Vassal resentment

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

scottstone7

I'm all in favor for the vassal system, it just should not be an automatic system action. It should require player action to initiate and defend against any sort of vassalage. It should not be the end all be all unless you get lucky and someone else knocks the regent node down a peg. I'm just saying more options are better.

Githal wrote: »

This is already said in the WIKI:
Nodes encompass more land as they grow and will require more effort to be sustained. This system is a main driver for change in the world because it creates scarcity. As Nodes advance in stages of growth they will lock out neighboring Nodes from progressing, and will absorb their zones of influence.[1]

Kind of makes the point in support of allowing a rebellion right there. I mean, do you really expect everyone to accept forced second class citizenship?

Githal wrote: »

You always have options. Even without rebellion you can relocate to different zone. Maybe 1 day you will be able to siege the node as enemy and take what was yours.
The whole idea behind the Vasal system is that TOGETHER you are like 1 country. And you should work together for the prosperity of this country.

I agree, you have options with the current system. Option 1, move out leaving everything you've built and worked toward behind. Option 2, accept you place of subservience and do what master tells you.

I agree that the vassal system will eventually smooth out into some semblance of a country. That will take time, and in that time the strife and unrest of the discontent should be allowed to manifest. Do not get me wrong, I'm not saying this should happen every time. I'm not saying that it would happen every time if given the option. I'm just saying the option should be there.

Having that option would then require the regent node to either spend time and resources to fix the problem or accept that it's going to happen and accept the consequences of letting it happen. Either way, it will help stabilize the world map because the war hungry larger powers will have to slow down and consolidate regularly to prevent it or accept suddenly losing parts of their controlled land to powers from within.

Wiki wrote:

Village (stage 3) or higher nodes enslave nearby nodes, converting them into vassal nodes.[2][12]
Vassal nodes must remain at least one node stage below their parent node.[2]
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.[26][2]
Regent nodes collect taxes from their vassal nodes. These taxes cannot be taken by the mayor or other players.[14]
Vassals are subject to the government, alliances, wars, taxes, and trade of their parent node, and are able to receive federal aid from them.[2]
Mayors are able to set a generalized node tax rate as well as overrides for different activities within their node. Mayors gain additional taxation controls as their node advances.[1][2]
Regent nodes take a cut of taxes from various activities that occur within their vassal node structure.[14][15]
This tax doesn't necessarily impact the individual citizen, because citizen's tax levels are determined by
their node, but the node's finances are affected by the taxation levied by its parent nodes.[15]

So.. Once enslaved...err.. forced to vassalize you are pretty much forced to work for master in your home node or give up everything and move. Before anyone tries to say that the higher nodes enslave nearby nodes is some sort of typo or play on word or misunderstanding, let me assure you it is not.
Diplomatic vassalage is where a weaker group seeks something from stronger group and accepts vassalage by pledging loyalty and or service to the stronger group. That, being voluntary and agreed upon would be a transactional deal, similar in a way to a work contract by a company or corporation. Forced vassalage, by war or other means, is forcing the subjugation of one group by another group. Now, as clearly defined and cited multiple times in different ways, the new subjugated vassal HAS to give up taxes and exp to their master node. Yes, I said it, their MASTER node. Because that's what it is, there is no friendship, no partnership. There is only master taking advantage of the enslaved to grow in power. Eventually over time both forms of vassalage can and probably will lead to a cohesive group working toward the same goal, but that's just it, eventually over time.

Now do not get me wrong by any means. I am not against the vassal system being in the game. It's going to be a very integral part of the game. I'm not even arguing against forced vassalage, as that is part of the vassal system. I'm saying that in no way should vassalage be an automatic system reaction, it should require direct player action, be it diplomatic or aggressive. In the event of an aggressive action that causes forced vassalization there should be a way for the vassal to try undermine and possibly overthrow their oppressors.

Githal wrote: »

For rebellion, for example if city want to rebel against the Metropolis. This will affect all vasal nodes below the city. As well as the whole country negatively.

