Node alliances should be thought about like factions

I'll just leave a counter point of "I'd prefer if the game didn't limit our choices of actions" here.

The 4th point sounds reaaal close to this, so I feel like that's already in

But if you're ok with changing the current design to a choice-based thing - I'm all for that.

Otr

I am happy that node affiliation is on top
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Affiliations
That will make large guilds life harder when node structures change and some nodes shift into enemy node chains.

Otr wrote: »

I am happy that node affiliation is on top
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Affiliations
That will make large guilds life harder when node structures change and some nodes shift into enemy node chains.

And this is the allegiances I talked about in the other node thread. Steven expects those guildies to fight each other due to their node wars, but right now I see no reason for them to do this really, because people would be more devoted to their guild than their node. So, imo, the chances are that anyone who's got cut off and became "an enemy" would simply change their node citizenship to the one that's in the same vassal system as their guild.

That's why you need to think of node alliances as factions. In faction based games your harmful actions against people in your faction are limited. Node war is a harmful action, and you can't do it to allies. But...you can still slap people around in your faction if they are jerks. It's nice.

And like with factions, you don't have total control over who is in your alliance, since node membership looks like it will be first-come first-serve. AKA you joined Horde and your current node is the Barrens

The classic guild affiliation is much more PvP related

Spif wrote: »

That's why you need to think of node alliances as factions. In faction based games your harmful actions against people in your faction are limited. Node war is a harmful action, and you can't do it to allies. But...you can still slap people around in your faction if they are jerks. It's nice.

And like with factions, you don't have total control over who is in your alliance, since node membership looks like it will be first-come first-serve. AKA you joined Horde and your current node is the Barrens

The classic guild affiliation is much more PvP related

Factionless design is exactly why I got interested in Ashes. This is also why I'm campaigning for the rebellions.

Also, nodes are not alliances, because, unlike the guild alliances, you can attack your nodemates. This is yet another contradicting point in this design, which also proves that nodes are not factions.

Dygz

I mean... it's an RPG which means I would typically have alts and those alts might not belong to the same Guild or the same Nodes.
Even with one character, that character might prefer to focus on Node and belong to a Guild that has an Alliance with the TheoryForge Guild affliated with the TheoryForge Community.
And it could be that part of the lore for the TheoryForge Community is that there are some rival in-game Guilds that belong the TheoryForge Community.
In an RPG, character conflicts don't always have to be player conflicts.

Steven's expectation is that Mega-Guilds will have to split into several in-game Guilds, due to membership quota restrictions - and that some of them might find their in-game Guilds have conflicts.

Like most of these kinds of suggestions - I think we should wait to test how allegiances and Node Affiliations and Alliances feel under the current design before we advocate for changes to the design.
"Faction" is really just a semantic label. Ashes has lots of factions built in already.
(Typically, in an MMORPG, Faction is something you choose at Character Creation and can't be changed afterwards - which Ashes is trying to avoid.)

RocketFarmer

I don’t think we’ll need factions the way I see this game becoming Balkanized. Players may create alliances and factions with plenty of drama, backstabbing and intrigue. Plus you are going to have to keep track of who to trust, so it’s not as “safe” as the usual MMORPG Faction system. Even information has to be protected more so than in other games.

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Spif wrote: »

That's why you need to think of node alliances as factions. In faction based games your harmful actions against people in your faction are limited. Node war is a harmful action, and you can't do it to allies. But...you can still slap people around in your faction if they are jerks. It's nice.

And like with factions, you don't have total control over who is in your alliance, since node membership looks like it will be first-come first-serve. AKA you joined Horde and your current node is the Barrens

The classic guild affiliation is much more PvP related

Factionless design is exactly why I got interested in Ashes. This is also why I'm campaigning for the rebellions.

Also, nodes are not alliances, because, unlike the guild alliances, you can attack your nodemates. This is yet another contradicting point in this design, which also proves that nodes are not factions.

"There's node citizenship. There's guild. There's alliance. There's party. There's raid. There's family. All of these types of affiliations have a hierarchy. The highest of which is your node affiliation: So your citizenship is your greatest superceding relationship, which means if you were a part of a guild and the guild has multiple nodes in which its members are citizens of, if there was a war between two of those nodes, the members of those nodes would be first and foremost citizens who defend that node, even against their own guild members.[48] – Steven Sharif"

Node alliances are *LIKE* factions. Personally I think that being able to PvP someone in your "faction" (green/purple/red flags still apply) is a great option for dealing with a$$hats that happen to be on your side.

