nodes. Against the other 60. So working with what we have, I separated them out as follows in a layout for a server with 5 stage-6 nodes and the maximum for each stage node existing whike they are up.

Stage 2 or less- 28 (32%)
Stage 3- 28 (32%)
Stage 4- 12 (14%)
Stage 5- 12 (14%)
Stage 6- 5 (5%)

This would allow for 2 unvassalized Stage-5 nodes with their own vassals to contend with any of the 5 Stage-6 nodes. The only downside is there is no room for lower level stage nodes to be unvassalized and fight for dominance against other nodes, just those 2 unvassalized Stage-5 nodes. So I would say to allow for vassals to fight for independence in an effort to fight against their superior and potentially advance in node progression.

That aside, with these proposed numbers, I took the number of nodes eligible for citizenship (57) and divided the number of each node max total by that number for a percentage. I used these numbers to determine a sort of baseline for setting potential populations in nodes depending on stages. The way I did this was take each percentage and apply it to the 10000 player total, and I swapped the totals across each opposite node Stage eligible for citizenship. I.E. I used the percentage total of Stage-3 nodes and applied it to Stage 6. Why did I do this? Because the numbers actually seem to add up pretty well, and otherwise every node would have about 175 citizens.

So with numbers rounded down

Stage 3- 877 total citizens across 28 nodes, 31 citizens each.
Stage 4- 2105 total citizens across 12 nodes, 175 citizens each
Stage 5- 2105 total citizens across 12 nodes, 175 citizens each
Stage 6- 4912 citizens across 5 nodes, 982 citizens each.

This would put roughly 49% of the server as citizens in stage 6 nodes potentially. This would be excellent for economy and content. Though it may be a good idea to spread out citizen population totals more along the lines of

Stage 3-1000 citizens total (10%) 35 citizens each node
Stage 4-2000 citizens total (20%) 166 citizens each
Stage 5- 3000 citizens total (30%) 250 citizens each
Stage 6- 4000 citizens total (40%) 800 citizens each.

Now that all of that rambling is done, you have all of those numbers, and those aren't even considering the 5 castles and their 10 nodes which will house their guilds. So all of this said, does everyone think that there are enough nodes to create the proper amount of conflict despite the vassal system? How many citizens should each node be designed for? Are lower level nodes too cornered to progress with the current vassal systems design?

Did I put way to much thought into this? Yea, probably more than I should've.

Sorry for the ramblings, hope you enjoy the read of my ramblings.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Taleof2Cities

Hope you feel better soon, @Dolyem.

Given there will be multiple servers with different node setups at any given time, you should be able to hit those numbers at some point.

We’ll have to see how it plays out when the game launches.

JustVine

Get well soon mate

Ludullu

GWS

There's supposedly 50k people on a server (at least later on in the game's life). So I find it really difficult to figure out how exactly all of those will be spread out over the game or how the game will be designed to account for all of them. Especially when it comes to citizenship and anything related to it.

Dolyem

NiKr wrote: »

GWS

There's supposedly 50k people on a server (at least later on in the game's life). So I find it really difficult to figure out how exactly all of those will be spread out over the game or how the game will be designed to account for all of them. Especially when it comes to citizenship and anything related to it.

Damn I thought it was 10000. But I'm less concerned with player pop per node and more concerned with node conflict or lack thereof

Ludullu

Dolyem wrote: »

Damn I thought it was 10000. But I'm less concerned with player pop per node and more concerned with node conflict or lack thereof

10k concurrent and 50k overall registered per server.

And population ties into conflict. If nodes are accounting for 5k people XPing in them daily, but then only 2k do so, the node will start to decay. Decay of a stage-3-5 node would influence its parent node. A weak stage-6 node would probably be easier to siege. And even w/o sieges it would lead to changes in the layout of the land. And that, in turn, would lead to conflict, cause change always leads to conflict, either due to a power void or through a shift of populace from the destroyed node onto the surrounding ones which would bring resources scarcity and new money flows with it.

But that's just a theory... A NODE THEORY!

Dolyem

NiKr wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Damn I thought it was 10000. But I'm less concerned with player pop per node and more concerned with node conflict or lack thereof

10k concurrent and 50k overall registered per server.