Just imagine with the current 9 nodes above Village. Everyone will want to ascend to next stage.
So what will happen? You will have 4 Villages rebelling against cities and towns. Towns rebelling against Cities and cities rebelling against the Metropolis. In the end everyone is with 0 resources, 0 equipment, 0 crafting workstations and ect.
Is this what you want?

Is that a possibility? Yes. Is that going to happen every time every where? In the short term, most likely. In the long term, doubtful. With the non overbearing larger powers? Doubtful after the their reputation is know. With the super overbearing larger powers? Of course, most likely very often. Now the real question is; how bad is the controllable taxation and overall douchey attitude going to be in those overbearing larger powers if the people under them in the vassal system can and will constantly make life harder for them?

Is this what I want? Simple answer, Yes. I would love to see systems like that in place. I'm not going to whine about it if it doesn't happen as it will likely have little impact on how I play either way. It's just an idea that I personally, and it seems at least a minority of others, would love to see implemented.

Mag7spy

This stuff on inner pvp again with nodes while knowing everything is destroyed in a node again (your mats, housing, etc you have built over months on the game).

People will accept the parent vassal situation since no one is locked to one node. If you are at the point you really dislike you parent node you have the chance to leave to another group of nodes.

With how things are going to be inner connected to damage a node, this most likely is going to be a strong political weapon. If you have people leaving vassal nodes it most likely will have a huge impact on the parent node do to taxes. The point isn't to have inner fighting with these systems being so inner connected (or atleast not having the barrier to entry of inner conflict being so easy to engage in). There is a point people will accept how currently things are.

Again they want pvp but they more than likely want to control some of the chaos that comes with it. So it feels more meaningful than just pvp everywhere. They want a focus on the groups of nodes pvping together against other groups of nodes. Not inward pvp, which would increase the overall pvp even more so. I'm sure they are trying to get the right balance.

As usual the points around this are mostly people saying they want their node to be number one and if it isn't they just should be able to attack the node and become number 1. This is exactly why you have stuff in place to prevent it, cause without rules people will pvp everything they can, which would just damage this kind of game.

Aszkalon

Noaani wrote: »

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.

I just wanted to type ... ... ... ... what the fffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu~

I mean okay, Stage 1 and 2 are just Camps ... ...
But if a Village could get destroyed WITHOUT EVEN BEING ATTACKED directly and physically -> only because a Node higher than itself would be destroyed,

this would be the the weirdest and most nonsensical thing of all time.

Mag7spy

Kyskei 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. [/quote]

I agree. on a personal level, sitting by and watching something I don't want to happen without doing something about it goes against my principles. on a less subjective level I don't see how automatic failure based on population density is fun.

there will be people that are fine with being vassalized and I got nothing to say about that. but I don't like the feeling of helplessness of being told to suck it up and accept this situation you are in. we are talking about forced servitude after all. they can pretty that up as much as they want with rewards, and falsely call it an alliance. but that doesn't change the situation at the core.[/quote]

Who is making yuo serve and forcing you to do things? The most you can say is if the parent node decs there is a chance you might be part of that owpvp. Besides that you aren't really forced to serve but pay taxes and get benefits for that....

People like you are the reason even more so these rules need to be in placed. You would destroy all the nodes until all content was dead if you could. Entirely of the games outlook needs to be around more organic and fluid node development for hard pvp. And for politics and such should be the most on inner node conflict.

No small nodes need to be empowered to be rats and work with some other higher level node to destroy the vassals parent node just because they think they will be the next top node. And continuing to rat until the area is dead.

Khronus

I like the idea and @Noaani has the right idea from the comments above (your node lost). If you're unhappy with the outcome of "your" node, you have to move. Go find something else and plan your revenge.

Ultimately, this system inspires community and teamwork in order to do what you want it to do. I don't want my favorite location to become a vassal but I will certainly not sit down when there is work to be done. My guild, my community, and my alliance (all 3 different angles that I plan on approaching from) will do what needs to be done in order to experience what this game has to offer : ).

Noaani

Githal wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Why would we assume the best players are in the metropolis?

