Spif wrote: » If you are planning to rebel against a parent node, are you ready to have your node get crippling taxes imposed on it? If you can "fight up", then the parent needs to have agency to "fight down". Now you're getting into a very adversarial relationship in this alliance. That's not the idea of an alliance.
Spif wrote: » The idea of rebelling just does not work with the idea of the highest level node automatically getting vassals. Although the act of rebelling could be only available to a "capped" node that's ready to advance but can't due to vassalship. Then if the node successfully rebels it levels up and therefore cannot become a vassal.
Spif wrote: » If a node can rebel, what happens to the rebelling node's vassals? If a 5 rebels against a 6, that's half of the nodes gone. That 5-node has a 4 and a three directly under it. Both of those can't be attached to the 6 because the 6 already has a 4.
Spif wrote: » My understanding is that node alliance fluidity is supposed to be low. That's why after a node gets attacked they're talking about a 1 month cooldown on it getting attacked again even if they successfully defend (this may change, and it may only apply to getting attacked to destroy. We don't know yet, because this info is pretty old). I think they also talked about a lockout on being attacked after upgrading a node too.
Spif wrote: » Rare node alliance changes are why we saw a bunch of different node-attack options in the war preview. Rather than just attack-to-destroy, there are attack-to-cripple or attack-to-steal-resources options. IS wants node destruction to be very very rare. Building up a node from 4->6 is a several month undertaking. Having it be destroyed is the kind of thing that will make people rage quit the game.
Githal wrote: » Then if you rebel and lose from the metropolis - then you should be forced to leave the node together with ALL citizens. So the metropolis can put their own people there so there are no further rebelions. The worst thing is when some small fries are attacking you from inside and you cant do anything about it.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Githal wrote: » Then if you rebel and lose from the metropolis - then you should be forced to leave the node together with ALL citizens. So the metropolis can put their own people there so there are no further rebelions. The worst thing is when some small fries are attacking you from inside and you cant do anything about it. Eh, dunno about auto-decitizenizing people, but I'd be all for a direct ability for the parent to siege the rebel node back. A successful siege would accomplish the same thing you're suggesting, but w/o the auto-punishment and would instead lead to even more politics and player interaction.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Eh, dunno about auto-decitizenizing people, but I'd be all for a direct ability for the parent to siege the rebel node back. A successful siege would accomplish the same thing you're suggesting, but w/o the auto-punishment and would instead lead to even more politics and player interaction.
Githal wrote: » Ye but if the matropolis siege city, it will be destroyed. And thats not the idea. This is huge lose for the whole vasal system to lose a city and to have to rebuild new one.
Dygz wrote: » Seems to fall under Negative Rep and Enemy Of The State.
Kyskei wrote: » after today's podcast. I am 100% one of the petty & vindictive people that won't accept being a vassal no matter what the reward structure looks like. the thought of someone else being in an inherently better position than me (if not mechanically then prestige wise) is something I tend to act in resentment of. I would rather do everything to tear down the owning node than join it in any capacity. there are absolutely going to be people like that in the game. now that being said. we have not actually tried the vassal system at all. but what are the community's initial view on it? it seems to me that a lot of people are having a gut reaction to immediately want to rebel but are there some who see this in a more optimistic light?
scottstone7 wrote: » I agree that the idea of automatic vassalizing of smaller nodes sounds like a bad idea itself. If you want node loyalty, it’s not the way to go. It puts an unnecessary artificial advancement cap on said node. Current modern city relation dynamics should not be applied to the nodes as the examples pointed out seem to be referring to cities in stable countries in the modern world. Instead, if you want a real-world comparison then look to the time periods warring city states. Those would more closely resemble what having a city vassal system would imply and relate to. Unless I missed it and there will be country/kingdom/empires with shifting boarders that contain the nodes? If that were the case, then I would understand and accept automatic vassalization of smaller villages and maybe even up to towns. I mean you wake up one day and suddenly your town is way behind enemy lines, yeah, you’re at the very least a vassal at that point. Cities and larger should still require a siege to shift borders past them. But that’s all besides the point, as it does not appear to apply currently.