Your node affiliation is above explain by the game designer to be your most important one. And it's a part of your node hierarchy. It's a design decision. I'm just explaining the game mechanics the way I see it. I get that you don't like it as a design decision. I personally think that factions are healthy for a game's longevity, as it gives the more casual a shelter inside a preset group. Once a game only has hardcore elite players (because they've driven everyone else away), it's going to fade fast.

6-8 dynamic factions is even better. A game where a faction can actually win against another via node destruction? That's amazing

Much like the green/purple/red flagging system putting guardrails in to keep a small group of players from ruining the game for many others, the node affiliation/alliance/"faction" system puts guardrails in to keep that from happening at a node level.

Azherae

I do not care about 'factions' unless they are natural and real consequences of how people approach the game, otherwise they are just fake reasons for conflict and snowball almost immediately. Node Alliances that are supported too much by ingame functions that aren't either 'economic' or 'philosophical' feel too 'fake' to me.

A simple opinion to illustrate my point:

I think New World would have been a much better game if they made more effort to make the Factions much more ideologically different, with more clarity about it. I don't just mean flavor either, I mean outcomes, ways they handle things, bonuses, etc.

New World couldn't escape this because its roots are as a PvP game, not a PvX one. I'm used to playing PvE or PvX 'territory control' type MMOs, and the thing that keeps those going is that they are better at making the 'factions' feel properly distinct in how they approach things.

It wouldn't have been as disturbing for New World's servers with their 2000 Concurrent Users to be taken over by one 'Faction', if it really just meant 'everyone on this server prefers the same playstyle'. Because that's fine, it becomes a 'PvE server', sure, but with only 2000 Concurrents, who really cares?

Ashes is too large for that, but I also don't want the usual artificial 'we're supposed to fight because we belong to different Nodes/Nations'. I want there to be something behind that friction. RP-PvPers can use it, Econ players can use it, PvE players can mostly ignore it, and the GM/CM team can build off it.

It adds to the world, for me. If Intrepid makes Node Alliances do most of the things mentioned in the OP, I'd expect only drama/'abuses' of those systems, and a hollow feeling, for me personally.
I do not mind #3, I would expect something like it as part of the Vassal system because it's easier to understand for the 'common man' than economic reports or whatever.

Spif wrote: »

[*] PvP should be disabled between node's citizens for certain node v node pvp-related activities. For example, after the node war demo they talked about a period of enhanced looting in the attacked area for the victors. During that time, I'd think that the winners should not be able to attack each other. This one may be node specific rather than alliance specific.

ABSOLUTETY NOT, MY GOOD SIR!!!
Hands off, we need the pvp for dealing with annoying, toxic, beligerant, etc, all kinds of people. People will fight for the good spots, dungeons, etc, there are many reasons why we need to fight the people around us!

Spif wrote: »

[*] During node wars/battle, alliance citizens can only fight for the node in their alliance (no turncoats....they're probably spies anyway)

ABSOLUTETY NOT, MY GOOD SIR!!!
What is this? Fascism? Dictatorship? Communist regime?
Where is this fascination in controlling others is comming from
Just no, people should have player based diplomacy only

Spif wrote: »

[*] A limited time node project for the top parent node: Pax. All alliance members are unable to fight each other on inside of alliance nodes. Optionally have this as just an alliance setting with a cooldown to change it

ABSOLUTETY NOT, MY GOOD SIR!!!
This will just screw everybody, then you do the Pax thing and just forcefully farm the dungeons and bosses and everything else because then nobody can wardec you lol
why this

Spif wrote: »

[*] Possibly alliance members are unable to loot each other's corpses unless they are in a party/raid together. I'd say just drop less when killed by an alliance member, but that is abusable in PvE

ABSOLUTETY NOT, MY GOOD SIR!!!
OMG SO BAD!!! So bad so bad
Where is this fascination for controlling stuff is comming from?
Let everybody loot, if your alliance members can't loot then random people will pass by and just scoop everything and everything will be lost omg

Spif wrote: »

What are some other ideas to make alliances more "allied"? Since you literally can't choose who is a Citizen in your alliance, there need to be some external rules to bring them together.