And population ties into conflict. If nodes are accounting for 5k people XPing in them daily, but then only 2k do so, the node will start to decay. Decay of a stage-3-5 node would influence its parent node. A weak stage-6 node would probably be easier to siege. And even w/o sieges it would lead to changes in the layout of the land. And that, in turn, would lead to conflict, cause change always leads to conflict, either due to a power void or through a shift of populace from the destroyed node onto the surrounding ones which would bring resources scarcity and new money flows with it.

But that's just a theory... A NODE THEORY!

I get all of that and agree. What I mean is having nodes capable of fighting eachother to progress. If vassals can't fight eachother and everything is a vassal node, that concerns me in regards to a server with 5 established stage 6 nodes. Where with my suggestion, you could have nodes not vassalized by the 5 stage 6 nodes to promote more conflict

novercalis

can you run the math on the old node system before they removed some nodes. Those deleted nodes - how important would they have been math wise.

Draaz3n

Dolyem wrote: »

Now that all of that rambling is done, you have all of those numbers, and those aren't even considering the 5 castles and their 10 nodes which will house their guilds. So all of this said, does everyone think that there are enough nodes to create the proper amount of conflict despite the vassal system? How many citizens should each node be designed for? Are lower level nodes too cornered to progress with the current vassal systems design?

I was discussing with my guild mate Nover...I think the node type will determine the amount of folks that will flock to it. Early/mid game, I can see eco and sci nodes having a higher pop count. I believe the base instinct will drive players to these nodes especially if they are higher level comparitively to other nodes in the area in general, but maybe even for the specific node type. I get its just theorycrafting, but I dont see a linear progression at all!

Since nodes can go to war, I bet we may even see someone start up a node nearby to a larger node in order to try and gain control. I think the vassal system will really kick in AFTER a situation like the above happens.

Ludullu

Dolyem wrote: »

I get all of that and agree. What I mean is having nodes capable of fighting eachother to progress. If vassals can't fight eachother and everything is a vassal node, that concerns me in regards to a server with 5 established stage 6 nodes. Where with my suggestion, you could have nodes not vassalized by the 5 stage 6 nodes to promote more conflict

I don't think we'll need MORE conflict. I do believe we'll have enough of it, especially if Intrepid spread out the content correctly. Some small skirmish leading to a guild war which leads to a node war which leads to a node siege which leads to big changes in the world which might lead to more skirmishes. Even if vassal nodes can't declare wars (which I doubt), the bigshots at the top would be interested in controlling those kinds of things cause their own node depends on the health of their vassals.

akabear

This information is exactly the reason I had suggested some time ago that spatial studies should be done to test the relative population densities and feel of each size of town development against the perceived min/max active population and the quantity of npc fillers required AND then adjust the size of the master plan for each town size to suit.

Perception of nodal success and feel of a thriving game will depend on getting this balance right.

Part of a draw to any given town will be a combination of the town planning utility (services), the convenience of that utility setout (town master planning), visual Populus (how active and how many players you can see, not just how many are at the town), how dense that population is (reasonably close to feel active, not random figures moving across a distant vista) as well as the benefits.

Dolyem

NiKr wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

I get all of that and agree. What I mean is having nodes capable of fighting eachother to progress. If vassals can't fight eachother and everything is a vassal node, that concerns me in regards to a server with 5 established stage 6 nodes. Where with my suggestion, you could have nodes not vassalized by the 5 stage 6 nodes to promote more conflict

I don't think we'll need MORE conflict. I do believe we'll have enough of it, especially if Intrepid spread out the content correctly. Some small skirmish leading to a guild war which leads to a node war which leads to a node siege which leads to big changes in the world which might lead to more skirmishes. Even if vassal nodes can't declare wars (which I doubt), the bigshots at the top would be interested in controlling those kinds of things cause their own node depends on the health of their vassals.

From the wiki
Vassal nodes cannot declare war on their parent node or any of their vassals.[2]

My whole point is to keep the top 5 nodes on their toes, they should need to keep their vassals happy in order to not be overthrown. Without having to worry about their own vassals declaring war, how will those nodes overcome that problem besides having to abandon ship entirely? I'd rather fight for the node I worked on.

