anything beyond just, "That node got to lvl 4 faster,"
Let us decide who our allies and rivals are.
Maybe im out of date but isnt this exactly that?
The node that is faster level 4 is the spot where the most people are. That means geographically, quest wise or other incentive is in that region why people flock to it. Therefore its the area people want to live. That does make sense to me.
If the least popular node gets to be the metro, then its a system driven choice rather than a people driven one. While yes, players made the choice which node should be metro, the system forces everyone in the area to migrate back to the least popular spot because some agreement they didnt have any say in. At least in your example of "the majors of each lv 3 node decide amongs them, who gets to be metro"
The leveling as a determine is pretty fair if you think about it, eventhough it seems boring.
Why will everyone want housing in a metro? The reason for housing is primarily citizenship and most of the benefits of citizenship you can get just from being a citizen of a vassal.
Owning a house in a metro will be a symbol of pride, have intrinsic value for guilds due to being easily seen, and have intrinsic value, people are gonna fight over em for sure
For me its probably some form of allegience. If im happy with where the metro is, what it is that i want to do, and im happy with the diplomatic / node development direction, then i would want to house there. Even though im going to no-life the game it comes out (vacation and extra time off), i doubt im gonna get a freehold. so i will settle for my housing in a metro. Unless housing will suck in this game then i dont even bother.
anything beyond just, "That node got to lvl 4 faster,"
Let us decide who our allies and rivals are.
Maybe im out of date but isnt this exactly that?
The node that is faster level 4 is the spot where the most people are. That means geographically, quest wise or other incentive is in that region why people flock to it. Therefore its the area people want to live. That does make sense to me.
If the least popular node gets to be the metro, then its a system driven choice rather than a people driven one. While yes, players made the choice which node should be metro, the system forces everyone in the area to migrate back to the least popular spot because some agreement they didnt have any say in. At least in your example of "the majors of each lv 3 node decide amongs them, who gets to be metro"
The leveling as a determine is pretty fair if you think about it, eventhough it seems boring.
The vassalization system is great for the server start since the most popular node will become the metro, my idea is great for after that because while higher tier nodes will have significant advantages by being able to field the players for the exp, caravans and node wars easier every single previously vassalized node level 3 and up will be able to participate in the chance to become the next metro, and potentially through shrewd diplomacy sheer power of will or both a level 3 node could do it, its a story as much as it is anything, and AOC is all about the server story.
Honestly I'd prefer vassalization to be more of a player-made decision to begin with, before a Metro even exists.
If who the Parent Node is decided through a war or siege or some diplomatic agreement between the node governments.... anything beyond just, "That node got to lvl 4 faster," so now I'm forced to be their ally, can't siege them, can't war them... oh yeah but they can siege my node down if they want to...
Let us decide who our allies and rivals are.
What do you mean the node we've been racing against for the past couple weeks is now our ally? What do you mean the very same people I PvP grind spots against are my superiors? Those nerds who keep scorching our land of it's natural resources are allowed to siege my node, but I can't participate in a siege against theirs??? Oh I'm not automatically signed up as a defender of their node now too in any siege against them?
Let us settle our beefs with our neighbors, many will be handled diplomatically with trade agreements and defense pacts and all kinds of stuff... That's just simply bound to happen in a game like this. Let us be the ones who decide those alliances though.
What about a node quest about the spread of ZOI when a node upgrades? Nearby nodes can vote to join the ZOI and become subnodes, or the promoted node gets a choice to forcibly claim the node through a node war.
What about a node quest about the spread of ZOI when a node upgrades? Nearby nodes can vote to join the ZOI and become subnodes, or the promoted node gets a choice to forcibly claim the node through a node war.
That would work while the nodes are in development during the early stages of the server, however much later once every node is within a vassalization structure this wont have any affect on the progression of nodes since technically speaking this is kind of how progressing a level 5 node to level 6 already works
Honestly I'd prefer vassalization to be more of a player-made decision to begin with, before a Metro even exists.
If who the Parent Node is decided through a war or siege or some diplomatic agreement between the node governments.... anything beyond just, "That node got to lvl 4 faster," so now I'm forced to be their ally, can't siege them, can't war them... oh yeah but they can siege my node down if they want to...
Let us decide who our allies and rivals are.
