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

Dygz

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

@Dygz do you know if Lodrig's post is explaning his idea or the actually system Intrepid will make in the future?
It is really good

It's not Intrepid's design.

Lodrig

Caeryl wrote: »

Every further interaction indicates some kind of lack of understanding, or maybe just that it's devolving into bad faith discussions, but either way in case you genuinely didn't know, nodes are not the units that declare a siege. Players are.

Any player that isn't a Citizen of a vassal node can declare a siege. Even if they spend most of their time in a vassal node, or use the bank in a vassal node, or use the services in that vassal node, as long as they didn't OPT-IN to being a citizen of that vassal node, they can declare a siege on the parent.

That's completly untenable as a design if you ask me. If that's not just a misinterpretation on your part and is actually what they are planning then it will be abandoned at some point in Alpha/Beta and they will move to a system in which a siege will be initiated my a Mayor. Random non-citizens declaring sieges would be trollish if the cost were low and pointless if it were high.

Ludullu

Lodrig wrote: »

That's completly untenable as a design if you ask me. If that's not just a misinterpretation on your part and is actually what they are planning then it will be abandoned at some point in Alpha/Beta and they will move to a system in which a siege will be initiated my a Mayor. Random non-citizens declaring sieges would be trollish if the cost were low and pointless if it were high.

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_sieges#Declaring_a_node_siege
Node sieges are declared directly by any player[16] who completes the prerequisites for the siege initiation.[17]

Laetitian

Lodrig wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

Every further interaction indicates some kind of lack of understanding, or maybe just that it's devolving into bad faith discussions, but either way in case you genuinely didn't know, nodes are not the units that declare a siege. Players are.

Any player that isn't a Citizen of a vassal node can declare a siege. Even if they spend most of their time in a vassal node, or use the bank in a vassal node, or use the services in that vassal node, as long as they didn't OPT-IN to being a citizen of that vassal node, they can declare a siege on the parent.

If that's not just a misinterpretation on your part and is actually what they are planning then it will be abandoned at some point in Alpha/Beta and they will move to a system in which a siege will be initiated my a Mayor. Random non-citizens declaring sieges would be trollish if the cost were low and pointless if it were high.

The costs are high. A good argument for why it's not pointless to let anyone declare is that the mayor isn't elected very directly in most node types, so the mayor isn't that much better of a true representative of the will of the node than that powerful guild that coughs up the resources for a siege scroll.
In a military node where your mayor is appointed through fighting, it's highly appropriate that a powerful guild should be able to declare a node war, even if the guy who happened to win their node mayor contest doesn't happen to feel like making a scroll.

Political systems are kinda fluid in Ashes, in a good way. It's not all rigid and predetermined and the same in every node.
The mayor is still an important figure to do diplomacy with and align your goals with, but he's not the only decisionmaker about everything the node does.

Caeryl

Lodrig wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

Every further interaction indicates some kind of lack of understanding, or maybe just that it's devolving into bad faith discussions, but either way in case you genuinely didn't know, nodes are not the units that declare a siege. Players are.

Any player that isn't a Citizen of a vassal node can declare a siege. Even if they spend most of their time in a vassal node, or use the bank in a vassal node, or use the services in that vassal node, as long as they didn't OPT-IN to being a citizen of that vassal node, they can declare a siege on the parent.

That's completly untenable as a design if you ask me. If that's not just a misinterpretation on your part and is actually what they are planning then it will be abandoned at some point in Alpha/Beta and they will move to a system in which a siege will be initiated my a Mayor. Random non-citizens declaring sieges would be trollish if the cost were low and pointless if it were high.

That’s exactly how it is planned to operate and it’s plenty tenable as long as it’s not painfully easy to get a declaration of siege, which it’s been claimed it won’t be.

Node sieges (individual players vs a node) are not node wars (node citizens vs another node’s citizens)

As Nik likes to say, it would be a 180 to not let individual players declare a siege.

Lodrig

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Scenario 1: Can we take crates from our own stockpile and store them in our own chest? It seems possible since you mentioned that non-origin crates can be replaced. This way, we can sanitize our chest, but continually doing so will deplete our stockpile, leaving us with fewer crates for hauling and storing in our neighbors' chests for attempting to vassalized them.

Unless, the new generated crates would automatically go to the chest and destroy the oldest non-origin chest automatically.

