Once all ZOI's have 17 Nodes, Why Fight Eachother?

So, each of the 5 Metropolises will be the capital of 5 Zones of Influence (ZOI's) "Node-kingdoms" as 85 / 5 = 17.

We've heard of Node Relics: items that Node-cities can store in their central reliquary, that grant special bonuses, to their Nodes/lord-cities/vassal Nodes. However....

What reasons will the 5 ZOI/kingdoms fight, beyond this? Have been scratching my brain for the last while, trying to figure out WHY - if the ZOI's can only claim a max of 20% of the world - we'd be fighting, once each ZOI reaches it's max size.

Have we heard yet of other things that will incentivize kingdom v kingdom wars and struggles?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Tyranthraxus

Zipp_Adoudel wrote: »

I was off by 2 it is only 13 https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Metropolis

I'm glad you pointed this out, because:

1) I believe your math is correct, about "vassaled" Nodes and

2) I don't think a lot of us caught on to the aspect that there seems to be a discrepancy between the kingdom/nation that they will constitute, and the present material on Zones of Influence.

If a vassal-kingdom can only be 13 Nodes, that would infer that the Zones of Influence could still be as big as 17 - if they can, in fact, encompass 1/5 of the world. However, this would have to mean that some Nodes in that collection of 17 are NOT vassaled.

Very interesting. Will make this the topic of my next Q&A question.

Songcaller

novercalis wrote: »

There should be 1 more NODE TYPE..

Cause currently - if the server was to min/max we would have each type, economy, religion, etc.

But if there was 6 node types but only 5 can be in the world - then we have a reason for another node to fight their parent to build this other type of node.

There are only 4 types at the moment, thus, 2 more would be needed. Thanks for making me wrack my mind for several hours about 5 node types before I could check the wiki 😆

Veeshan

novercalis wrote: »

There should be 1 more NODE TYPE..

Cause currently - if the server was to min/max we would have each type, economy, religion, etc.

But if there was 6 node types but only 5 can be in the world - then we have a reason for another node to fight their parent to build this other type of node.

pirate node please :P could have something to do with increase rewards from plunder goods from other players or reduced corruption from kills from people who are not citizen of the node as the node benefits. Military has the anti pk things with the bounty hunter system so it makes sense to have one that a little more PK relevant to counter act that.

Also having a pirate (or bandit allows for non coastal nodes there) nearby would also promote conflict in regions where PvE nodes may push to destroy the pirate metro to reduce the PKing they have in there area which is an interesting dynamic.

Veeshan

Its possible that not every metropolist would hit max vassels too i would assume.
Like lets say one continents is super populated so 4 metro appear ont he west continent and only 1 on the east, whats gonna happen there the ZOI probaly isnt gonna cross the ocean to the other major continent so the 4 on the west continent will be competing to suck up the vassel nodes not probaly run out of nodes they can vassalise before hitting the cap. the east continetn will suck up the nodes around it till it hit the cap leaving alot of unvasslised ones around there aswell that cant be claimed till a metro gets destroyed

Veeshan

Neurath wrote: »

novercalis wrote: »

There should be 1 more NODE TYPE..

Cause currently - if the server was to min/max we would have each type, economy, religion, etc.

But if there was 6 node types but only 5 can be in the world - then we have a reason for another node to fight their parent to build this other type of node.

There are only 4 types at the moment, thus, 2 more would be needed. Thanks for making me wrack my mind for several hours about 5 node types before I could check the wiki 😆

Could adding a bonus to have 2 of the same node in the world so lets say 2 military node provide x bonus to citizen of those nodes or 2 religion nodes provides a bonus to those citizens cause then the other other 3 nodes that dont have a double would have reason to destroy the node type that have 2 so then maybe one of the replacement nodes might be their type so they now get the bonus instead.

Raven016

Creating new stronger nodes where resources spawn will be easier than maintaining the old ones where resources were depleted.

Azherae

Raven016 wrote: »

Creating new stronger nodes where resources spawn will be easier than maintaining the old ones where resources were depleted.

Also agreed totally. I can see some 'mining outposts' or 'fishing villages' becoming 'ghost towns' after a bit. At that point it's closer to 'demolition', though.

Raven016

daveywavey wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

If you mean 'what would bring down a whole nation', probably nothing. At the 'lockout' values Intrepid gave us, I wouldn't expect any of the second-gen metros to fall until year 2 end.

