Node racial style depending on race contribution doesn't make sense

Hi,

while in theory it sounds great and logical, that a node gets the style of the most contributing race, its actually not a well thought of system.

In every mmo you have races, that are played much more than others, so a niche race will maybe never or very unlikely see a node in their style.

I guess there should be an alternative system. Maybe the mayor's race or swappable and you need a blue print that is only craftable by the race itself.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dygz

Chaliux wrote: »

Will not happen if the race population is not balanced - same race will rebuild the node, because thats the entire point of domination. Its just a time sink in between, but no racial design change will happen.

Same race cannot rebuild if other Races nearby overtake that destroyed Node first.
There's also an assumption that the defeated Race will be willing to help progress a nearby City that is a different Node type - which very well may NOT be the case.

Lodrig

Caeryl wrote: »

Congrats, you've stumbled upon the point.

Race population alone doesn't dictate the style, contributions do. There is currently no overwhelmingly more popular race shown in polls we have access to. Obviously you can see how it's not anywhere remotely near 'unlikely' that you'll see nodes in plenty of styles.

Don't get snarky with me, First off I was not replying to you, I was replying to somone else who was making a badly misinformed speculation. Second I have never denied that players should need to congregate to get their racial architecture styles expressed and have given explicit examples of it.

What YOU deny is that their should be any mechanical boost to increese architectural diverstity and that it should be nothing but a raw plurality (even though you don't even seem to understand the difference between majority and plurality) and you back this up with nothing but an appeal to player choice.

And now you have advanced to simply making baldfaced lies about race popularity, EVERY poll has shown a consistent over popularity of Elves, as has litterally EVERY past fantasy MMO population statistics to boot, and by more then enough to create an architectural monoculture under the current Intrepid plan.

Lodrig

Some possible options for promoting different architecture styles indirectly.

The Caravan system utilizes commodities generated from nodes and then selling them to far away with a system of diminishing returns for selling the same commodity too much to a location.

If the commodity type that a location generates were modified by the race archetecture that was present. And if a node payed a premium for the commodities that came from different races then their would be an incentive to actually create thouse nodes.

Ungohil

Dygz wrote: »

Chaliux wrote: »

Will not happen if the race population is not balanced - same race will rebuild the node, because thats the entire point of domination. Its just a time sink in between, but no racial design change will happen.

Same race cannot rebuild if other Races nearby overtake that destroyed Node first.
There's also an assumption that the defeated Race will be willing to help progress a nearby City that is a different Node type - which very well may NOT be the case.

Destroying and rebuilding a node is no question about races, but cooperating players, groups, especially guilds. All can be humans, for instance. Humans destroy it, humans and elves rebuild it. Humans win (again) with more contribution, because we are talking about the scenario, which highly likely will happen, that some races will dominate. Name them: Humans and Elves. Accidentially other races, maybe, sometimes, rarely.

Ace1234

@Lodrig

Please interpret this as a whole, to put previous points into better context with each other.

You don't understand statistics if you think random distribution of player is going to result in diversity. Their are on average something like 700 characters per node, more then enough for the law of averages to dictate that node demographics will not differ significantly from the global average without some kind of concerted effort to make them do so.

Possibly, statistics aren't my forte so ill take your word for it in this case. Its a good point, but even if its not equally distributed, the point is it is still possible to have a distribution of node aesthetics (as in, they are not all the same). And according to yourself, you can't expect people to uproot from their node just to look around, so based on that, who cares if a bunch if other nodes look the same as long as your node that you are around the most is the aesthetic that you like?
(Even though I disagree with this, because some players will explore regardless, and there are things to see and reasons to explore outside of the node aesthetic, without having to change the system for the other benefits it provides....so in either case it doesn't really matter much.)

Also it is silly to expect players to be uprooting themselves from their nodes, where all their playerhousing, connections and leveling experience has been to move to other nodes which may be undeveloped just to get to see some asthetically different architecture.

Well, not really, there are a lot of reasons to travel around the world but it might come down to a playstyle thing of whether you are mechanically incentivized to stay in the same area or whether you are mechanically incentized to travel. There was a dev discussion about this in reference to biomes (which again is the main system meant to provide aesthetic diversity, not the node architechture system), but either way there is still a chance you will run into some different node architecture types, but what should matter most is your home node architecture.

That's a classic positive externality underinvestment. Diversity of architecture is a good that everyone playing the game recives, not just thouse who did the work, but their is no incentive for the players who need to congregate to make it happen. Even if thouse Tulnar all get together and make 1 Tulnar node, the rest of the world is still a monoculture. Hell their uniqueness probably brings in non Tulnar tourists that dilute the population and then undo the very thing they came to see.