I really don't know which one is the best, maybe we have 79 crates inside our enemy's chest already and we needed just 1 crate in our stockpile so we can haul the last crate over there and add to their chest making 80 crates and vassalizing them.... Or, because the other node added a few crates to my chest then my new generated crates would replace automatically the non-origin crate in my chest.

What's gonna be?

Your use of 'chest' is confusing here as it not a term I have been using, It sounds like your using it as a synonm for stockpile. In any case, their is only one stockpile per node and it is a structure/npc you interact with, any crate outside of a stockpile is decaying at all times without exception and will be gone in a ~2 hours at most. A crate can be returned to the stockpile it originated from, mainly as a way for players to reset that decay timer, but the intent is to prevent their ever being a significant number of crates outside of the stockpiles which might be used to 'instant win'.

Return a crate to it's origin aka domestic stockpile can eliminate forign crates, IF the stockpile were full AND had a forign crate in it this would delete the forign crate. But you would need to have removed your own crate before the forign crate was added for this to work. Because if the forign crate were already present and you remove your domestic crate your just making empty room and putting the crate back dosn't squeeze anything out. The creation of new domestic crates is suppressed when ever a forign crate is present because XP goes first to consuming forign crates and only when their are none left will domestic crates be generated.

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Scenario 2: If I see we have 20 crates in the chest and then a stranger I've never seen before arrives, and I notice there are now 21 crates, I would suspect that the stranger has sneaked a crate into our chest. This would suggest they are from a node attempting to vassalize us.

It would be helpful to have visual indicators of who is adding crates to our chest. Perhaps they could move slowly or we could see the crate itself strapped on the character's back, which would help us identify who is taking crates from our stockpile. If he is using a mule maybe we could see the crate.

Indeed heir would be no need to 'guess', I stipulated a character or mount is carrying a crate is visible aka they litterally be carrying an obvious crate graphic plain as day like thouse npc's walking around with barrles in all the town previes. Likewise the name of the node from which a crate originated would be visible to anyone looking at the stockpile, so which enemy node is pushing crates will be obvious to everyone both friendly and hostile. Remember a Tier 2 node has no citizens so everyone is equal.

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Scenario 3:

"Any player can remove a domestically produced crate from the stockpile"

Regarding this, any player? If my enemy node is trying to vassalize my node, can I send a group there to take all their crates from their stockpile and let them decay, thereby preventing the vassalization (at least temporarily)? The other node's members should notice that we took their crates and might then declare war on our guilds, allowing them to attack us the next time we try to approach their stockpile.

Yes this is intended counter play, though I had intended the no-drop rule to prevent mass removal and wasting of crates, once a person has a crate they can't withdraw another, but they can return it to the stockpile, this is to let people back out of the crate delivery if they change their mind without penalizing them or the source node. To conduct hostile crate 'wasting' one will need to move the crates to a 3rd node where it can be deposited and thus become irretrivable. It might also be nessary to implement some withdraw-rate limit on crates to prevent complet emptying. Note tier 3 or higher nodes might have a fee to withdraw their crates as well and maybe reservation systems or even limits on non-citizens doing this, the completly open first come, costless withdrawing is intended for tier 2 nodes which have no citizenship.

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Is my understanding correct? Did I grasp the system properly? The system is good and fun!
We didn't have a detailed in depth explanation before, this is why sometimes people get a little concerned about the whole thing.

Vassalization doesn't happen automatically as the community is imagining:
In this system, to prevent vassalization, people need to engage in PvP before the chest reaches 80% full of crates from the other node. Therefore, if we have a highly aggressive and determined level 1 node, it's possible that they may never become vassals of anyone. They would remain a standalone node, isolated among other node chains.

Flagging:
Can someone take a crate from the stockpile while having green flag?

Can someone walk into another node with a crate from another origin while having green flag?

These two questions are very concerning!
Imagine if you are from node A and I am from node B:
I will go to A and snatch your crate and leave while having green safety and logoff with the crates and let them decay, I will call my my budies from node B and we will clean your stockpile.

In the next day. since your node farms more, you will have many crates in your stockpile again and you are your buddies from A will take as many crates as you can carry and you will simply walk into node B with green flag and store in our chest.

PvP is not the ONLY means available to avoid vassalization, you can PvE to burn off forign crates faster then they come in, OR go the the enemy and send their crates elseware, OR pvp the enemy crate carriers, or do all thouse things simultanisly, likely different players will have different preferences.