Well if not best - then for sure the most dedicated. And those who spend most time in the game. And yes i am aware that is not how skill is determined, but if you have big enough time to spend in AOC, then you would have been spending this same time on other games before this. So i would assume that they will be with above average skill (ofc not all of these players, but most).

Noaani wrote: »

Why would we assume players in the parent node would care about the vassal?

Vasal nodes pay taxes, Contribute with exp, Their ZOI is part of the Metropolis ZOI, so if a city gets destroyed for example, the Whole Vasal system loses territory.

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?

The sieges have preparation time. You cant make a surprising siege while you distract the Metropolis. They will have for example few days to prepare for this siege that will happen in the EXACT allocated time

The best players will play in the node that is most advantageous to them. That will not always be a metropolis. Dedication is not a factor that comes in to it, as many players are aware thst they don't want to be in a metropolis and so will work to make sure that is the case.

Sure, vassals contribute, but the average person in a node has no reason to care about any of that. Definitely not enough reason to care to spend time attempting to defend that node. Even more true when you consider that a lost lower level node will usually just result in a different type of node taking its place, which is then contributing to the parent node, and has the added benefit of changing the local content making things more interesting. When you also factor in the changes to local services that some players will find appealing, it is reasonable to assume thst some people in the parent node may well be all for the vassal being destroyed.

Sieges do indeed have preparation time. So you distract people with something more important at the actual time of the siege.

Declare a war on the parent node to coincide with the lower node siege. Most players would much rather protect their nodes existing services than spend time defending a minor tax/experience contributor.

Again, do more thinking before forming opinions on the matter.

Aszkalon

Khronus wrote: »

I like the idea and @Noaani has the right idea from the comments above (your node lost). If you're unhappy with the outcome of "your" node, you have to move. Go find something else and plan your revenge.

In the worst Case ... ... ... ... ... Yes.

Yes, maybe at some Point You will never get anything done with the Allies and People you have. Maybe you will need to leave your favourite Node-Point.

And You can be hella-sure - > some Node-Locations will be the most desired for many People. Both on the Surface - same as in the "Underground-World" of Verra.

Khronus wrote: »

Ultimately, this system inspires community and teamwork in order to do what you want it to do. I don't want my favorite location to become a vassal but I will certainly not sit down when there is work to be done.

Some People will not unlikely have only a Chance to have their most favourite Type of Node in their most favourite kind of Location - > if they become battle-hardened Conquerors.

Kyskei

Mag7spy wrote: »

Who is making yuo serve and forcing you to do things? The most you can say is if the parent node decs there is a chance you might be part of that owpvp. Besides that you aren't really forced to serve but pay taxes and get benefits for that....

People like you are the reason even more so these rules need to be in placed. You would destroy all the nodes until all content was dead if you could. Entirely of the games outlook needs to be around more organic and fluid node development for hard pvp. And for politics and such should be the most on inner node conflict.

No small nodes need to be empowered to be rats and work with some other higher level node to destroy the vassals parent node just because they think they will be the next top node. And continuing to rat until the area is dead.

1: you are literally forced to be vassalized, it is automatic. you can be in denial about that if you want but that's just what the situation is.

2: now you are attacking a strawman. there is no indication that I even like pvp let alone that I would take it so far as to destroy EVERY node. I would fight for raising my own node up and nothing more.

3: I'm sure you'll feel different if you ever end up living as one of these "rats" in the small nodes. that you dismiss out of hand. they are players just like you, and deserve to have fun playing the game as well.

Mag7spy

Kyskei wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Who is making yuo serve and forcing you to do things? The most you can say is if the parent node decs there is a chance you might be part of that owpvp. Besides that you aren't really forced to serve but pay taxes and get benefits for that....

People like you are the reason even more so these rules need to be in placed. You would destroy all the nodes until all content was dead if you could. Entirely of the games outlook needs to be around more organic and fluid node development for hard pvp. And for politics and such should be the most on inner node conflict.

No small nodes need to be empowered to be rats and work with some other higher level node to destroy the vassals parent node just because they think they will be the next top node. And continuing to rat until the area is dead.

1: you are literally forced to be vassalized, it is automatic. you can be in denial about that if you want but that's just what the situation is.

