Ownership = will to defend. How many will be owners?

How many players within a lvl 3 node will have something to lose, and thus a motivation?

If a player has no stake in a fight, why would they fight?

@BlackBrony made a good point when he asked 'Why should I fight for my node?'

Its a good question.

Having ownership centers around housing it seems, mainly FHS. So I wonder how many players in a lvl3 will actually care whether the node gets razed or not.

I think this could be a motivational problem for the node system.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Songcaller

If owner, will fight for fh. If not owner of fh won't even be citizen.

Mag7spy

If the person has not care for connection for their node they might not defend it and hope to other ones. But the people that are focused on pvp as well as care about their node and want it to grow will defend it and do what they can.

This gets into the mind set of a pve player, vrs a pvp player. As a pvp player it isn't even a question if there is a fight I'm going to be there it is that simple. Not to mention I'm sure there will be plenty to lose in your bank and such.

As development continues we will get more information on it, and node destruction is going to be a big deal in the impact on the world and the players. I am certain players will want to defend, or even try to stop people from declaring if possible.

Ludullu

One thing that seems to have been forgotten in these discussions (or maybe I missed its mention) is the vassal system. Metros will, supposedly, rely on their vassals' decay points as much as their own, so if there's some instability in the overall structure - that's a chance for the metro to fall.

Any and all guilds that had their hand in raising up and supporting that metro would probably be highly interested in keeping it alive and well. So imo there's a fairly high chance that lvl3 nodes will get protected by the strong dudes above purely because it would not be beneficial for those dudes to destabilize their gameplay.

BlackBrony

With 10k players in the whole server and 85 nodes, that means each node would have 117 players.
At node 3 there are 8 cottages
Low thousands freehold = 2.5k > that means 30 free holds per node?

So in one node maybe 40 people have houses, the rest don't. Of course at village stage. Number of players will increase, but freehold number is static.

Of course population won't distribute evenly, which means certain nodes will have even more players

Ludullu

BlackBrony wrote: »

At node 3 there are 8 cottages

This number has changed and will be revealed later on. Doubt it's somehow way bigger, but still.

Veeshan

NiKr wrote: »

One thing that seems to have been forgotten in these discussions (or maybe I missed its mention) is the vassal system. Metros will, supposedly, rely on their vassals' decay points as much as their own, so if there's some instability in the overall structure - that's a chance for the metro to fall.

Any and all guilds that had their hand in raising up and supporting that metro would probably be highly interested in keeping it alive and well. So imo there's a fairly high chance that lvl3 nodes will get protected by the strong dudes above purely because it would not be beneficial for those dudes to destabilize their gameplay.

I will say one thing on vassal nodes, if my citizenship is a T5 node under the metro vassalship i wouldnt wanna defend the metro tbh because if it gets destroyed effectivly my T5 node is a 50/50 chance to be the next metro since there 2 T5 nodes under a T6 vassal so there some weird interaction there on why should i defend the metro node. But there could be a reason to that we dont know yet just something i figured i would mention.

Veeshan

Another thing i want to bring up is to be a citizen of a node you need to have a house of some kinda either in node, FH or appartment and there quite a few thing you cant do if ur not a citizen so there is reason to be a citizen even if you dont get a FH or in house node. it also means the amount of appartments a node has determins the amount of people the node can have as citizens.

player density will also play a roll on how easily one can obtai a freehold majority im guessing about 70% of player will be somewhat close to the 6 Metro nodes (i beleive there still 6) so any node far away from these will have substancialy less competition for freeholds, will laso be less PKs aswell as a bonus for the people trying to advoid PK's :P

Ludullu

Veeshan wrote: »

I will say one thing on vassal nodes, if my citizenship is a T5 node under the metro vassalship i wouldnt wanna defend the metro tbh because if it gets destroyed effectivly my T5 node is a 50/50 chance to be the next metro since there 2 T5 nodes under a T6 vassal so there some weird interaction there on why should i defend the metro node. But there could be a reason to that we dont know yet just something i figured i would mention.

Good point and those same top dudes from the metro might want to make deals with people from vassals. They protect your stuff and you in turn help them out with their metro. And any betrayals from either side will lead to cool drama and big shifts in power, which is always welcomed in a pvp game.

Sathrago

I feel like people are missing the point of how nodes work in tandem with the size of the map. You're more than likely going to want to find a place to settle down at, and no one likes change. Are you just gonna sit by and let them demolish your favorite inn? completely remove a node and make you move to another area that is probably already taken?

People still have access to Apartments and static housing. Theres also the fact that if you store materials at a node, that stuff gets locked in once a siege starts, and your materials are on the looting table if you fail to defend. And I quote: "A portion of all Materials (crafting components) and Gatherables that were stored in successfully sieged nodes become lootable to the victors of the siege as spoils of war."