Hypothetically yes a Tier 1 node that successfully KOS or drives off all incoming crate carriers would never be vasslized. They can even advance up to tier 2 by XP and continue to avoid vassalization, even if a few crates slip through if they keep up on consuming them. They could get vassalized but then start defending the stockpile and build up their domestic crates enough to break vassalage and become independent again. Basically if they are stuborn enough they never have to be or stay a vassal. If they reach and maintain tier 3 (by taking their own vassal) then crates stop being the means by which they are vassalized, tier 3 and up use actual wars and or signed documents of vassalization between mayors to determine that. Remember crate vassalization is an extension of the earlier system of war/diplomacy for MOST nodes.

I did not intend for pvp flagging or corruption to have any affect on crates, as I did not imagine that it ever effect any interaction you have with npc's or node systems generally. It is only a system for other players to judge you by. If players want to pvp to prevent crate from being deposited or withdrawn from a stockpile they merely need to guard the area and KOS all unknowns who approatch, that's going to be a very costly means to achive their ends but it's an open world game. If crate carrying makes you slow and unable to defend yourself is another question, I'd imagined that most movement would be done with mounts rather then carying by hand in any case so it's a question of balance.

As for logging off with crates, yes they wold need to decay, but note that the intended rate of crate generation every 10 minutes makes this a really really inefficient senario as your logging off your character to deny them this when you could just take the crate away to another node, cash it in for a reward and then likely be back by the time the next one spawns and thus eliminate far more crates and get paid for it then by logging off for ~2 hours at a time. If this were found to be an abuse then an individual who allows a crate to decay either when logged in or off can just be flagged with a one day timeout period for picking out crates from that node.

Craiken

Steven keeps saying it is a good thing to be vasseled. I want to find out how he plans to make that true.

Given that people will want their node to be top-dog, it does seem weird that there's no way to achieve that in the current system without moving to a different node.

Caeryl

Craiken wrote: »

Steven keeps saying it is a good thing to be vasseled. I want to find out how he plans to make that true.

Given that people will want their node to be top-dog, it does seem weird that there's no way to achieve that in the current system without moving to a different node.

You can stay in the same node no problem, you just can’t sign yourself up as a citizen of the vassal node then take part in a siege against the parent node.

You siege the parent, that node you like is now racing the others to level up, and you can now sign up for citizenship and housing with the expanded population allocations in the larger node.

Arya_Yeshe

Lodrig wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Scenario 1: Can we take crates from our own stockpile and store them in our own chest? It seems possible since you mentioned that non-origin crates can be replaced. This way, we can sanitize our chest, but continually doing so will deplete our stockpile, leaving us with fewer crates for hauling and storing in our neighbors' chests for attempting to vassalized them.

Unless, the new generated crates would automatically go to the chest and destroy the oldest non-origin chest automatically.

I really don't know which one is the best, maybe we have 79 crates inside our enemy's chest already and we needed just 1 crate in our stockpile so we can haul the last crate over there and add to their chest making 80 crates and vassalizing them.... Or, because the other node added a few crates to my chest then my new generated crates would replace automatically the non-origin crate in my chest.

What's gonna be?

Your use of 'chest' is confusing here as it not a term I have been using, It sounds like your using it as a synonm for stockpile. In any case, their is only one stockpile per node and it is a structure/npc you interact with, any crate outside of a stockpile is decaying at all times without exception and will be gone in a ~2 hours at most. A crate can be returned to the stockpile it originated from, mainly as a way for players to reset that decay timer, but the intent is to prevent their ever being a significant number of crates outside of the stockpiles which might be used to 'instant win'.

Return a crate to it's origin aka domestic stockpile can eliminate forign crates, IF the stockpile were full AND had a forign crate in it this would delete the forign crate. But you would need to have removed your own crate before the forign crate was added for this to work. Because if the forign crate were already present and you remove your domestic crate your just making empty room and putting the crate back dosn't squeeze anything out. The creation of new domestic crates is suppressed when ever a forign crate is present because XP goes first to consuming forign crates and only when their are none left will domestic crates be generated.

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Scenario 2: If I see we have 20 crates in the chest and then a stranger I've never seen before arrives, and I notice there are now 21 crates, I would suspect that the stranger has sneaked a crate into our chest. This would suggest they are from a node attempting to vassalize us.