scottstone7 wrote: » I also agree there should be a way to rebel against a sovereign node, a siege or war should be an option but a very long and drawn-out process out to start one. When I say a very long and drawn-out process I’m talking at least a month of real-world time, rebellions rarely pop up suddenly overnight and even more rare was the successful one that did. I’d say have hidden rebel only quests to undermine the sovereign in some way, maybe cause scaling percentage of node exp/tax/material loss over time eventually leading to either a siege for freedom/control over the former sovereign or a declaration of independence from the sovereign. Maybe even evolve those quests to send a portion of the sovereign’s losses to another node. The rebel only quests should only affect the sovereign if a certain percentage of the vassal node’s registered population participates in those quests. Say 60-70 percent of the registered population is rebellious and does the hidden quests then they start having an effect and until that percentage is reached the quests have no real effect on the sovereign. That way if you are rebelling you can do something, if after a while nothing is happening you know you’re in the minority and can either stop or relocate. Sovereign nodes should have similar anti-rebellion quests to help counter act those rebel quests. Sovereign nodes should not be automatically aware of which vassal is rebelling, only that at least one is. This would add layers of espionage and sabotage as enemies could also acquire citizenship for this purpose. I’d even say that if a player is caught actively rebelling against the sovereign node, then corruption is applied as if they were out there killing non-combatant players, I mean there should be some risk to rebellion, and they are in a way causing grief to others. Also have a flag that lets the leadership of a sovereign node actively force loss of citizenship status to a vassal citizen and prevent them from join any other nodes under the sovereign if they are caught doing rebellious things X number of times and let them put a bounty on the rebels. That would allow the sovereign nodes to slowly weed out any rebels and force war like leadership to focus inside as well as outside their borders. Any rebellious wars should also absolutely allow the sovereign node leadership to actively cancel citizenship of any rebels who participated in the war in the event that the rebels fail to win. I mean the sovereign can’t really hang them or treason and allowing them to stay to waste more time and resources only to try again isn’t productive. There should be consequences and that would fit in nicely. Don’t want to leave your home node? Accept being a vassal, suck it up and move away, start rebellion and risk being forced out if you fail. You have options.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » There'll immediately be another lvl5 instead of it and the vassal system would get new blood into it from a buffer node. Removing all citizens would pretty much do the same thing. Their housing would be removed, most likely their shops and stalls as well. All their node currency would be gone as well, so taxes would stall for quite a bit. Mayoral elections would have to be delayed for some time. Except now this empty node would be the best target for a siege, which would then mean that any rebellion would be tracked by enemies and the lvl5 would still be destroyed.
Githal wrote: » Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » There'll immediately be another lvl5 instead of it and the vassal system would get new blood into it from a buffer node. Removing all citizens would pretty much do the same thing. Their housing would be removed, most likely their shops and stalls as well. All their node currency would be gone as well, so taxes would stall for quite a bit. Mayoral elections would have to be delayed for some time. Except now this empty node would be the best target for a siege, which would then mean that any rebellion would be tracked by enemies and the lvl5 would still be destroyed. THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS! PER THE WIKI: A Village (stage 3) can control an Encampment (stage 2) or an Expedition (stage 1). If the Village (stage 3) gets destroyed through a siege, its dependant Encampment (stage 2) and Expedition (stage 1) nodes are also destroyed. The moment your Metropolis destroy a city, you lose 1 city, 1 towns, 2 villages and all encamplents. And also. if you destroy your own Metropolis, the whole region is destroyed. OR maybe you want to change their whole way sieges work? Its like making changes to provide what some superiority complexed players want, but negatively impact 80% of the playerbase.