2: now you are attacking a strawman. there is no indication that I even like pvp let alone that I would take it so far as to destroy EVERY node. I would fight for raising my own node up and nothing more.

3: I'm sure you'll feel different if you ever end up living as one of these "rats" in the small nodes. that you dismiss out of hand. they are players just like you, and deserve to have fun playing the game as well.

1. You are not even answering my point you are just starting the obvious. Because as i said its just about you wanting to attack even though there is no true draw back or actual control forced over you.

2. You complaining about being forced to be vassalized, means you need to attack another node to get yuors up, being the parent node. On the chance you don't care about your own nodes growth getting to the next rank, means you simply want to be able to PvP the node. Cut the BS please, my point stands systems like this need to be in place for people like you.

3. IT has nothing to do with the node you live in, im talking about rats that just want to attack everything or be used by other nodes to destroy things around them. Again you fit the bill.

Every bit of vibe I get from you would be someone that would 100% kill a server if you got into that kind of position (not that it would ever happen though).

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

IT has nothing to do with the node you live in, im talking about rats that just want to attack everything or be used by other nodes to destroy things around them. Again you fit the bill.

Do you see every guild that's gonna pvp for their content as rats as well? What about players that flag first if they see someone approaching their gathering spot or mob farming location?

Cause that kinda sounds like 90% of the game's population will just be rats then.

Kyskei

Mag7spy wrote: »

1. You are not even answering my point you are just starting the obvious. Because as i said its just about you wanting to attack even though there is no true draw back or actual control forced over you.

2. You complaining about being forced to be vassalized, means you need to attack another node to get yuors up, being the parent node. On the chance you don't care about your own nodes growth getting to the next rank, means you simply want to be able to PvP the node. Cut the BS please, my point stands systems like this need to be in place for people like you.

3. IT has nothing to do with the node you live in, im talking about rats that just want to attack everything or be used by other nodes to destroy things around them. Again you fit the bill.

Every bit of vibe I get from you would be someone that would 100% kill a server if you got into that kind of position (not that it would ever happen though).

1: how do you know that there is no drawback? I can think of several drawbacks like limiting the growth of your node and taxes on top of what you already have to pay for citizenship.

2: bold of you to assume that I need to lie to beat you in an argument. you don't know me therefore you have no idea what systems should be in place for people like me. personally I don't care if my node is above other nodes. I do care if it's bellow another node.
making it so that you can't free yourself from a master node, forces me to get into a lot of PVP to keep neighboring nodes from leveling in the first place when I would much rather just do PVE.

3: I highly doubt the people you refer to as rats are going to be in any way confined to lower level nodes. those assholes tend to worm their way into all sorts of places just to ruin other peoples days. I also doubt that they would have a whole lot of node loyalty. so I don't really see why they are applicable to this topic.

scottstone7

I was just looking over the original kickstarter for something else and found that rebellion IS supported by the original Kickstarter. Just saying.

Ashes of Creation Kickstarter wrote:

But change for change’s sake means nothing without consequence. That means that these changes and these choices must have repercussions, they must be *felt* throughout the rest of the world. It means that when a player makes a choice in a quest, that choice can’t be undone. It means that when that volcano erupts and destroys a city, the landscape is forever altered. It means that when a tyrant makes life difficult for his citizens, his citizens can rise up against him. Players have choices to make, those choices lead to change, and that change has consequence. Day to day, server to server, the world will be in flux, and history will remain where it always should, in the hands of the player.

Mag7spy

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

IT has nothing to do with the node you live in, im talking about rats that just want to attack everything or be used by other nodes to destroy things around them. Again you fit the bill.

Do you see every guild that's gonna pvp for their content as rats as well? What about players that flag first if they see someone approaching their gathering spot or mob farming location?

Cause that kinda sounds like 90% of the game's population will just be rats then.

Just doing PvP doesn't make you a rat lmao. It be more so if you allow bigger nodes to use you for forms of advantage to bypass or make certain systems easier to approach. There are certain types of players that will do any kind of ratty behavior to get their way. This temper tantrum nonsense about wanting to attack a parent node without moving, will find a lot those types of people that will do ratty things. Not limited to destroy the games economy just cause to get their node up. And the same type of people will end up attacking every node possible, with more a direct target on weaker nodes based on their mind set.