It would be helpful to have visual indicators of who is adding crates to our chest. Perhaps they could move slowly or we could see the crate itself strapped on the character's back, which would help us identify who is taking crates from our stockpile. If he is using a mule maybe we could see the crate.

Indeed heir would be no need to 'guess', I stipulated a character or mount is carrying a crate is visible aka they litterally be carrying an obvious crate graphic plain as day like thouse npc's walking around with barrles in all the town previes. Likewise the name of the node from which a crate originated would be visible to anyone looking at the stockpile, so which enemy node is pushing crates will be obvious to everyone both friendly and hostile. Remember a Tier 2 node has no citizens so everyone is equal.

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Scenario 3:

"Any player can remove a domestically produced crate from the stockpile"

Regarding this, any player? If my enemy node is trying to vassalize my node, can I send a group there to take all their crates from their stockpile and let them decay, thereby preventing the vassalization (at least temporarily)? The other node's members should notice that we took their crates and might then declare war on our guilds, allowing them to attack us the next time we try to approach their stockpile.

Yes this is intended counter play, though I had intended the no-drop rule to prevent mass removal and wasting of crates, once a person has a crate they can't withdraw another, but they can return it to the stockpile, this is to let people back out of the crate delivery if they change their mind without penalizing them or the source node. To conduct hostile crate 'wasting' one will need to move the crates to a 3rd node where it can be deposited and thus become irretrivable. It might also be nessary to implement some withdraw-rate limit on crates to prevent complet emptying. Note tier 3 or higher nodes might have a fee to withdraw their crates as well and maybe reservation systems or even limits on non-citizens doing this, the completly open first come, costless withdrawing is intended for tier 2 nodes which have no citizenship.

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Is my understanding correct? Did I grasp the system properly? The system is good and fun!
We didn't have a detailed in depth explanation before, this is why sometimes people get a little concerned about the whole thing.

Vassalization doesn't happen automatically as the community is imagining:
In this system, to prevent vassalization, people need to engage in PvP before the chest reaches 80% full of crates from the other node. Therefore, if we have a highly aggressive and determined level 1 node, it's possible that they may never become vassals of anyone. They would remain a standalone node, isolated among other node chains.

Flagging:
Can someone take a crate from the stockpile while having green flag?

Can someone walk into another node with a crate from another origin while having green flag?

These two questions are very concerning!
Imagine if you are from node A and I am from node B:
I will go to A and snatch your crate and leave while having green safety and logoff with the crates and let them decay, I will call my my budies from node B and we will clean your stockpile.

In the next day. since your node farms more, you will have many crates in your stockpile again and you are your buddies from A will take as many crates as you can carry and you will simply walk into node B with green flag and store in our chest.

PvP is not the ONLY means available to avoid vassalization, you can PvE to burn off forign crates faster then they come in, OR go the the enemy and send their crates elseware, OR pvp the enemy crate carriers, or do all thouse things simultanisly, likely different players will have different preferences.

Hypothetically yes a Tier 1 node that successfully KOS or drives off all incoming crate carriers would never be vasslized. They can even advance up to tier 2 by XP and continue to avoid vassalization, even if a few crates slip through if they keep up on consuming them. They could get vassalized but then start defending the stockpile and build up their domestic crates enough to break vassalage and become independent again. Basically if they are stuborn enough they never have to be or stay a vassal. If they reach and maintain tier 3 (by taking their own vassal) then crates stop being the means by which they are vassalized, tier 3 and up use actual wars and or signed documents of vassalization between mayors to determine that. Remember crate vassalization is an extension of the earlier system of war/diplomacy for MOST nodes.

I did not intend for pvp flagging or corruption to have any affect on crates, as I did not imagine that it ever effect any interaction you have with npc's or node systems generally. It is only a system for other players to judge you by. If players want to pvp to prevent crate from being deposited or withdrawn from a stockpile they merely need to guard the area and KOS all unknowns who approatch, that's going to be a very costly means to achive their ends but it's an open world game. If crate carrying makes you slow and unable to defend yourself is another question, I'd imagined that most movement would be done with mounts rather then carying by hand in any case so it's a question of balance.

As for logging off with crates, yes they wold need to decay, but note that the intended rate of crate generation every 10 minutes makes this a really really inefficient senario as your logging off your character to deny them this when you could just take the crate away to another node, cash it in for a reward and then likely be back by the time the next one spawns and thus eliminate far more crates and get paid for it then by logging off for ~2 hours at a time. If this were found to be an abuse then an individual who allows a crate to decay either when logged in or off can just be flagged with a one day timeout period for picking out crates from that node.