Ludullu

Dolyem wrote: »

My whole point is to keep the top 5 nodes on their toes, they should need to keep their vassals happy in order to not be overthrown. Without having to worry about their own vassals declaring war, how will those nodes overcome that problem besides having to abandon ship entirely? I'd rather fight for the node I worked on.

Yeah, the inability to overturn your parent node is a problem, but I think we'll just have to see whether it remains one through testing. Or if it's a problem at all, depending on Intrepid's design for the overall node gameplay.

And if you're talking about the metros' side of the situation, then we just don't know what exactly gonna be the benefits that would ensure the survival of a metro. We know that policies are a part of those benefits, but I'm not sure if it'd be enough.

In other words, we don't have any real info. And we definitely don't have info on how population sizes will influence nodes.

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

I get all of that and agree. What I mean is having nodes capable of fighting eachother to progress. If vassals can't fight eachother and everything is a vassal node, that concerns me in regards to a server with 5 established stage 6 nodes. Where with my suggestion, you could have nodes not vassalized by the 5 stage 6 nodes to promote more conflict

I don't think we'll need MORE conflict. I do believe we'll have enough of it, especially if Intrepid spread out the content correctly. Some small skirmish leading to a guild war which leads to a node war which leads to a node siege which leads to big changes in the world which might lead to more skirmishes. Even if vassal nodes can't declare wars (which I doubt), the bigshots at the top would be interested in controlling those kinds of things cause their own node depends on the health of their vassals.

From the wiki
Vassal nodes cannot declare war on their parent node or any of their vassals.[2]

My whole point is to keep the top 5 nodes on their toes, they should need to keep their vassals happy in order to not be overthrown. Without having to worry about their own vassals declaring war, how will those nodes overcome that problem besides having to abandon ship entirely? I'd rather fight for the node I worked on.

My thoughts are that a node likely needs active cooperation from its vassals in order to successfully defend a siege.

While it may well be that many players would rather fight for the node they worked on, I can also see situations where a players preference is to be a citizen of a level 5 node (I dont see this happening with lower tier nodes) that is a vassal of a specific type of level 6 node.

Two fairly obvious examples (to me) would be someone wanting to be in a scientific node for its access to crafting, but wanting the market access afforded by an economic metropolis.

The second example may be someone wanting to live in a military node for bounty hunting, but wanting the fast travel afforded by a scientific metropolis.

We dont know much about different type node benefits as yet - especially at lower levels. However, it isnt too hard to imagine situations where people may want the lower tier benefits of one node type, but the metropolis benefit of a different node type.

As such, I simply dont see it being a case of everyone wanting "their node" to be the local metropolis. Obviously some will, no doubt. I can just see there being as many players wanting to have a combination of benefits as I can see wanting to have "their node" be the metropolis.

The way I see it, node clusters will work almost like factions in a game like WoW. You aren't supposed to fight within your faction - at least not openly. The threat to a metropolis level node should be coming from other metropolis level nodes and their vassals.

If a node clusters vassals are not happy with their metropolis, to me the appropriate thing for them to do is to assist another metropolis in sieging said metropolis. Obviously not directly, but to me, a metropolis that doesnt have active support from most of its vassals in a siege shouldnt stand much of a chance.

We have no real way of knowing how the game is designed to handle all of this, but to me, the above seems like it would work the best. Better than allowing vassals to attack their parent node.

Dolyem

@NiKr @Noaani I agree with both of you, but I also believe that this should definitely be brought to the attention of the design team. It could be nothing to worry about at all, but if it is an unforseen issue as far as intent goes, it should be tested. The difficult part is this is a long term issue. So hopefully there is an attempt to test it efficiently during alpha 2.

Nerror

Dolyem wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

I get all of that and agree. What I mean is having nodes capable of fighting eachother to progress. If vassals can't fight eachother and everything is a vassal node, that concerns me in regards to a server with 5 established stage 6 nodes. Where with my suggestion, you could have nodes not vassalized by the 5 stage 6 nodes to promote more conflict

I don't think we'll need MORE conflict. I do believe we'll have enough of it, especially if Intrepid spread out the content correctly. Some small skirmish leading to a guild war which leads to a node war which leads to a node siege which leads to big changes in the world which might lead to more skirmishes. Even if vassal nodes can't declare wars (which I doubt), the bigshots at the top would be interested in controlling those kinds of things cause their own node depends on the health of their vassals.