So nodes falling will be a sign of the game dying. People losing motivation to defend the nodes or do whatever grind is needed to be able to defend them.

?

Nodes falling is an intended part of the game design.

Another thought I have is that the 'intended part' does not guarantee that players will like it.
Will we test node dynamic in alpha?
Will alpha 2 play style be relevant and reflect what players at release want?

daveywavey

Raven016 wrote: »

Another thought I have is that the 'intended part' does not guarantee that players will like it.
Will we test node dynamic in alpha?
Will alpha 2 play style be relevant and reflect what players at release want?

The intent is that Alpha-2 will eventually be feature-complete so we'll be able to test everything together. So, we'll be testing everything to do with nodes along the way.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Dygz

Aces_Are_Wild wrote: »

I believe their will always be special rewards for taking over nodes, especially ones that are high level and I am sure people would love to take over a max level node just for the trolls or even change of it

Successful Sieges destroy Nodes. There is no take-over of a Metro via Siege.

Dygz

novercalis wrote: »

There should be 1 more NODE TYPE..

Cause currently - if the server was to min/max we would have each type, economy, religion, etc.

But if there was 6 node types but only 5 can be in the world - then we have a reason for another node to fight their parent to build this other type of node.

Again, this is already achieved via Racial dominance - 5 Metros/9 Races.
Also, just because there is one Economic Metro, that does not mean it's being progressed/governed in a manner desirable to the other Metros.

Dygz

daveywavey wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Another thought I have is that the 'intended part' does not guarantee that players will like it.
Will we test node dynamic in alpha?
Will alpha 2 play style be relevant and reflect what players at release want?

The intent is that Alpha-2 will eventually be feature-complete so we'll be able to test everything together. So, we'll be testing everything to do with nodes along the way.

We probably won't be able to test time, though.
When will the game release if we actually have 60-day lockouts for Node Sieges?

Aszkalon

Why do i suddenly have the Feeling that we might see a few insane Server-Crashes in Alpha Two, when Siege Battles are involved ?

Zipp_Adoudel

Niem Lumel wrote: »

There is no sensible reason for the groups of people who dominate the server to change its political structure. Economic relationships are going to be disrupted and server-wide benefits are bound to be lost once a metropolis is destroyed. Only those who are already behind in progression and widescale coordination would attempt to destroy a metropolis in the first place.

Content getting stale is a small price to pay for the continued dominance of those who sit on top.

There are going to be short periods of in-fighting. However, every type of large-scale will die out on its own since the losers will quit the game sooner or later. There aren't any catch-up mechanics or anything similar for players who are technically "behind" those who have control over the server. The game is not set to organize important world events on its own such as a Metropolis siege or Holy Crusades that anyone can participate in through means directly provided by the game. It is all left for the players to sort that out by themselves, and sort they will.

Why does every convo degrade to a Zerg mentaliaty? Interpid is doing an amazing job of making people choose. Skill trees, lifeskills, location...etc. One groups view of the server is just that. Steven has said that he expects there to be fracturing of larger coherent groups into smaller groups that fight each other over choices. They are trying to design a system that has no correct best way. One way might be better for taxes but another has more services. One might have high level dungeons, the other has high level crafting. Everything will not be able to be max or best so people will disagree on which it should be. The game will not be static. And behind is really a relative term. Eve is a time based "leveling" system. If you didnt start in 2006 or whenever it came out, you are behind. Might as well never play it, except as the skills get more specalized, the time it takes to research them goes way up. Maybe it gives 1% more damage on a gun, but takes a month to train or 3 months to train. Its not a game changer. Sure you are better than everyone else, but if you get caught in a bad place you still die to someone who is "behind"

The node system is designed for conflict because you cant have everything. Servers will be static for a little while, but they will change. Fail a node seige, 60 days of keeping it until the next group takes a shot, or the same group recruits buddies. Resources and dungeons and crafting and freehold for processing and location in the world and seasons and years and story arcs and...and....and... will all drive the guild landscape to change, the node landscape to change, the direction of the crafting loop to change, as well as everything else.

The only constant in this game will be that there is no constant and that you have to make hay when the sun is shining.

TheDarkSorcerer

Hartassen wrote: »

Drama between different organizations both ingame and out of game will ensure there'll be plenty of reasons to destroy nodes.