Here's another important quote in the context of when a node is destroyed: "Gatherables and processed goods that were stored in in-node housing and apartment storage chests become lootable. These are not lootable if the node survives the siege- even if the housing buildings are destroyed or damaged during the siege.[68]"

So yeah, you non-citizens that think you're just gonna skip town better think carefully about the resources you store. It's one siege away from being taken. And if thats not enough incentive to defend a node then you are just living in coocoo land.

Songcaller

What resources do you think we'll be hoarding? Seems to me all resources are required for something and all resources can be sold...also not everyone will be a gatherer.

Seems to me you're scared you will face a rebellion from defenders and your plans will be scuppered by pacifists on one side and cutthroats on the other.

It is reasonable to state one will defend a freehold if required but one won't get involved if there's little skin in the game. There are other buildings to protect like Guild Hall or Castle. You can bet I will defend nodes my castle is linked to.

LegendaryIII

(Changes name to: Devil's Advocate)

If I live in a neighboring node 1 level below the targeted node... like, mine home is level 2, and the level 3 is under siege.
You bet I'm joining the defense! More over, I'm gonna encourage the whole town to join in.

Then, as the battle is set to begin... We pull a "BraveHeart" and ride away. (figuratively)

Then after we go to powerlevel our Town.

Noaani

Sathrago wrote: »

Are you just gonna sit by and let them demolish your favorite inn? completely remove a node and make you move to another area that is probably already taken?

Yes.

As far as we know, apartments and static housing offer no gameplay. You can't set up a sawmill or a fishing pond, for example.

As such, losing them isn't really a problem. Since losing them isn't really a problem, not having one isn't really a problem.

Now, imagine you are a player that doesn't have a freehold, and has no reasonable expectation of getting one any time soon. You could base yourseld in one node, store all your materials there, get a house there, be a citizen etc. Basically, do all the things.

The thing is, doing all of that doesn't actually see you gain anything - at least not that we know of as yet.

The alternative is to not have a house (no loss), spread your materials over multiple zones (lower loss in a potential siege), and simply not consider any one node home. This will see you moving around the world more than someone that needs to requrn to that one locatio nis likely to be able to reasonably do.

Basically, with what we know so far, if you don't own a freehold, not considering any one node to be home is BY FAR your best play.

As such, the only reason you would have for joining a node siege is for gameplay purposes - you just want to play some siege content. The thing is, even if you have some materials stored in that node, if it loses it will probably open up the possibility of the next big node over gaining supremecy, and you probably have just as much stored in that node as this node. Basically, you may be better off if the node loses, even if you have stuff stored there.

I have no doubt Intrepid will try and fix this. The problem is, the way I see them trying to fix it is by stating that many of the node amenities and services that we have been told are available to all will now only be available to citizens. This will come across as Intrepid taking even more away from players, and so will see even more people leave the game (or people that have already left even more sure that they won't come back).

What Intrepid need to do instead is to add in a new reason for people to care about their node. The problem is, it needs to be a reason on par with owning a freehold. This was a part of the reasoning behind why my prediction is that Intrepid will essentially add in a second tier of freehold - half an acre rather than an acre and a half.

To me, that really is the only way to pull a win out of this situation.

Songcaller

I don't think you can make node banks/warehouses for citizens only. It would destroy the caravan system.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

I don't think you can make node banks/warehouses for citizens only. It would destroy the caravan system.

I don't think you could either.

But then, I also never thought you could make freeholds as exclusive as they just made them without breaking the concept of sieges and node citizenship.

Songcaller

Yeah, granted. I will just store my resources in Tier 1 Nodes. Unlikely a T1 node will be sieged. When it levels higher, will transport the resources to another tier 1 node lol.

Kilion

From all I have heard and read so far these points might be relevant.

- There is still housing in the city, even unique ones. And even if it is "just" your apartment, losing the node means losing the interior until you rebuild it in a new node.
- A citizenship is said to have its own unique perks so anyone profitting from these perks would be well advised to keep that Node in existence
- lore and faction motivated players have a reason to defend a node. Losing a Node could spell the premature end of a story arch that would only go on with a Node in the area advancing.
- Anyone who has stored goods and gear in the Node will want to defend it during a siege to not lose those goods.
- from Tier 4 onwards Nodes will also have patron guilds which will have guild halls in the city that they will not want to lose
- At the stage where they can be stored a Node's relics can provide very rare materials, anyone profitting from those will be incentivized to defend this free material allocation

And as a last point I might add that the Alpha stage is also there to help see how well a system is working. If sieges fail to attract any defenders it could cause Intrepid to deem the siege systems incentive structure dysfunctional. And since an Alpha phase is exactly there to ensure that the mechanics and system work as intended, there is a good chance they be adjusted through additional investment opportunities or additional reward systems for defenders.

Trustmebro666

I would fight just to play the content. I don't need an emotional connection to my node just to PvP over it. I love PvP, and I will do it just for the sake of it. It's really not deeper than that.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

Yeah, granted. I will just store my resources in Tier 1 Nodes. Unlikely a T1 node will be sieged. When it levels higher, will transport the resources to another tier 1 node lol.

That is actually quite smart.