We have already had this argument before anyway, this s the reason reason why corruption pvp is going to be minimum and heavily disincentive. Without any kind of ruling in place people will just go down the path of destruction and take out every single node they can.

Mag7spy

Kyskei wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

1. You are not even answering my point you are just starting the obvious. Because as i said its just about you wanting to attack even though there is no true draw back or actual control forced over you.

2. You complaining about being forced to be vassalized, means you need to attack another node to get yuors up, being the parent node. On the chance you don't care about your own nodes growth getting to the next rank, means you simply want to be able to PvP the node. Cut the BS please, my point stands systems like this need to be in place for people like you.

3. IT has nothing to do with the node you live in, im talking about rats that just want to attack everything or be used by other nodes to destroy things around them. Again you fit the bill.

Every bit of vibe I get from you would be someone that would 100% kill a server if you got into that kind of position (not that it would ever happen though).

1: how do you know that there is no drawback? I can think of several drawbacks like limiting the growth of your node and taxes on top of what you already have to pay for citizenship.

2: bold of you to assume that I need to lie to beat you in an argument. you don't know me therefore you have no idea what systems should be in place for people like me. personally I don't care if my node is above other nodes. I do care if it's bellow another node.
making it so that you can't free yourself from a master node, forces me to get into a lot of PVP to keep neighboring nodes from leveling in the first place when I would much rather just do PVE.

3: I highly doubt the people you refer to as rats are going to be in any way confined to lower level nodes. those assholes tend to worm their way into all sorts of places just to ruin other peoples days. I also doubt that they would have a whole lot of node loyalty. so I don't really see why they are applicable to this topic.

1. You can read what they already put on the whole system, its funny your comment is asking me "how do i know there is no draw back" you are trying to use fear mongering essentially. There will be taxes everywhere so what, that is part of the game. And also more than likely going to be part of a strategy advantage to weakening nodes by destroying smaller ones.

The main taxes you need to worry about are the ones YOUR OWN node sets. If you don't like them or how things are run look at other nodes go move to that fit your situation better.

Obviously you can't increased your node further once you have a parent node. IF being in the highest node is what is needed for your experience just move to it. All nodes will still grow based the level of it and how much the people in the node invest in it.

2. Your type is clear as day to me i know your type very well, its clear in your nodes, the fact of you making your node, and your interaction with it. You continue to make that more clear, you would be poison to the server in a world where all nodes could be attackable.

3. Its a mind set, and you fit the bill this is why you are so emotionally invested caring about being vassal to another node(regardless of the benefits). You are one person I wouldn't trust, if for whatever reason I was in talks with you. You are the type of person that would be the first to throw a dagger in some ones back. It be like in a snake bit trying to be the kill the rest to come out as the strongest. Though you would end up coming out alone and it be your own weakness.

Noaani

scottstone7 wrote: »

I was just looking over the original kickstarter for something else and found that rebellion IS supported by the original Kickstarter. Just saying.

Ashes of Creation Kickstarter wrote:

But change for change’s sake means nothing without consequence. That means that these changes and these choices must have repercussions, they must be *felt* throughout the rest of the world. It means that when a player makes a choice in a quest, that choice can’t be undone. It means that when that volcano erupts and destroys a city, the landscape is forever altered. It means that when a tyrant makes life difficult for his citizens, his citizens can rise up against him. Players have choices to make, those choices lead to change, and that change has consequence. Day to day, server to server, the world will be in flux, and history will remain where it always should, in the hands of the player.

Indeed you can.

In the next election.

Mag7spy

scottstone7 wrote: »

I was just looking over the original kickstarter for something else and found that rebellion IS supported by the original Kickstarter. Just saying.