What do you mean the node we've been racing against for the past couple weeks is now our ally? What do you mean the very same people I PvP grind spots against are my superiors? Those nerds who keep scorching our land of it's natural resources are allowed to siege my node, but I can't participate in a siege against theirs??? Oh I'm not automatically signed up as a defender of their node now too in any siege against them?
Let us settle our beefs with our neighbors, many will be handled diplomatically with trade agreements and defense pacts and all kinds of stuff... That's just simply bound to happen in a game like this. Let us be the ones who decide those alliances though.
I much prefer this approach.
I think initially im fine with it being a race since that is basically the popular vote deciding the node, however later on with an established server the choice is no longer there, and i think that is really where the system is lacking, but i can see the case for either regardless.
Honestly I'd prefer vassalization to be more of a player-made decision to begin with, before a Metro even exists.
If who the Parent Node is decided through a war or siege or some diplomatic agreement between the node governments.... anything beyond just, "That node got to lvl 4 faster," so now I'm forced to be their ally, can't siege them, can't war them... oh yeah but they can siege my node down if they want to...
Let us decide who our allies and rivals are.
What do you mean the node we've been racing against for the past couple weeks is now our ally? What do you mean the very same people I PvP grind spots against are my superiors? Those nerds who keep scorching our land of it's natural resources are allowed to siege my node, but I can't participate in a siege against theirs??? Oh I'm not automatically signed up as a defender of their node now too in any siege against them?
Let us settle our beefs with our neighbors, many will be handled diplomatically with trade agreements and defense pacts and all kinds of stuff... That's just simply bound to happen in a game like this. Let us be the ones who decide those alliances though.
I much prefer this approach.
The problem with this approach is that the whole thing is looking at it from the wrong perspective.
First of all, assuming people in a node could make a collective decision that better reflects the will of that collective better than the output of their work (ie, the sum total of their willingness) is not really something that would work in a game.
Second, the idea that you become allies of your parent node once you become a vassal is not quite the right desctiption. You become their vassal - essentially their servant.
When you get made a vassal, you don't become allies with a previous rival, they become your master, and you their servant.
This is a perfectly reasonable thing - history is built on this notion.
I will add - I also think its important that vassalized nodes can't freely siege their parent nodes, it removes any possibility for actual diplomacy. It is best to allow force some level of vassalized state while still providing the opportunity for those vassals to make it big if their citizens are up for the challenge.
Second, the idea that you become allies of your parent node once you become a vassal is not quite the right desctiption. You become their vassal - essentially their servant.
When you get made a vassal, you don't become allies with a previous rival, they become your master, and you their servant.
This is a perfectly reasonable thing - history is built on this notion.
Slavery is a bit of an over statement, and I think subordinate is closer to the correct term.
Vassals pay taxes to the parent node. Vassals are capped by parent nodes level and give excess xp to the parent node. Vassals share a diplomatic state with their parents.
Vassals also get the node type benefit of the parent node on top of its normal benefits. You also cannot declare war on a vassal without declaring war on the parent.
As far as I can tell parent nodes do not appoint mayors, select what tasks are available (beyond wars/peace) or interfere with normal node activities.
To back up to earlier posts regarding sieges and the cause of a Metro falling...
Node sieges will certainly be a cause of a node disappearing, but it is not the ONLY reason. Node atrophy may also cause a node to disappear (not to de~level, but to disappear). From the wiki: "Nodes accumulate an experience deficit each day based on the node's level, called node atrophy. The deficit is subtracted from any experience earned that day. If any deficit remains, then this is subtracted from the node’s experience pool.[2]
An atrophy system may be implemented, where accumulated atrophy points will progressively disable services within a node. The node may be destroyed if a significant points threshold is reached.[12]
A previous design concept was that nodes could delevel based on accumulated atrophy.[12][2]
There are intrinsic problems with reducing a nodes level as opposed to removing the node and it may be possible I'm just gonna say now that we don't actually atrophy nodes to delevel but rather accrue atrophy points that must be replenished over time; and if not it begins to disable services and further compound the atrophy problem; at which point when it reaches a certain atrophy point then the node would just disappear.[12] – Steven Sharif"
As I understand it, vassal node experience first goes to the vassal and then, when any vassal deficit is fulfilled, additional vassal node experience is passed upwards through higher vassals and, potentially, to the Metro. Wiki quote: "Vassal nodes give excess experience to their parent node and may have their own vassals; so long as they fall within the parent node’s zone of influence.[24][19]
If a node is capped and is both a vassal and has its own vassals, any experience earned from itself or its Vassals is first applied to its own deficit. Experience beyond that is then sent to its parent node.[2]"
Therefore, it may be possible for vassals to learn to gain sufficient experience to satisfy their own needs but to deprive the Metro of any experience beyond which is generated in the Metro's own ZOI. If the Metro area consistently fails to generate sufficient experiencs....might the Metro "...just disappear." ?