Not saying that as a surpise that you came up with it or anyt, just genuinly surprised I hadn't thought of it yet.

Edit to add; now watch Intrepid not allow storage in a node until the point where that node can be sieged - because taking away from players is their thing right now.

Sathrago

Noaani wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

Are you just gonna sit by and let them demolish your favorite inn? completely remove a node and make you move to another area that is probably already taken?

Yes.

As far as we know, apartments and static housing offer no gameplay. You can't set up a sawmill or a fishing pond, for example.

As such, losing them isn't really a problem. Since losing them isn't really a problem, not having one isn't really a problem.

Now, imagine you are a player that doesn't have a freehold, and has no reasonable expectation of getting one any time soon. You could base yourseld in one node, store all your materials there, get a house there, be a citizen etc. Basically, do all the things.

The thing is, doing all of that doesn't actually see you gain anything - at least not that we know of as yet.

The alternative is to not have a house (no loss), spread your materials over multiple zones (lower loss in a potential siege), and simply not consider any one node home. This will see you moving around the world more than someone that needs to requrn to that one locatio nis likely to be able to reasonably do.

Basically, with what we know so far, if you don't own a freehold, not considering any one node to be home is BY FAR your best play.

As such, the only reason you would have for joining a node siege is for gameplay purposes - you just want to play some siege content. The thing is, even if you have some materials stored in that node, if it loses it will probably open up the possibility of the next big node over gaining supremecy, and you probably have just as much stored in that node as this node. Basically, you may be better off if the node loses, even if you have stuff stored there.

I have no doubt Intrepid will try and fix this. The problem is, the way I see them trying to fix it is by stating that many of the node amenities and services that we have been told are available to all will now only be available to citizens. This will come across as Intrepid taking even more away from players, and so will see even more people leave the game (or people that have already left even more sure that they won't come back).

What Intrepid need to do instead is to add in a new reason for people to care about their node. The problem is, it needs to be a reason on par with owning a freehold. This was a part of the reasoning behind why my prediction is that Intrepid will essentially add in a second tier of freehold - half an acre rather than an acre and a half.

To me, that really is the only way to pull a win out of this situation.

This all falls apart when you realize the only people that will lack access to freehold tech are those without friends or a guild. Its quite the large social interaction addition to the game. We don't even know the full access options a player can hand out for freeholds yet either. It could even be the case that people can make them open to the public.

Also, Im really shocked that people are so quick to think that every node will be generic copies of each other. Do you think you will be finding the same resources and mob drops in the desert as you will be in the Riverlands? All sorts of people have different preferences in zone aesthetic, mob types, farming spots (both gathering and mobs), etc. The travel time involved in what many of the non-citizen advocates here are "planning" is ridiculous. Most people will try to minimize travel times and keep their structures in-tact. Participating in a siege defense doesn't even hurt you.

Do you think that if you join a guild that has a freehold or two they will just happily accept it if you dont show up to defend it? What about the political landscape this game is going to foster? Again, the thought that defending a node has no incentives is just baffling to me if you have any plans to make friends or join any guild worth their salt. but hey, if you guys wanna do flips and tricks just to avoid a siege battle, go for it. You're choosing, not forced, choosing to not engage with the systems.

When the game comes out I will have access to a freehold or two even if I dont personally own it. You better make plans to do the same, or run the very high risk of making the game harder for yourself for no reason.

Noaani

Sathrago wrote: »

This all falls apart when you realize the only people that will lack access to freehold tech are those without friends or a guild.

This is not true.

Realistically, there will be 750 - 1k freeholds on a server at a time (the only assumption beng made here - I have justified this in another thread).

A family can have a total of 9 people in it. 8 people to start, but you can add one more via marrage (why you can add one person via marrage but only one person is well beyond me).

That means a freehold can have up to 9 people in it. WIth 1k freeholds on a server, that is 9k people with access to use a freehold.

A server will have 20 - 25k active players on it in order to achieve the 8 - 10k concurrent player target Intrepid has.

So, at the absolute best, slightly less than half of the playerbase has access to a freehold.

However, there are a few important points that reduce it further still.

The next point to consider is that guilds won't limit themselves to the minimum number of freeholds. A guild of 90 players isn't going to just stop at 10 freeholds - and organized guilds are the people that will essentially have first dibs on freeholds.

Next you have to consider that a freehold can't necessarily support 9 players. Sure, that is how many may have access to it, but it I use up all the land on my freehold for planting crops, then that is just me using that freehold.

Same with animal husbandry and fishing. It is only freeholds set up as processing and crafting hubs that will see multiple people using them.

So, all of a sudden we have to assume that there will be less than 5k people per server with access to freeholds, potentially as low as 2k.

Now, to be clear, my concern isn't about whether I will have one or not. I rarely argue about things from my own personal perspective. If I am playing the game, I will have a freehold (perhaps two). I have no doubt about that.

To me, it is about the entire player stack. If the game isn't worthwhile for players from the top end all the way down to the casual, then the game as a whole isn't worth playing - as the game needs all of these players to function.

Child Item