Ashes of Creation Kickstarter wrote:

But change for change’s sake means nothing without consequence. That means that these changes and these choices must have repercussions, they must be *felt* throughout the rest of the world. It means that when a player makes a choice in a quest, that choice can’t be undone. It means that when that volcano erupts and destroys a city, the landscape is forever altered. It means that when a tyrant makes life difficult for his citizens, his citizens can rise up against him. Players have choices to make, those choices lead to change, and that change has consequence. Day to day, server to server, the world will be in flux, and history will remain where it always should, in the hands of the player.

you can raise up by leaving and joining another node to attack them, yes.

Lodrig

My proposal is as follows.

Nodes maxmum development tier is limited by the number of nodes in their vassal network, including itself. Thus a vassals vassal is just as good as a direct vassal. Direct vassals are limited to no more then 2 or 3, possibly varrying by a nodes development level.

Thus to develop a node must aquire and retain vassals. To reach the Metropolis level it would probably require 10-12 vassal nodes as thats roughtly 85/6 with allowance for some isolated nodes. Likewise maximum nodes in a network should be capped, 15 to 16 seems resonable about the level where their 6th Metropolis starts to get squeezed out. Vassals can be of equal tier but never higher at time of aquisition.

Tier 6 needs 11 nodes (thus 10 vassls)
Tier 5 needs 7 nodes (thus 6 vassals)
Tier 4 needs 4 nodes (thus 3 vassals)
Tier 3 needs 2 nodes (thus 1 vassal)
Tier 2 needs 1 node (which is itself)
Tier 1 needs 1 node (which is itself)

Gaining vassals can be done by conquest or diplomacy. Diplomacy offers the potential for negotiating taxes and benifits and vassal and patron can update this relationship by mutual agreement of new terms after vassalization. Conqcoured vassals on the other hand get a standardized rate of taxes and benifits. Vassals gained diplomaticaly can rebel and fight for independence but must clear a high threshold, being no more then 1 tier development below the patron node, paying a large sum and probably having to be at full experience. Nodes vassalized by conquest get reduced costs and waving of prerequisites to rebel, but if a node that was concoured ever signs a formalized vassal contract with its patron then its concquored status is removed and it is treated like a diplomatically aquired node. Conversly a Patron can unilaterally change the vassal contract but this gives the vassal node the concqoured status and acompanying reduced rebellion costs. In the event any war of independence is lost the vassal has its exp wiped and it and its vassals all the way down are unable to rebel for a period of time.

If a patron node losses enough vassals to cause it to drop below the minimum needed to support its development level then it begins a timed degradation process. If it dosn't aquire new vassals (either direct or through its vassals gaining vassals) then the development drops 1 tier, if it is still under vassalized the process and time period repeat. If this comes as the result of a major vassal the old vassal may end up aquireing the former patron is it's vassal, basically flipping the script on them. Wars to aquire vassals can be conducted on nodes that are already vassals in which causes their patron to automatically be a defender. If the taken vassal themselves has vassals the whle vassal tree is transfered which can cause massive re-alignments and the fall of previous hegemons. Complete wiping of nodes is no longer possible in one event, a node only gets knocked down 1 development level as a result of a node seige which it can rebuild, the loss of vassals is the more serious threat as it devolves a node and leaves it capped.

This system gives incentives for patron nodes to engage in cut throat diplomacy and warmaking for vassals, and to then keep vassals fearfull and or happy, protect them from poaching by other nodes while encouraging them to make their own expansionary moves. As well as giving everyone incentive to grow and 'pad' their vassal count from a supply that is just a little too tight Kingdoms rise and fall more gradually and never go strait back to zero, but can be brought to ruin with repeated losses. This should allow for a more interesting political churn.

Mag7spy

Lodrig wrote: »

My proposal is as follows.

Nodes maxmum development tier is limited by the number of nodes in their vassal network, including itself. Thus a vassals vassal is just as good as a direct vassal. Direct vassals are limited to no more then 2 or 3, possibly varrying by a nodes development level.

Thus to develop a node must aquire and retain vassals. To reach the Metropolis level it would probably require 10-12 vassal nodes as thats roughtly 85/6 with allowance for some isolated nodes. Likewise maximum nodes in a network should be capped, 15 to 16 seems resonable about the level where their 6th Metropolis starts to get squeezed out. Vassals can be of equal tier but never higher at time of aquisition.