While not a guaranteed strategy by any means, it appears to be a possible approach to vassals working together to eliminate the Metro (or whatever the level of the ruling node) without a war.
To back up to earlier posts regarding sieges and the cause of a Metro falling...
Node sieges will certainly be a cause of a node disappearing, but it is not the ONLY reason. Node atrophy may also cause a node to disappear (not to de~level, but to disappear). From the wiki: "Nodes accumulate an experience deficit each day based on the node's level, called node atrophy. The deficit is subtracted from any experience earned that day. If any deficit remains, then this is subtracted from the node’s experience pool.[2]
An atrophy system may be implemented, where accumulated atrophy points will progressively disable services within a node. The node may be destroyed if a significant points threshold is reached.[12]
A previous design concept was that nodes could delevel based on accumulated atrophy.[12][2]
There are intrinsic problems with reducing a nodes level as opposed to removing the node and it may be possible I'm just gonna say now that we don't actually atrophy nodes to delevel but rather accrue atrophy points that must be replenished over time; and if not it begins to disable services and further compound the atrophy problem; at which point when it reaches a certain atrophy point then the node would just disappear.[12] – Steven Sharif"
As I understand it, vassal node experience first goes to the vassal and then, when any vassal deficit is fulfilled, additional vassal node experience is passed upwards through higher vassals and, potentially, to the Metro. Wiki quote: "Vassal nodes give excess experience to their parent node and may have their own vassals; so long as they fall within the parent node’s zone of influence.[24][19]
If a node is capped and is both a vassal and has its own vassals, any experience earned from itself or its Vassals is first applied to its own deficit. Experience beyond that is then sent to its parent node.[2]"
Therefore, it may be possible for vassals to learn to gain sufficient experience to satisfy their own needs but to deprive the Metro of any experience beyond which is generated in the Metro's own ZOI. If the Metro area consistently fails to generate sufficient experiencs....might the Metro "...just disappear." ?
While not a guaranteed strategy by any means, it appears to be a possible approach to vassals working together to eliminate the Metro (or whatever the level of the ruling node) without a war.
that would be one helluva way to go about destroying a metro. I will say I am not sure i understand the purpose of that system, is it to allow players to just abandon a metro if they decide its in their best interest? Outside of that I can't imagine that system being useful to the player outside of being a daily quest.
History also has examples of these servants rising up and overthrowing their masters. Which isn't currently allowed in Ashes. Once you're a Vassal, you're fucked and there's no way out unless someone else happens to come in and decide they don't like the Parent node. And sure, you can then sign up as a Defender and just sit there and do nothing and throw the whole fight in the attacker's favour, but that's just not going to be fun for anybody.
If you wanted to force a neighbouring node to be your Vassal, then maybe that could be an option on winning a war against them? Alternatively, there could be some benefits to being a Vassal that would cause a smaller node to say: "Yeah, we'll be your Vassal", and you have that diplomatic route too.
~ A Man chooses ... ... ... .... ... a Slave obeys ! ~
Is " Node-Slavery " however not already a decided Part of the Game with the Vassal-System ? (o.Ô)
And what is " Zoi " ... ... ... ?
Zone
Of
Influence
??
Zone of Influence is the area around a node that it influences. When exp is generated by the players it goes to that ZOI node. A nodes ZOI expands to encompass its vassals.
Is " Node-Slavery " however not already a decided Part of the Game with the Vassal-System ?
No.
Node slavery would be very different to what we have.
As the game stands now, a vassal node still has it's own autonmity, is still able to make most of it's own decisions, have it's own identity, it just has a cap on it's level, has a few nodes it can't siege, and is taxed by someone else.