[/quote]
Let them kill and help each other in any way they want and they will sort out who is legit or not

Man, these ideas are extremely opressive and brakes the gameplay, it is a flat NO with capital letters, and I hope that nobody suggests this

I am sorry, but you should come up with ideas about adding violence to the game and not hurdles and barriers

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

I'll just leave a counter point of "I'd prefer if the game didn't limit our choices of actions" here.

The 4th point sounds reaaal close to this, so I feel like that's already in

But if you're ok with changing the current design to a choice-based thing - I'm all for that.

Yeap, agreed on that, restraining gameplay will just hurt the community as a whole

Spif wrote: »

That's why you need to think of node alliances as factions. In faction based games your harmful actions against people in your faction are limited. Node war is a harmful action, and you can't do it to allies. But...you can still slap people around in your faction if they are jerks. It's nice.

And like with factions, you don't have total control over who is in your alliance, since node membership looks like it will be first-come first-serve. AKA you joined Horde and your current node is the Barrens

The classic guild affiliation is much more PvP related

Look, I play factional warfare everyday and the limitations create unecessary drame ingame and almost everyday people ask for a civil war within the faction so we can sort out some stuff

Because we are locked within the faction now I am creating neutral alts so i can kill people from my own faction, they will get hurt bad and it is a chore to me creating more alts and skilling them. Everybody loses like this!!

Just let me kill and declare war anyone I want

Azherae

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Spif wrote: »

That's why you need to think of node alliances as factions. In faction based games your harmful actions against people in your faction are limited. Node war is a harmful action, and you can't do it to allies. But...you can still slap people around in your faction if they are jerks. It's nice.

And like with factions, you don't have total control over who is in your alliance, since node membership looks like it will be first-come first-serve. AKA you joined Horde and your current node is the Barrens

The classic guild affiliation is much more PvP related

Look, I play factional warfare everyday and the limitations create unecessary drame ingame and almost everyday people ask for a civil war within the faction so we can sort out some stuff

Because we are locked within the faction now I am creating neutral alts so i can kill people from my own faction, they will get hurt bad and it is a chore to me creating more alts and skilling them. Everybody loses like this!!

Just let me kill and declare war anyone I want

Basically this. Thanks Arya for putting it so clearly.

Trying to have proper interactions within a system that is enforcing random constraints is more of a chore than just working with or against the people around you. For Nodes, where you don't have any control, this is way worse. My neighbors don't get to decide if I am in their Node or not, they basically can't even throw me out of the Node even if I constantly act against the common Node philosophy/goals.

Extending that to Alliances that we are almost definitely not going to get to even vote on (and voting wouldn't be good either) is just a pain-point slog, and worst of all, benefits whoever manages to 'fake' getting along first/the most.

Spif wrote: »

Node alliances are *LIKE* factions. Personally I think that being able to PvP someone in your "faction" (green/purple/red flags still apply) is a great option for dealing with a$$hats that happen to be on your side.

And I'm saying to look at his design and not at his words. Steven loves to talk about a lot of things, but then the design of the game somehow turns out slightly different (and sometimes not slightly at all).

If node affiliations are supposed to be the highest, then why the hell can I pvp nodemates but not party/guild/raid/alliance-mates? How is node the higher loyalty on that list?

Yes, I completely support being able to pvp some asshole from your own node, but don't call that "highest affiliation" then, while lower affiliations somehow prevent you from punching a similar asshole in those groups.

This is the contradiction I'm talking about. Either let us flag on literally anyone, or don't say that people who I can murder are somehow closer to me that those who I can literally not attack.

Spif wrote: »

I personally think that factions are healthy for a game's longevity, as it gives the more casual a shelter inside a preset group. Once a game only has hardcore elite players (because they've driven everyone else away), it's going to fade fast.

Which faction game worked like this? Afaik WoW descended into "pick this faction or you won't be able to play normally" relatively quickly. Same was true in NW afaik. Don't remember which other games had factions (I think AA did, but I dunno how its servers turned out in terms of faction sizes), but an example from 20 years ago and one from just 4 years ago kinda imply that faction-based gameplay barely changed throughout the years.