Tier 6 needs 11 nodes (thus 10 vassls)
Tier 5 needs 7 nodes (thus 6 vassals)
Tier 4 needs 4 nodes (thus 3 vassals)
Tier 3 needs 2 nodes (thus 1 vassal)
Tier 2 needs 1 node (which is itself)
Tier 1 needs 1 node (which is itself)

Gaining vassals can be done by conquest or diplomacy. Diplomacy offers the potential for negotiating taxes and benifits and vassal and patron can update this relationship by mutual agreement of new terms after vassalization. Conqcoured vassals on the other hand get a standardized rate of taxes and benifits. Vassals gained diplomaticaly can rebel and fight for independence but must clear a high threshold, being no more then 1 tier development below the patron node, paying a large sum and probably having to be at full experience. Nodes vassalized by conquest get reduced costs and waving of prerequisites to rebel, but if a node that was concoured ever signs a formalized vassal contract with its patron then its concquored status is removed and it is treated like a diplomatically aquired node. Conversly a Patron can unilaterally change the vassal contract but this gives the vassal node the concqoured status and acompanying reduced rebellion costs. In the event any war of independence is lost the vassal has its exp wiped and it and its vassals all the way down are unable to rebel for a period of time.

If a patron node losses enough vassals to cause it to drop below the minimum needed to support its development level then it begins a timed degradation process. If it dosn't aquire new vassals (either direct or through its vassals gaining vassals) then the development drops 1 tier, if it is still under vassalized the process and time period repeat. If this comes as the result of a major vassal the old vassal may end up aquireing the former patron is it's vassal, basically flipping the script on them. Wars to aquire vassals can be conducted on nodes that are already vassals in which causes their patron to automatically be a defender. If the taken vassal themselves has vassals the whle vassal tree is transfered which can cause massive re-alignments and the fall of previous hegemons. Complete wiping of nodes is no longer possible in one event, a node only gets knocked down 1 development level as a result of a node seige which it can rebuild, the loss of vassals is the more serious threat as it devolves a node and leaves it capped.

This system gives incentives for patron nodes to engage in cut throat diplomacy and warmaking for vassals, and to then keep vassals fearfull and or happy, protect them from poaching by other nodes while encouraging them to make their own expansionary moves. As well as giving everyone incentive to grow and 'pad' their vassal count from a supply that is just a little too tight Kingdoms rise and fall more gradually and never go strait back to zero, but can be brought to ruin with repeated losses. This should allow for a more interesting political churn.

Naa i prefer what AoC is already doing it will already have enough politics going on. 1001 people will all say to change systems constantly as everyone always has different ideas to the point you won't ever have a game.

These ideas to overcomplicate a system just to make it difficult to complain about being a vassal is silly and would just lead to a worse game no one can follow what is even going on. Like people out here trying to add 5 steps that aren't needed to make it as difficult as possible to try to avoid being a vassal.

Get xp for you node, build it up, and pvp other nodes make it clear as possible to not overcomplicate the game. Do that and your node will level up while slowing down your competition.

Long story short you could add 10 steps / rules to anything and make things super complex. That doesn't make the game any more fun or interesting. You just end up bogging down the overall experience with elements that are not needed.

Lodrig

Followup, I realized that a non-war and non-diplomatic system will be nessary for the vassalization of a tier 1 or 2 node because they lack mayors they can not agree to diplomatic vassalization. Likewise a tier 2 nodes ability to gain it's first vassal can't be done by either method due to the lack of a mayor to select a target. This is why the current design uses an automated vassalization based on node XP. I think a better solution can be reached using an embyronic Caravan system to make a delivery to the node and thus claim it. This will provide player agency to the process while preserving as much of what I think Intrepids original intent was.