Im not sure what the term 'positive externality underinvestment' represents, but it 'probably' doesn't apply to what im am actually saying, I can assure you I am quite reasonable and good at seeing past my own biases in most cases. Yes I agree that diversity is good for everyone, but with this particular system (which is most likely fills a role relating to player choice and role-play), it might not be possible to optimize for aesthetic, which is why I talked about players needing to make compromises and prioritize different needs of the game at different times.

If their was ANY kind of mechanical advantage how ever small to having your race match the architecture then it would encourage concentration but as of now their is none.

Well yes, but role-play is most likely a core purpose of the racial aesthetic system, and role-play is something that might not necessarily require any additional mechanical benefit in order to operate as a proper incentive for those types of players, other than the architectural aesthetic that is already present. Unless they were trying to appeal to min-maxers and encourage them to get involved in influencing the aesthetic, then this would probably be unnecessary. This may or may not be a good idea, but it depends on whether you want min-maxers to engage with role-play or not. I don't really see the point in additionally incentivizing this, as there are other ways of rewarding that kind of social skill for min-maxers (like politics and other systems like that), to where you should just leave the architecture system as it is, as a role-play system, and allow players to either choose to participate in it or not.

Phoenix77

Just go back to impactful racial augments as was originally intended instead of backgrounds and this will increase race diversity and building architecture diversity. I would even like it if same type of nodes same level but with different architecture provided different services.

Pendragxn

Phoenix77 wrote: »

Just go back to impactful racial augments as was originally intended instead of backgrounds and this will increase race diversity and building architecture diversity

No it won’t! Everyone will just play elf or human regardless there has already been a poll. Even if you put shitty racial traits which you shouldn’t on the characters people are still going to play what they like the look of more. Min-maxers are a minority in niche end game activities.

Garrtok

Dygz wrote: »

Chaliux wrote: »

Will not happen if the race population is not balanced - same race will rebuild the node, because thats the entire point of domination. Its just a time sink in between, but no racial design change will happen.

Same race cannot rebuild if other Races nearby overtake that destroyed Node first.
There's also an assumption that the defeated Race will be willing to help progress a nearby City that is a different Node type - which very well may NOT be the case.

Other races nearby? There are no other races nearby 90% will be mixed and have the same dominant races as every other node.

Garrtok

Lodrig wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

Congrats, you've stumbled upon the point.

Race population alone doesn't dictate the style, contributions do. There is currently no overwhelmingly more popular race shown in polls we have access to. Obviously you can see how it's not anywhere remotely near 'unlikely' that you'll see nodes in plenty of styles.

Don't get snarky with me, First off I was not replying to you, I was replying to somone else who was making a badly misinformed speculation. Second I have never denied that players should need to congregate to get their racial architecture styles expressed and have given explicit examples of it.

What YOU deny is that their should be any mechanical boost to increese architectural diverstity and that it should be nothing but a raw plurality (even though you don't even seem to understand the difference between majority and plurality) and you back this up with nothing but an appeal to player choice.

And now you have advanced to simply making baldfaced lies about race popularity, EVERY poll has shown a consistent over popularity of Elves, as has litterally EVERY past fantasy MMO population statistics to boot, and by more then enough to create an architectural monoculture under the current Intrepid plan.

Polls of 400 people of the die hard ashes Fans. In EVERY MMO there are dominant races by far. Every single one. And that is more a proof than your tiny forum polls

Ravudha

What I'm really curious to see is whether any significant or noticeable population of players for each race also wants/chooses to settle in a biome that's stereotypically associated with that race (e.g. Py'rai in a forest biome) and how that impacts the distribution of racial architecture across nodes, if at all.

Caeryl

Pendragxn wrote: »

Phoenix77 wrote: »

Just go back to impactful racial augments as was originally intended instead of backgrounds and this will increase race diversity and building architecture diversity

No it won’t! Everyone will just play elf or human regardless there has already been a poll. Even if you put shitty racial traits which you shouldn’t on the characters people are still going to play what they like the look of more. Min-maxers are a minority in niche end game activities.

'Everyone' is 46% now? Coincidentally 'human' and 'elf' covers 45% of all racial options (4 out of 9), so that's very much a normal and expected population spread from that poll.

There's no evidence of a wildly overwhelming slant toward any particular race based on the few polls we've got.