Noaani wrote: » Githal wrote: » Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » There'll immediately be another lvl5 instead of it and the vassal system would get new blood into it from a buffer node. Removing all citizens would pretty much do the same thing. Their housing would be removed, most likely their shops and stalls as well. All their node currency would be gone as well, so taxes would stall for quite a bit. Mayoral elections would have to be delayed for some time. Except now this empty node would be the best target for a siege, which would then mean that any rebellion would be tracked by enemies and the lvl5 would still be destroyed. THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS! PER THE WIKI: A Village (stage 3) can control an Encampment (stage 2) or an Expedition (stage 1). If the Village (stage 3) gets destroyed through a siege, its dependant Encampment (stage 2) and Expedition (stage 1) nodes are also destroyed. The moment your Metropolis destroy a city, you lose 1 city, 1 towns, 2 villages and all encamplents. And also. if you destroy your own Metropolis, the whole region is destroyed. OR maybe you want to change their whole way sieges work? Its like making changes to provide what some superiority complexed players want, but negatively impact 80% of the playerbase. No, the wiki says if you destroy a stage 3 node, all stage 1 and 2 nodes under it are destroyed. It says nothing about a stage 4 (or higher) node being destroyed having any effect on any stage 3 (or higher) nodes under. This is because stage 1 and 2 nodes aren't considered something that can support themselves properly, not because a nodes destruction destroys everything below it in the chain.
Githal wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Githal wrote: » Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » There'll immediately be another lvl5 instead of it and the vassal system would get new blood into it from a buffer node. Removing all citizens would pretty much do the same thing. Their housing would be removed, most likely their shops and stalls as well. All their node currency would be gone as well, so taxes would stall for quite a bit. Mayoral elections would have to be delayed for some time. Except now this empty node would be the best target for a siege, which would then mean that any rebellion would be tracked by enemies and the lvl5 would still be destroyed. THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS! PER THE WIKI: A Village (stage 3) can control an Encampment (stage 2) or an Expedition (stage 1). If the Village (stage 3) gets destroyed through a siege, its dependant Encampment (stage 2) and Expedition (stage 1) nodes are also destroyed. The moment your Metropolis destroy a city, you lose 1 city, 1 towns, 2 villages and all encamplents. And also. if you destroy your own Metropolis, the whole region is destroyed. OR maybe you want to change their whole way sieges work? Its like making changes to provide what some superiority complexed players want, but negatively impact 80% of the playerbase. No, the wiki says if you destroy a stage 3 node, all stage 1 and 2 nodes under it are destroyed. It says nothing about a stage 4 (or higher) node being destroyed having any effect on any stage 3 (or higher) nodes under. This is because stage 1 and 2 nodes aren't considered something that can support themselves properly, not because a nodes destruction destroys everything below it in the chain. this in the wiki is just example how the siege works. Not that it only applies to stage 3 nodes
Noaani wrote: » Githal wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Githal wrote: » Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » There'll immediately be another lvl5 instead of it and the vassal system would get new blood into it from a buffer node. Removing all citizens would pretty much do the same thing. Their housing would be removed, most likely their shops and stalls as well. All their node currency would be gone as well, so taxes would stall for quite a bit. Mayoral elections would have to be delayed for some time. Except now this empty node would be the best target for a siege, which would then mean that any rebellion would be tracked by enemies and the lvl5 would still be destroyed. THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS! PER THE WIKI: A Village (stage 3) can control an Encampment (stage 2) or an Expedition (stage 1). If the Village (stage 3) gets destroyed through a siege, its dependant Encampment (stage 2) and Expedition (stage 1) nodes are also destroyed. The moment your Metropolis destroy a city, you lose 1 city, 1 towns, 2 villages and all encamplents. And also. if you destroy your own Metropolis, the whole region is destroyed. OR maybe you want to change their whole way sieges work? Its like making changes to provide what some superiority complexed players want, but negatively impact 80% of the playerbase. No, the wiki says if you destroy a stage 3 node, all stage 1 and 2 nodes under it are destroyed. It says nothing about a stage 4 (or higher) node being destroyed having any effect on any stage 3 (or higher) nodes under. This is because stage 1 and 2 nodes aren't considered something that can support themselves properly, not because a nodes destruction destroys everything below it in the chain. this in the wiki is just example how the siege works. Not that it only applies to stage 3 nodes No, you are wrong. If you go to the clip after the statement you are talking about, Steven clarifies that this is a specific distinction for stage 3 nodes and their vassals, stating that this because the stage 1 and 2 nodes technically aren't vassals because they have no citizens.