I thought there was one chest for depositing where people deliver the crates and one stockpile for overflow, from the overflow extra crates would be generated and these extra crates could be hauled to other nodes so you could force vassalization on them. So, it is just one stockpile then.

Mayors could name usual crate carriers from other nodes as enemies of the state, that would be fun if they could be KOS within the node, it would be a good deterrent.

It would be also excelent if the mayor could use and edict for rewarding in gold the citizens who manage to deploy crates in the other node, so citizens would actively work on this.

Your whole idea is by far the best idea about vassalization and I doubt Intrepid will come up with something better than this, they always start with a good idea but in the long run there is always bit of a let down when the subject is the systems themselves. Unfortunatelly, your idea won't be implemented just like any other good idea from any other community member

Noaani

scottstone7 wrote: »

Now you’re just being intentionally obtuse.

Noaani wrote: »

Indeed you can.

In the next election.

So, basically, what I get from that statement, is that you are saying you get to vote on who potentially vassalizes your home node? Are you saying you get to vote on whether your home node gets vassalized or not? Which nodes are above you? On who gets to be the mayor of each node above yours?

I mean, if you get to vote then, yeah, it’s not an automatic system check or a force vassalization. No rebellions needed. Problem solved. Sorry, I misunderstood literally all the information available about those exact things on the wiki. Whew, that’s totally a my bad situation. Someone should really clear off all that well documented bad information on the wiki though otherwise more people might come to the same incorrect conclusion.

What?

Your comment was that the kickstarter specifically said "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.". This passage is CLEARLY talking about if a node elects someone in charge that turns out to be a tyrrant. It is not a comment on your node being a vassal.

If you read it as that, then that is on you.

keenow

Throwing my two cents in. I'm kind of 50-50 on if I mind being a vassal citizen or not. There's two instances I would hate. One; being vassal to an Economic node in any capacity. (This is more of a personal opinion. I might just pick up and leave if that were the case) Two; being stuck at a lvl 3 Village with no room for advancement (Parent node is a Metro, we are Village).

On the other hand; being a citizen of a city or town who is vassal to a Scientific, Divine, or Military node and I'd probably be a happy camper. I think the problem is that; that is really only a 50-50 shot with the vassal system currently of that being the case. Wiki chart shows that a Metro can have 2 cities, 2 towns, and 4 villages. So 50-50. (I would like to see the opportunity for more towns in this structure.)

That being said; I don't think there's as much helplessness or lack of player agency that originally suggested in this thread. Vassaling is "automatic". That when a node levels up; they auto-collect the neighbors around them. But I think you're missing that up until that point you have leeway in deciding your destiny. It's just very dependent on the formative stage.

For example, If I don't want the economic node in my system to win the "race", my node and I can start a node war with it while we are on even footing (both lvl 3). In the war, we can steal territory from them and the exp from their stolen territory will go to my node instead. (This was demo'd in a live stream). Meaning it would boost your development and hinder theirs. You could also attack caravans going to those nodes, stifling their resources. If you prevent movement of goods there, you can chokehold their ability to start their own wars or slow down significantly what they could build (preventing crafting stations, apartments, etc from being built.) If there isn't much going on in their node, they're less likely to attract players there to play. Less players, less exp. You could implant a spy to become the mayor there and jack up taxes/prices so people leave. Spy-Mayor might be a little harder in a Scientific node with a voting structure, but I could see it working well in Military or Economic nodes (win a battle for mayor/ pay for mayor, respectively).
Those are the options I can see for someone like OP--who wants absolute dominance in their territory. You're going to want to play strategically like the people around you are enemies from the get-go. If you're aiming for mayor yourself, you'll also really want to start figuring out how to get people to your node early on, incentives or at least a community. (Starting a guild is a good way!)

For people like myself, who have some *opinions* about certain outcomes, but don't mind vassal. Once you do become vassal to a node; it is absolutely in my best interest to help that node succeed. And best to help them succeed through my own node! Once my node reaches it's cap (one level below our parent). It starts siphoning the excess exp to level up the parent. This is good for me! Because once the parent levels up, my Village can level up. So, I'd probably be in a mad dash to make sure I don't get stuck in a permanent Village node. Supporting their advancement is supporting my own advancement.
I get two chances to do that, I think? Once would be the first (and best opportunity) when my parent is going from 4 to 5. This window gives me a good chance to land in a city. And one last chance to save my outcome when it's going from 5-6. Though, I'm not certain if this second opportunity really exists without playing the game. It might just be that the ZOI of the parent adopts in another powerful node locking my node out of advancement entirely.