One faction becomes stronger, then all the wealkings go to that faction to join the strong people, which then forces anyone else to join it as well, cause otherwise this now-huge faction simply wins through numbers. This is why I dislike those kinds of games.

And this also doesn't work for casuals, unless said casuals are happy to flip their chosen faction as soon as they realize that they "chose the wrong one, and are in no way protected against pure slaughter of their kind".

Spif wrote: »

Much like the green/purple/red flagging system putting guardrails in to keep a small group of players from ruining the game for many others, the node affiliation/alliance/"faction" system puts guardrails in to keep that from happening at a node level.

It doesn't though, as I said. Your nodemates are still completely free to kill you. Of course they'll ruin their rep, but that's no different from a random PKer doing the same. And if another nodemate and you are in a guild war against each other - their server rep wouldn't even go down. Maybe Steven will try to force the node affiliation to be higher by punishing nodemate kills more severely, but that remains to be seen.

Peeps, learn this... gamers will not hate the unknown people from the other nodes, they will hate the people within their own node. There will be a lot of beef happening because the dungeons, the trees, the flowers, etc, almost always you will hate the people who live around you

iccer

Azherae wrote: »

- I do not care about 'factions' unless they are natural and real consequences of how people approach the game, otherwise they are just fake reasons for conflict and snowball almost immediately.

- Ashes is too large for that, but I also don't want the usual artificial 'we're supposed to fight because we belong to different Nodes/Nations'. I want there to be something behind that friction.

This is exactly my thinking as well.

But a lot of people default to - different faction = KoS. For them, just the fact that another player is in another faction is enough of a excuse to PK them. I guess I'm looking for something more than that.
Early WoW was like that based on what I've seen, as the general setting and lore set up was really about 2 sides going to war against each other.
Archeage in theory was similar, but it just didn't feel like that at all. Besides, you could purple against your own faction, you'd see alliances between different factions, aka one guild turning against another guild from the same faction, while getting support from another guild from a different faction.

Factions are okay, if the general setting of the game, lore, and gameplay elements really emphasize and give you good reasons to PK another faction. In most cases, that's just not the case, and it's just like you mentioned - "fake".

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Spif wrote: »

I personally think that factions are healthy for a game's longevity, as it gives the more casual a shelter inside a preset group. Once a game only has hardcore elite players (because they've driven everyone else away), it's going to fade fast.

Which faction game worked like this? Afaik WoW descended into "pick this faction or you won't be able to play normally" relatively quickly. Same was true in NW afaik. Don't remember which other games had factions (I think AA did, but I dunno how its servers turned out in terms of faction sizes), but an example from 20 years ago and one from just 4 years ago kinda imply that faction-based gameplay barely changed throughout the years.

One faction becomes stronger, then all the wealkings go to that faction to join the strong people, which then forces anyone else to join it as well, cause otherwise this now-huge faction simply wins through numbers. This is why I dislike those kinds of games.

In my latest experience from AA Classic, factions can easily become unbalanced. Here the "devs" allowed certain guilds to transfer, in order to balance it out, but it often came with its own problems (basically it was one server where EU/NA/OCE all played together, so you also had to account for different time zones as well, because East faction would absolutely dominate at NA time zone, but will get steamrolled during EU times, anyways, more complicated than usual).

Also most people will look to transfer to a stronger faction, if the game allows them to, as playing in a weak faction is basically pointless, as you cannot challenge any content, and you get steamrolled. If you cannot transfer, you'd likely quit.

Idk how it worked when they introduced player nations, I think it only got worse, but someone that has actually played during that version can let me know.

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Spif wrote: »

[*] PvP should be disabled between node's citizens for certain node v node pvp-related activities. For example, after the node war demo they talked about a period of enhanced looting in the attacked area for the victors. During that time, I'd think that the winners should not be able to attack each other. This one may be node specific rather than alliance specific.

ABSOLUTETY NOT, MY GOOD SIR!!!
Hands off, we need the pvp for dealing with annoying, toxic, beligerant, etc, all kinds of people. People will fight for the good spots, dungeons, etc, there are many reasons why we need to fight the people around us!