Githal wrote: » Ok if this is like this, Then for example if the Metropolis is destroyed, Which of the 2 cities will become the new Metropolis. They are Full exp both of them?
And also. Does this means if i declare war and successfully siege a Metropolis. Instantly a city becomes the new Metropolis, and now i have to siege another Metropolis?
Noaani wrote: » Githal wrote: » Ok if this is like this, Then for example if the Metropolis is destroyed, Which of the 2 cities will become the new Metropolis. They are Full exp both of them? My assumption is that they start at 0 experience. And also. Does this means if i declare war and successfully siege a Metropolis. Instantly a city becomes the new Metropolis, and now i have to siege another Metropolis? Not instantly, but somewhat soon after - a few weeks, a month, something like that. If you plan to siege a metropolis, best you know who is running the level 5 nodes under it.
Githal wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Githal wrote: » Ok if this is like this, Then for example if the Metropolis is destroyed, Which of the 2 cities will become the new Metropolis. They are Full exp both of them? My assumption is that they start at 0 experience. And also. Does this means if i declare war and successfully siege a Metropolis. Instantly a city becomes the new Metropolis, and now i have to siege another Metropolis? Not instantly, but somewhat soon after - a few weeks, a month, something like that. If you plan to siege a metropolis, best you know who is running the level 5 nodes under it. So if i want for example to make a divine node the new metropolis, which atm is village in the current Vassal system. I will have to siege 1 metro, 2 cities, 2 towns and 3 other villages? Seems like overkill.
Noaani wrote: » Githal wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Githal wrote: » Ok if this is like this, Then for example if the Metropolis is destroyed, Which of the 2 cities will become the new Metropolis. They are Full exp both of them? My assumption is that they start at 0 experience. And also. Does this means if i declare war and successfully siege a Metropolis. Instantly a city becomes the new Metropolis, and now i have to siege another Metropolis? Not instantly, but somewhat soon after - a few weeks, a month, something like that. If you plan to siege a metropolis, best you know who is running the level 5 nodes under it. So if i want for example to make a divine node the new metropolis, which atm is village in the current Vassal system. I will have to siege 1 metro, 2 cities, 2 towns and 3 other villages? Seems like overkill. If we ignore why you aren't just going to a different region with a higher level divine node... Why would you be starting from the top?
Githal wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Githal wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Githal wrote: » Ok if this is like this, Then for example if the Metropolis is destroyed, Which of the 2 cities will become the new Metropolis. They are Full exp both of them? My assumption is that they start at 0 experience. And also. Does this means if i declare war and successfully siege a Metropolis. Instantly a city becomes the new Metropolis, and now i have to siege another Metropolis? Not instantly, but somewhat soon after - a few weeks, a month, something like that. If you plan to siege a metropolis, best you know who is running the level 5 nodes under it. So if i want for example to make a divine node the new metropolis, which atm is village in the current Vassal system. I will have to siege 1 metro, 2 cities, 2 towns and 3 other villages? Seems like overkill. If we ignore why you aren't just going to a different region with a higher level divine node... Why would you be starting from the top? Well we are still not sure how sieges work, But we know that the Metropolis can help the vasal nodes in defenses. So If we consider that the best players in this ZOI are in the Metropolis. There is no reason to fight those same strongest guys over and over and over again for each vassal system, Instead fight them once. And then the rest of the cities will be defended by weaker players.
Noaani wrote: » Why would we assume the best players are in the metropolis?
Noaani wrote: » Why would we assume players in the parent node would care about the vassal?
Noaani wrote: » If you are assuming the above for what ever reason, why are you not distracting the players in that parent node at a point in time when you are sieging the lower level nodes?
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » I've responded to a similar sentiment several times. I don't want to move, I don't want to wait and pray - I want to have the ability to do something. I want to be proactive. Getting an outside to join me (hell, even requiring it) would be completely fine. High cost requirements - also completely fine. But give me the ability to do SOMETHING to try and attempt a revolution.