Not to mention the already specified ingame reasons for doing so such as unlocking other type of content, or wanting to change node type.

As a solo player i cannot wait to sit on the sidelines with a bag of popcorn watching the drama unfold haha

Tyranthraxus

Raven016 wrote: »

Another thought I have is that the 'intended part' does not guarantee that players will like it.

Will we test node dynamic in alpha?

Will alpha 2 play style be relevant and reflect what players at release want?

The Nodes-system is to be the aspect of the game that will be put out there as the driving unique element of the game, to attract players to a next-gen MMORPG. Some might not like it, but it will be known well-ahead of playing that the game will feature Nodes that will both rise and fall; it won't come as an unpleasant surprise, to anyone who picks up the game.

The Node system did see some crude/elementary testing the Alpha One, and is intended for extensive testing/balancing in the Alpha Two.

The game itself will NOT reflect what players want at release, and nor is it intended to; This is a true Alpha, not just a chance to experience the game, pre-launch. Most of us have probably seen alphas/betas before wherein the game-dev company is really just letting you test a product they've already finished and won't be putting any more work, into; Instead, we'll be pioneering interfaces, probing at to-be systems and providing feedback for improvements, and bug-testing the hell out of the game environment.

Aszkalon wrote: »

Why do i suddenly have the Feeling that we might see a few insane Server-Crashes in Alpha Two, when Siege Battles are involved ?

Don't know. The primary purpose of the Alpha One was to test the durability and capacities of the server-hardware - and by IS's accounts, it passed with flying colors.

Zipp_Adoudel wrote: »

The only constant in this game will be that there is no constant and that you have to make hay when the sun is shining.

A good summarization - am just wondering how that will play out with ZOI borders.

If a ZOI can grow to 17 Nodes, and only 13 can be vassaled, will the borders still change based only on the destruction of Nodes? And if not, how will those borders/territories change, if a ZOI *already* has 20% of the world's mass?

Raven016

Veeshan wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

If you mean 'what would bring down a whole nation', probably nothing. At the 'lockout' values Intrepid gave us, I wouldn't expect any of the second-gen metros to fall until year 2 end.

So nodes falling will be a sign of the game dying. People losing motivation to defend the nodes or do whatever grind is needed to be able to defend them.

?

Nodes falling is an intended part of the game design.

That's what I thought too but during the last interview with Steven, I noticed he diverted a question toward guild wars instead.
Maybe nodes will be balanced to last long time and players encouraged to participate more in castle sieges and guild wars.

there pretty much the same thing im pretty sure, Guild war allow you to kil somone of the enemy guild while node wars allow you to kill somone of enemy node. Then it expands further into castle or node seiges from my understanding atleast

Castles may cause node wars too because you can end up paying taxes to guilds which are not citizens of your metropolis nation. And those guilds may end up using the taxes for themselves rather than providing buffs to the region

- Castle regions, Economic regions, and Node ZOI (Zones of Influence) can overlap.[3][4]
- Node ZOIs are fluid and change their area based on the progression of the node and its neighbors.[16]
- Castle region boundaries are static.[3]
- A castle's region is 1/5th the game world.[2]
- Nodes are the glue that hold castle and economic regions together in potential synergy or chaos.[18]
- Guild castles impose a tax on all revenue for the nodes within its region.[6][7]
- The monarch sets the tax rate, and can use those proceeds to upgrade defenses, maintain the castle's direct nodes, or provide buffs and benefits to the citizens of that region.[8]
- The remainder of tax income can be used by the guild for whatever they want.[6][13]

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Castle_regions

Raven016

Tyranthraxus wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Another thought I have is that the 'intended part' does not guarantee that players will like it.

Will we test node dynamic in alpha?

Will alpha 2 play style be relevant and reflect what players at release want?

...
Some might not like it, but it will be known well-ahead of playing that the game will feature Nodes that will both rise and fall; it won't come as an unpleasant surprise, to anyone who picks up the game.

The game itself will NOT reflect what players want at release, and nor is it intended to;
[/i]

It may end up being Steven's surprise if he gets fewer players than he expects. Players can also play for 6-9 months only, after release.

Xeeg

Another part of this is question is that if you already have a bunch of ZOIs set up, and you only kill 1, then it will reform as itself again because the other ZOIs are already set up.

Child Item