Not even close to being a slave. That is more like being a state or county
Steven has said several times that it is meant to be a strategic benefit to be a citizen of a vassal. You inherit all the benefits of the parent node and have greater autonomy over your own node. With the risk that you might be an easier target for wars and sieges.
A vassal was a Lord or Duke in the medieval period. He was in control of his own territory and even army but owed tax and allegiance to the King in return for the protection of the entire nation. The game is set up so that you will (normally) be motivated to protect your parent node and not competing against it. As Noanni says, you are basically joining the nation led by the parent node.
However, I do think a civil war / revolution system would be an interesting addition to the game.
Steven has said several times that it is meant to be a strategic benefit to be a citizen of a vassal. You inherit all the benefits of the parent node and have greater autonomy over your own node. With the risk that you might be an easier target for wars and sieges.
A vassal was a Lord or Duke in the medieval period. He was in control of his own territory and even army but owed tax and allegiance to the King in return for the protection of the entire nation. The game is set up so that you will (normally) be motivated to protect your parent node and not competing against it. As Noanni says, you are basically joining the nation led by the parent node.
However, I do think a civil war / revolution system would be an interesting addition to the game.
yeah but as it stands right now if the king (metro) is overthrown then 1 of 2 dukes gets the chance to become the next king(metro) instead of every duke vying for the spot like one would expect.
My original post was just pointing out that the systems to do it already exist. I don't think the game needs any special events besides freezing the vassal system for X weeks (or let mayor's opt out - it would not be weird at all in real life for Baron Johnson to remain loyal to Duke Smith when the king dies and succession is an issue). Then, let the game play normally. All the PvE content is already generating XP for the nodes, and there's already Node Wars and Sieges for the fractured factions to sabotage rivals.
Comments
Maybe im out of date but isnt this exactly that?
The node that is faster level 4 is the spot where the most people are. That means geographically, quest wise or other incentive is in that region why people flock to it. Therefore its the area people want to live. That does make sense to me.
If the least popular node gets to be the metro, then its a system driven choice rather than a people driven one. While yes, players made the choice which node should be metro, the system forces everyone in the area to migrate back to the least popular spot because some agreement they didnt have any say in. At least in your example of "the majors of each lv 3 node decide amongs them, who gets to be metro"
The leveling as a determine is pretty fair if you think about it, eventhough it seems boring.
For me its probably some form of allegience. If im happy with where the metro is, what it is that i want to do, and im happy with the diplomatic / node development direction, then i would want to house there. Even though im going to no-life the game it comes out (vacation and extra time off), i doubt im gonna get a freehold. so i will settle for my housing in a metro. Unless housing will suck in this game then i dont even bother.
The vassalization system is great for the server start since the most popular node will become the metro, my idea is great for after that because while higher tier nodes will have significant advantages by being able to field the players for the exp, caravans and node wars easier every single previously vassalized node level 3 and up will be able to participate in the chance to become the next metro, and potentially through shrewd diplomacy sheer power of will or both a level 3 node could do it, its a story as much as it is anything, and AOC is all about the server story.
I much prefer this approach.
That would work while the nodes are in development during the early stages of the server, however much later once every node is within a vassalization structure this wont have any affect on the progression of nodes since technically speaking this is kind of how progressing a level 5 node to level 6 already works
I think initially im fine with it being a race since that is basically the popular vote deciding the node, however later on with an established server the choice is no longer there, and i think that is really where the system is lacking, but i can see the case for either regardless.
The problem with this approach is that the whole thing is looking at it from the wrong perspective.
First of all, assuming people in a node could make a collective decision that better reflects the will of that collective better than the output of their work (ie, the sum total of their willingness) is not really something that would work in a game.
Second, the idea that you become allies of your parent node once you become a vassal is not quite the right desctiption. You become their vassal - essentially their servant.
When you get made a vassal, you don't become allies with a previous rival, they become your master, and you their servant.
This is a perfectly reasonable thing - history is built on this notion.
Slavery is a bit of an over statement, and I think subordinate is closer to the correct term.
Vassals pay taxes to the parent node. Vassals are capped by parent nodes level and give excess xp to the parent node. Vassals share a diplomatic state with their parents.
Vassals also get the node type benefit of the parent node on top of its normal benefits. You also cannot declare war on a vassal without declaring war on the parent.