There's already backend adjustments slated to be present, but you're not going to get guarantees that there will be one of every racial style. They're not going to divorce the only choice that comes from race selection. There's already aesthetic differences independent of racial styles that get applied, and further differences based on choices made by the mayor. You're not gonna be lacking for variety in nodes, especially not if you actually put in some effort to get one particular style via your guild.

Pendragxn

Caeryl wrote: »

'Everyone' is 46% now? Coincidentally 'human' and 'elf' covers 45% of all racial options (4 out of 9), so that's very much a normal and expected population spread from that poll.

There's no evidence of a wildly overwhelming slant toward any particular race based on the few polls we've got.

There's already backend adjustments slated to be present, but you're not going to get guarantees that there will be one of every racial style. They're not going to divorce the only choice that comes from race selection. There's already aesthetic differences independent of racial styles that get applied, and further differences based on choices made by the mayor. You're not gonna be lacking for variety in nodes, especially not if you actually put in some effort to get one particular style via your guild.

I think you got mixed up I was saying no to racial perks as in ones that effect combat based on race, and of which I’ve already discussed in the other thread about and why they’re bad.

Personally I don’t care about the racial appearance of nodes or if they all look the same seems really petty to worry about. I don’t think every node will look the same there’s bound to be one or two different styles.

Also I don’t care if there are majority races let people play what they want to play and if that race contributes the most they get the style of node they want simple. If you don’t like it go make an all particular race guild or something nobody is stopping anyone.

Caeryl

Pendragxn wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

'Everyone' is 46% now? Coincidentally 'human' and 'elf' covers 45% of all racial options (4 out of 9), so that's very much a normal and expected population spread from that poll.

There's no evidence of a wildly overwhelming slant toward any particular race based on the few polls we've got.

There's already backend adjustments slated to be present, but you're not going to get guarantees that there will be one of every racial style. They're not going to divorce the only choice that comes from race selection. There's already aesthetic differences independent of racial styles that get applied, and further differences based on choices made by the mayor. You're not gonna be lacking for variety in nodes, especially not if you actually put in some effort to get one particular style via your guild.

I think you got mixed up I was saying no to racial perks as in ones that effect combat based on race, and of which I’ve already discussed in the other thread about and why they’re bad.

Personally I don’t care about the racial appearance of nodes or if they all look the same seems really petty to worry about. I don’t think every node will look the same there’s bound to be one or two different styles.

Also I don’t care if there are majority races let people play what they want to play and if that race contributes the most they get the style of node they want simple. If you don’t like it go make an all particular race guild or something nobody is stopping anyone.

Racial perks add to the world building and roleplay part of an MMORPG, so they would have been welcome. (Also a huge letdown that the pitched Tulnar tensions based on animal traits will end up scrapped too). Sadly the ship has sailed in opposition to that fantasy genre standard, so meaningless race choices is what we're getting.

But regardless, I agree on this particular topic. There's already all the systems needed to handle architectural variation, and if against all odds players end up making 90% of nodes in same style, well, then players did it to themselves on that server by not choosing variation from the get-go and not putting in the effort to go against the grain and get themselves a node in the style they want.

Pendragxn

Caeryl wrote: »

Racial perks add to the world building and roleplay part of an MMORPG, so they would have been welcome. (Also a huge letdown that the pitched Tulnar tensions based on animal traits will end up scrapped too). Sadly the ship has sailed in opposition to that fantasy genre standard, so meaningless race choices is what we're getting.

But regardless, I agree on this particular topic. There's already all the systems needed to handle architectural variation, and if against all odds players end up making 90% of nodes in same style, well, then players did it to themselves on that server by not choosing variation from the get-go and not putting in the effort to go against the grain and get themselves a node in the style they want.

Racial perks create an imbalance in PvP forcing people to feel the need to choose a race or class combo based on perks to be competitive. Having racial perks actually takes away from your freedom and choice by setting pre-defined limits on the character based on your racial choice.

I also would consider AOC more of an MMO than an MMORPG since the emphasis is on the massive multiplayer online gaming side of things. Players are the ones who dictate how the world is via their contribution to the world or node system shaping the game. One of the core mechanics will be PvP/PvX which requires some freedom of choice in players decisions. Especially for a PvP/PvX game if you swing too far towards the RPG story driven narrative element it won’t make sense as an open world PvP game but it’s good to have some lore or other elements.

I think the people who want racial perks are those where familiarity breeds contempt, and just because one game did it that doesn’t mean all games should. Again I don’t like how WOW did it I think it’s a broken plus outdated system.