But I can see the issue in that; where if I do get stuck in a Village node. At that point I really am just hoping for the whole system's downfall, without any option from my end to influence that. I can't really see any benefit to being stuck in a non-advancing Village node. Not sure what benefit dials Intrepid intends to spin to balance that out to feel fair. Currently, I can only see resentment from my end if that were the case. Especially if I put in a ton of effort to try and advance my parent node twice, just to get locked out of advancement in the second opportunity because of how far the parent's ZOI stretches.

I'd definitely want a rebellion option in that scenario! Or an option to fight the nodes within the system that're locking me out of advancing.
The only current way to shift our positions would be through Node Atrophy, I think? But how is a Village node supposed to compete to attract players to it and away from others when you have basically just the starting slots to build on, and have remained unchanged for so long with no bonuses? It feels like my only option then is to wait and hope that another server discovers that leveling up my node gives some good benefit to the world, like spawning a world boss, and that news spreads via internet to players on my server causing them to flock over. But that's not very fun player-agency wise, depending on players who aren't even on your server. It's also a shot in the dark that your node is even special enough to cause that. And it really feels like you're almost perma-stuck as a Village then.

TL;DR
I don't mind being vassal to certain node-types. I think there's some good player agency to steer your destiny to where you want to go in the server's formative stage, though you could argue they're all PvP-centric. (Personally, don't mind that, though.) I kind of want the opportunity to fight other vassals to shift power dynamics in my system, but I don't think that's a thing?

Arya_Yeshe

Maybe everything is Intrepid's fault for tying the character to the node instead of tying it to the node chain, so people get territorial automatically

Dygz

Craiken wrote: »

Steven keeps saying it is a good thing to be vasseled. I want to find out how he plans to make that true.

Given that people will want their node to be top-dog, it does seem weird that there's no way to achieve that in the current system without moving to a different node.

I want my preferred Node Type to have a Metro with my preferred Racial NPC population.
As long as my Node is part of that Metro, it doesn't matter if it's a Vassal. I still access to all the stuff I want.

Nemeses

If my node, loses out, I will just wait, or encourage an attack on our parent node, then help them destroy it.

I’m the parent, or you dead, end of discussion.

Aszkalon

Nemeses wrote: »

If my node, loses out, I will just wait, or encourage an attack on our parent node, then help them destroy it.

I’m the parent, or you dead, end of discussion.

Of Course People can "and will" probably try that.

But to find out how all of that would work in the first Place -> we would need to be balls deep in the Alpha Two anyway. So we will probably find out sooner or later only around the first Day of May in 2025.

Don't we all want to find out first how " Vassalage " is supposed to work anyway ? Is it a harsh System of Oppression, which Masochists would find kinda appealing ? (lol)

Or does it feel far more likely like a System in which Players as Vassals support and help out the Parent Node ?? Questions over Questions which demand Answers - and still no Alpha Two in sight.

Goalid

I just don't see how Intrepid thinks having a vassal node filled with players who despise the parent node would ever turn out well. If you give them the exact same access to allied war statuses, they can royally screw with the defense of the parent node during sieges / wars. Stuff like taking off all your gear and letting yourself get farmed during a node war or similar event, or taking up spots for a siege and AFKing, jumping in siege equipment and not using it properly, etc. And that's not fun.

Intrepid often overlook what actually motivates players and what they will do. Being a vassal node should come with plenty of benefits and less headaches of running the metro ZOI, hence why you'd want to be a vassal in the first place.

Also, a Parent node should be able to siege a vassal. If only vassals can siege parents, it's uneven. Rather, the relationship between vassal and parent node should be one of necessity to survive from foreign threats, and one based off ACTUAL benefit. And then of course the political game comes into play, the game of the vassal nodes scheming and the parent node shutting down rebellion.

Laetitian

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Maybe everything is Intrepid's fault for tying the character to the node instead of tying it to the node chain, so people get territorial automatically

That's honestly a pretty good take. Either regency and vassalship have to constitute a purely beneficial alliance, granting fully shared advantages (node level benefits) to all members, or it has to be something you can actively resist against.