At tier 1 a node gains a chest or NPC which has the capacity to hold special objects called 'Expedition Crates', it holds nothing else but these and has a capacity of 100 and starts empty. At tier 2 (which can be achived with XP alone) a node which is full of XP will have overflow XP generate crates in their stockpile at some rate aimed at being likely to generate about a crate every 5 to 10 minutes under expected XP production rates of a tier 2 node, these crates are labeled with their node of origin but are otherwise identical and functionless, this will eventually fill the stockpile with 100 domestically created crates. Any player can remove a domestically produced crate from the stockpile, possibly subject to a fee or auction price, but can not drop or delete it and can carry only 1 at a time, probably with reduced movement speed unless a mount is used. The crate might be visible to other players but not it's origin node and it will decay away in a few hours when outside a stockpile and decays instantly if they drop on death, this might leave some loot. A person carrying a crate can deposit it into any stockpile, if the stockpile is full then the oldest non-matching-origin crate is destroyed to accomadate it, if they deposit into a forign stockpile they get a modest monetary reward. If a crate of forign origin is in a stockpile then XP is first used to consume it at a comperable rate before new crates are generated, note that Tier 1 nodes can consume crates but not generate them and forign crates can not be removed meaning only XP based consumption can remove them, again oldest forign crate is consumed first. If a Tier 1 or 2 stockpile is ever filled with >80 crates of a single forign node origin then the node is vassalized to that forign node. This includes nodes that are already vassals so they can be stolen away from the current patron, but the patron has an advantage, a vassal node consumes non-patron crates first before consuming patron crates so the usurper must overcome the consumption rate AND push out the patron. Likewise if a vassal node reaches 80 domestic crates they become independent again. Tier 3 through 6 nodes retain their ability to produce and consume crates Mayors can set tasks to deliver crates to specific destinations such as existing vassals to help maintain them, or to aquire new vassals, or to block someone else from gaining a vassal and such deliveries could generate extra rewards subsidized by the town coffers at the mayors discression. In this way a node of any tier can aquire tier 1 and 2 vassals but might face limits on the number of direct vassals they can have. if under such a cap then their crates are deleted upon entering into any node stockpile that is not already a vassal, but all rewards are still generated. It is intended hat the whole system remains in place at higher tiers as a kind of delivery mini-game for players to do for the cash rewards as an individualized alternative to caravans probably with higher rewards for greater distance of delivery and for the crates originating from higher tier nodes, this would likely come with an adjustment to the rate of crate creation for larger nodes and more systems to 'reserve' crates for yourself rathe they relying on first come. This keeps players familiarized with the system and engaged in a low intensity strugle for control of vassals for which outright wars would be unreasonable. Lastly it fits the theme and astetics of tier 1 and 2 nodes with a 'camps' and 'expeditions', logically supplies should be delivered to such things to maintain them.

As you can see the system is kind of delivery pushing king-of-the-hill in which a Tier 2 nodes pushes crates onto other nodes and can act without centralized leadership as players just try to get the monetary rewards for delivery. To win this pushing contest a node will need to sustain a higher rate of XP generation as well as do the leg work to deliver the crates. No one is flaged for pvp but it could occour either oportunistically or as an organized defense to prevent vassalization. Other interesting counterplay also exists when a third node of tier 3 or higher is inloved, they could try to deplete the attacking sides crate supply by taking them home to their node to deposit, as hey are already tier 3 this presents no risk to them. Note while a tier 2 node vassalizing a tier 1 node is a one sided push because the tier 1 node produces no crates it is possible for two tier 2 nodes to fight each other both generating and consuming each others crates untill one wins. Two different nodes might battle over the vassalization of a third node trying to push more crates to it. Point is that it is all player driven but because all crate creation is a byproduct of XP it's inherently self-throttling, only a fraction of players in a node can be doing deliveries because someone needs to be generating XP which crate deliveries do not, thus normal PvE play dominates while crates act as a soft intro to caravans and node-2-node commerce for that segment of econ focused players and thouse guilds focused on node advancement and empire building letting them flex their organizational muscle.

Lastly you have the possibility that the player who deposited the most crates to a successful vassalization might get a prize, maybe a large monetary prize, rights or privlages in their home node, maybe even becoming the first mayor if the vassalization is what took their node to tier 3.

Dygz

No need to fix what ain't broke.

Child Item