Spif wrote: »

[*] During node wars/battle, alliance citizens can only fight for the node in their alliance (no turncoats....they're probably spies anyway)

ABSOLUTETY NOT, MY GOOD SIR!!!
What is this? Fascism? Dictatorship? Communist regime?
Where is this fascination in controlling others is comming from
Just no, people should have player based diplomacy only

Spif wrote: »

[*] A limited time node project for the top parent node: Pax. All alliance members are unable to fight each other on inside of alliance nodes. Optionally have this as just an alliance setting with a cooldown to change it

ABSOLUTETY NOT, MY GOOD SIR!!!
This will just screw everybody, then you do the Pax thing and just forcefully farm the dungeons and bosses and everything else because then nobody can wardec you lol
why this

Spif wrote: »

[*] Possibly alliance members are unable to loot each other's corpses unless they are in a party/raid together. I'd say just drop less when killed by an alliance member, but that is abusable in PvE

ABSOLUTETY NOT, MY GOOD SIR!!!
OMG SO BAD!!! So bad so bad
Where is this fascination for controlling stuff is comming from?
Let everybody loot, if your alliance members can't loot then random people will pass by and just scoop everything and everything will be lost omg

Spif wrote: »

What are some other ideas to make alliances more "allied"? Since you literally can't choose who is a Citizen in your alliance, there need to be some external rules to bring them together.

Let them kill and help each other in any way they want and they will sort out who is legit or not

Man, these ideas are extremely opressive and brakes the gameplay, it is a flat NO with capital letters, and I hope that nobody suggests this

I am sorry, but you should come up with ideas about adding violence to the game and not hurdles and barriers

You do realize that most things you say "ABSOLUTETY NOT, MY GOOD SIR!!!" (are you sure you didn't want to make that BOLD too?!!!!?!!!) here is what is expected to happen with guilds and alliances of guilds?

For example:
"This will just screw everybody, then you do the Pax thing and just forcefully farm the dungeons and bosses and everything else because then nobody can wardec you lol"

Yes, guild and possibly guild alliances (as I assume they cannot pk/pvp each other out of group/raid?) are going to own dungeons and world bosses because they can zerg them without risk of friendly fire. I think that node Citizens...and keep in mind that the number of Citizens in a node is limited...should share the same benefits that separate guild groups in an area enjoy.

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Spif wrote: »

I personally think that factions are healthy for a game's longevity, as it gives the more casual a shelter inside a preset group. Once a game only has hardcore elite players (because they've driven everyone else away), it's going to fade fast.

Which faction game worked like this? Afaik WoW descended into "pick this faction or you won't be able to play normally" relatively quickly. Same was true in NW afaik. Don't remember which other games had factions (I think AA did, but I dunno how its servers turned out in terms of faction sizes), but an example from 20 years ago and one from just 4 years ago kinda imply that faction-based gameplay barely changed throughout the years.

One faction becomes stronger, then all the wealkings go to that faction to join the strong people, which then forces anyone else to join it as well, cause otherwise this now-huge faction simply wins through numbers. This is why I dislike those kinds of games.

And this also doesn't work for casuals, unless said casuals are happy to flip their chosen faction as soon as they realize that they "chose the wrong one, and are in no way protected against pure slaughter of their kind".

Man, you're just making my point about protection for casual players

ESO has you pick a faction that is active in their very very large PvP lake, and doesn't affect PvE at all. Because a lot of the PvP there is keep-centered, factions make a lot of sense. Three factions are a lot better than two. New world has something similar that is in effect all over but that game allows you un-flag, removing the need for a faction.

Why would you think that faction flipping is going to be easy? In ESO/WoW/DaoC/etc it requires making a new character. In NW it is/was a 90 day cooldown. In Ashes it will require changing citizenship, which I'm pretty sure has a cooldown. You will also have to move all your stuff around when you find a new property to buy/rent in the new node.

In no way will everyone go able to join the largest node-alliance. There are limited Citizen slots. I feel like a lot of people are missing how important Citizenship is going to be. Especially since you can only be a Citizen with one character per account. Very few alts will be Citizens.

willsummon

I believe open or closed nodes should be up to the citizens and mayor of those nodes.