If Steven wants the first system so badly, perhaps node chains with the highest level top-level regent should limit their surrounding node-chains' max level?
So you'd benefit from being a citizen of a strong node chain by being part of a node chain that can even *have* a metropolis in the first place.
That might not leave enough room for 5 nodes across the realm, in which case I'd just suggest removing one of the less significant node levels (without lowering the total node xp requirements until metropolis, of course.)

Aszkalon

Goalid wrote: »

I just don't see how Intrepid thinks having a vassal node filled with players who despise the parent node would ever turn out well. If you give them the exact same access to allied war statuses, they can royally screw with the defense of the parent node during sieges / wars. Stuff like taking off all your gear and letting yourself get farmed during a node war or similar event, or taking up spots for a siege and AFKing, jumping in siege equipment and not using it properly, etc. And that's not fun.

Obviously the Game (and Players) need Options to punish such Behaviour - and they should be able to punish it IN. TIME., once they notice it.

Someone is intentionally sabotaging the own Side ? By being AFK ? By screwing with Defense Mechanisms ? By sabotaging the fellow Node Defenders ?

I mean,
it even became a " thing " in Worst of Warcraft - > to report fellow Players who intentionally sabotage the own Side in Battlegrounds.

So jeah. Griefplayers are a thing. And maybe to likely - > Players will vent their butthurt over being a defeated and enslaved Vassal-Node this way. (LOL)

Goalid wrote: »

Intrepid often overlook what actually motivates players and what they will do. Being a vassal node should come with plenty of benefits and less headaches of running the metro ZOI, hence why you'd want to be a vassal in the first place.

A good Idea. Actually a VERY good Idea.

Becoming and being a Vassal should also come with some Benefits for oneself. So that Players who are Citizens of Vassal Nodes, feel motivated to work and fight for the Parent Node which rules over oneself.

Goalid wrote: »

Also, a Parent node should be able to siege a vassal. If only vassals can siege parents, it's uneven.

Indeed.

We need to be able to apply the "STICK" as well. Not just the Carrot.

Goalid wrote: »

Rather, the relationship between vassal and parent node should be one of necessity to survive from foreign threats, and one based off ACTUAL benefit. And then of course the political game comes into play, the game of the vassal nodes scheming and the parent node shutting down rebellion.

Damn i love how cool You made that sound right here.

Jepp. Co-Existence with actual Benefits for both Nodes. "AND" (but) also with the Option of the Parent Node to shut down rebellious Schemes and Intent.

If Anyone has nice and brilliant Ideas and Suggestions for dear Intrepid - Please don't hesitate to put them here into this Forum as Topics.

Arya_Yeshe

Laetitian wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Maybe everything is Intrepid's fault for tying the character to the node instead of tying it to the node chain, so people get territorial automatically

That's honestly a pretty good take. Either regency and vassalship have to constitute a purely beneficial alliance, granting fully shared advantages (node level benefits) to all members, or it has to be something you can actively resist against.

If Steven wants the first system so badly, perhaps node chains with the highest level top-level regent should limit their surrounding node-chains' max level?
So you'd benefit from being a citizen of a strong node chain by being part of a node chain that can even *have* a metropolis in the first place.
That might not leave enough room for 5 nodes across the realm, in which case I'd just suggest removing one of the less significant node levels (without lowering the total node xp requirements until metropolis, of course.)

My take is this: since Intrepid tied the character to the node, then it is just natural that people will despise the chain and be territorial about the node

Here's a revised version that addresses the issues while retaining the original intent:

To counter this, since Intrepid has tied the character to the node, it’s only natural that people will develop a strong aversion against the chain and become territorial about their node. It is just logical being like this and it's Intrepid's responsability.

To address this, there should be opportunities for those who are part of a chain, including:

PvE wars: chain vs. goblins and many others
Trade agreements and additional caravan options
Defense pacts for both PvE and PvP
Expanded diplomacy options among the guilds within the chain
Services for importing and exporting along the chain

And so on.

When you join a chain, there should be a range of new features that encourage collaboration and cooperation in both PvE and PvP contexts. Just adding bonues is the most disgusting solution you can have, bonuses are irrelevant for good gaming experience.

ShivaFang

No taxation without representation. Vassal citizens should be allowed to run and vote in their parent node (or otherwise participate in the election process). That's all I require.

Child Item