From the wiki
Vassal nodes cannot declare war on their parent node or any of their vassals.[2]

My whole point is to keep the top 5 nodes on their toes, they should need to keep their vassals happy in order to not be overthrown. Without having to worry about their own vassals declaring war, how will those nodes overcome that problem besides having to abandon ship entirely? I'd rather fight for the node I worked on.

What I hope the system will be is a very symbiotic vassal/parent relationship, where the parent needs the vassal to thrive, and vice versa. People in vassal nodes should have full access to services in the parent node, on par with the citizens in that node. The same goes the other way. Let's say the parent node is economic. They would greatly benefit from having vassals of a different node type because of mutual access to services. The only real downside to not being a citizen of the parent or vassal node you need the service from should be a little travel time between the nodes.

In other words, I hope the system encourages players to see the entire parent/vassal branch as beneficial and worth fighting for and improving, even if the mayor sucks in a given node. I hope Intrepid doesn't make a system where a mayor can cut off any benefits and services to and from vassal and parent nodes. That's too much power.

As for declaring war against other nodes, I really hope we get more information soon.

akabear

Just out of interest, once at metropolis stage, how many nodes are likely attached and how much land area would be under the ZOI?

Then wondering, if that ZOI is the zone you want to XP in to develop, how does it compare to a % or fraction of the overall map?

Strevi

This system where the nodes with more dedicated players win the competition of leveling up their node is fair because it is taking more activity types into account. If the game would let players decide this through pvp only, neighboring nodes would start fighting eachother soon and bigger alliances would be less likely to form. Or if they would, those would again be decided by a few powerful guilds.

Veeshan

NiKr wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

My whole point is to keep the top 5 nodes on their toes, they should need to keep their vassals happy in order to not be overthrown. Without having to worry about their own vassals declaring war, how will those nodes overcome that problem besides having to abandon ship entirely? I'd rather fight for the node I worked on.

Yeah, the inability to overturn your parent node is a problem, but I think we'll just have to see whether it remains one through testing. Or if it's a problem at all, depending on Intrepid's design for the overall node gameplay.

And if you're talking about the metros' side of the situation, then we just don't know what exactly gonna be the benefits that would ensure the survival of a metro. We know that policies are a part of those benefits, but I'm not sure if it'd be enough.

In other words, we don't have any real info. And we definitely don't have info on how population sizes will influence nodes.

just bribe some other people to destroy it for you, just bank roll peoples attacks to knock it out of the game so you can get ur teir 5 to the new 6

Dolyem

akabear wrote: »

Just out of interest, once at metropolis stage, how many nodes are likely attached and how much land area would be under the ZOI?

Then wondering, if that ZOI is the zone you want to XP in to develop, how does it compare to a % or fraction of the overall map?

A stage 6 node has the following Vassals.
2 stage 5
2 stage 4
4 stage 3
4 stage 0-2

And a metropolis' ZOI is roughly 1/5 of the world map (excluding oceans I'm assuming)

Azherae

Ok having read this a few times I'm missing a context here @Dolyem

What do we mean when we say 'contend with'?

The only ways I can think of to 'fight' a node are VERY strong Economic pressure, and sieging it.

The only requirement to siege a node is to complete the questline required for the scroll and this can be done by a single player.

I feel like I'm missing something here. If you want a node brought down, literally any player can start that process for you, what you would need to do is get enough attackers. So I figure the concern is that 'citizens of a Node can't act against it in a Siege' and similarly for 'citizens of Vassals', but I can't find anything other than 'can't declare Node War'.

But Node War seems to only have the purpose of 'being allowed to attack the citizens' as if in a Guild War.

I can't find any indication of what this is 'for' other than the usual 'you annoyed us so we're killing you'. I can definitely see an issue here, but I'm not sure if I see the actual concern here. 'Overthrown' doesn't seem to have anything to do with Node Wars only Node Sieges.

Child Item