As far as I can tell parent nodes do not appoint mayors, select what tasks are available (beyond wars/peace) or interfere with normal node activities.
Node sieges will certainly be a cause of a node disappearing, but it is not the ONLY reason. Node atrophy may also cause a node to disappear (not to de~level, but to disappear). From the wiki: "Nodes accumulate an experience deficit each day based on the node's level, called node atrophy. The deficit is subtracted from any experience earned that day. If any deficit remains, then this is subtracted from the node’s experience pool.[2]
An atrophy system may be implemented, where accumulated atrophy points will progressively disable services within a node. The node may be destroyed if a significant points threshold is reached.[12]
A previous design concept was that nodes could delevel based on accumulated atrophy.[12][2]
There are intrinsic problems with reducing a nodes level as opposed to removing the node and it may be possible I'm just gonna say now that we don't actually atrophy nodes to delevel but rather accrue atrophy points that must be replenished over time; and if not it begins to disable services and further compound the atrophy problem; at which point when it reaches a certain atrophy point then the node would just disappear.[12] – Steven Sharif"
As I understand it, vassal node experience first goes to the vassal and then, when any vassal deficit is fulfilled, additional vassal node experience is passed upwards through higher vassals and, potentially, to the Metro. Wiki quote: "Vassal nodes give excess experience to their parent node and may have their own vassals; so long as they fall within the parent node’s zone of influence.[24][19]
If a node is capped and is both a vassal and has its own vassals, any experience earned from itself or its Vassals is first applied to its own deficit. Experience beyond that is then sent to its parent node.[2]"
Therefore, it may be possible for vassals to learn to gain sufficient experience to satisfy their own needs but to deprive the Metro of any experience beyond which is generated in the Metro's own ZOI. If the Metro area consistently fails to generate sufficient experiencs....might the Metro "...just disappear." ?
While not a guaranteed strategy by any means, it appears to be a possible approach to vassals working together to eliminate the Metro (or whatever the level of the ruling node) without a war.
That is why I didn't say it.
A servant is not a slave.
that would be one helluva way to go about destroying a metro. I will say I am not sure i understand the purpose of that system, is it to allow players to just abandon a metro if they decide its in their best interest? Outside of that I can't imagine that system being useful to the player outside of being a daily quest.
History also has examples of these servants rising up and overthrowing their masters. Which isn't currently allowed in Ashes. Once you're a Vassal, you're fucked and there's no way out unless someone else happens to come in and decide they don't like the Parent node. And sure, you can then sign up as a Defender and just sit there and do nothing and throw the whole fight in the attacker's favour, but that's just not going to be fun for anybody.
That's what I liked about the earlier comment:
But, there need to be ways to escape the servitude, too.
In fact, I can't think of any such cases off the top of my head (not saying there aren't any, but I can't think of any).
Is " Node-Slavery " however not already a decided Part of the Game with the Vassal-System ? (o.Ô)
And what is " Zoi " ... ... ... ?
Zone
Of
Influence
??
Zone of Influence is the area around a node that it influences. When exp is generated by the players it goes to that ZOI node. A nodes ZOI expands to encompass its vassals.
Node slavery would be very different to what we have.
As the game stands now, a vassal node still has it's own autonmity, is still able to make most of it's own decisions, have it's own identity, it just has a cap on it's level, has a few nodes it can't siege, and is taxed by someone else.
Not even close to being a slave. That is more like being a state or county
A vassal was a Lord or Duke in the medieval period. He was in control of his own territory and even army but owed tax and allegiance to the King in return for the protection of the entire nation. The game is set up so that you will (normally) be motivated to protect your parent node and not competing against it. As Noanni says, you are basically joining the nation led by the parent node.
However, I do think a civil war / revolution system would be an interesting addition to the game.
yeah but as it stands right now if the king (metro) is overthrown then 1 of 2 dukes gets the chance to become the next king(metro) instead of every duke vying for the spot like one would expect.
My original post was just pointing out that the systems to do it already exist. I don't think the game needs any special events besides freezing the vassal system for X weeks (or let mayor's opt out - it would not be weird at all in real life for Baron Johnson to remain loyal to Duke Smith when the king dies and succession is an issue). Then, let the game play normally. All the PvE content is already generating XP for the nodes, and there's already Node Wars and Sieges for the fractured factions to sabotage rivals.