Racial augments that change the way a skill looks based on race is fine as long as it balanced in combat regarding the hit box. I also think there’s bigger things to think about than the aesthetic side like how the game plays, gameplay mechanics, animations, the way the game feels, balancing combat, making combat feel fluid and reactive all those elements are way more important. I also don’t think they’ll change the whole node aesthetic design based on what the minority of races want they’ll go with the majority.

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Racial_benefits

Character benefits in Ashes of Creation are tied to that character's background rather than their race.[1][2]

We want players to have the freedom to choose the race they want to play because they're excited about it, and avoid situations where players feel forced to play a specific race because of gameplay benefits.[3]
Races are not gender or class locked.[4][5]
Race likely won't affect the artisan system.[2][6]
Race does not affect a character's base stats.[7]

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Racial_augments

Dygz

Garrtok wrote: »

Other races nearby? There are no other races nearby 90% will be mixed and have the same dominant races as every other node.

Um. No. Again... I dunno what you think that means...
Once the Metro is destroyed all the associated NPCs are gone.
Dominance is based on player contribution, so that Py'Rai Metro might have started as a Dünir Village, Town and City and then changed to Py'Rai Metro because the Py'Rai contributed 51% at that point. The player population in the area will still be mixed. Likely mixed with the original Dünir. And those Dünir will be trying to rally other Dünir from nearby Nodes to help them establish a Dünir Metro.

Also, the Niküa could be a minority in that Realm, but have enough to be a majority contribution compared to the Py'Rai citizens and Dünir citizens of that destroyed Node. And the Niküa might decide to abandon all the other Nodes in the Realm in order to create a Niküa Metro.

Garrtok

Dygz wrote: »

Garrtok wrote: »

Other races nearby? There are no other races nearby 90% will be mixed and have the same dominant races as every other node.

Um. No. Again... I dunno what you think that means...
Once the Metro is destroyed all the associated NPCs are gone.
Dominance is based on player contribution, so that Py'Rai Metro might have started as a Dünir Village, Town and City and then changed to Py'Rai Metro because the Py'Rai contributed 51% at that point. The player population in the area will still be mixed. Likely mixed with the original Dünir. And those Dünir will be trying to rally other Dünir from nearby Nodes to help them establish a Dünir Metro.

Also, the Niküa could be a minority in that Realm, but have enough to be a majority contribution compared to the Py'Rai citizens and Dünir citizens of that destroyed Node. And the Niküa might decide to abandon all the other Nodes in the Realm in order to create a Niküa Metro.

That's suuuper unrealistic. Everyone will contribute to the node who wants to contribute. It's not like the dwarfs are gathering their people to build up their node style again. Especially no one, except specialiced guilds, will abandon mixed nodes just to have their racial style applied to another node.

Dygz

Again... I don't know what you think that means...
It's based on how many people are playing in that region.
Everything players do in the region contributes to Node progression.
So, yes, if Py'Rai end up doing more stuff in the ZOI of the Dünir City and cause it to become a Py'Rai Metro, you can expect the Dünir to attempt to Siege and destroy that Py'Rai Metro and rally enough Dünir from other Nodes to ensure that destroyed Py'Rai Metro will be replaced with a Dünir Metro.

Racial progression relies on having a Metro of your Race on the Realm, so there is incentive for each Race to do whatever they need to do to ensure there is a Metro where their Race is dominant at some point.
You think that dominant Race of a Node only affects architectural style?

Lodrig

I should point out that the current system dosn't even give citizens of a Node (the ones who presumably LIVE their and actually MADE all the structures) any priority in determining the architecture over any random traveler who is mob grinding in the node ZOI.

Switching a system where only citizen experience in the node sets the style (while still allowing total exp to level the node) would be a clear improvement because it would put the power in the hands of the locals and allow their congregation in one area to have a greater impact by not diluting it with that of travelers and questers.

Dygz

Yep, but it's not about the power of the locals - which is why it's possible for Py'Rai to contribute so much to a Dünir City that they could turn it into a Py'Rai Metro.

Caeryl

Lodrig wrote: »

I should point out that the current system dosn't even give citizens of a Node (the ones who presumably LIVE their and actually MADE all the structures) any priority in determining the architecture over any random traveler who is mob grinding in the node ZOI.

Switching a system where only citizen experience in the node sets the style (while still allowing total exp to level the node) would be a clear improvement because it would put the power in the hands of the locals and allow their congregation in one area to have a greater impact by not diluting it with that of travelers and questers.

Citizenship is one per account. So you wanna make your doomsaying predictions more likely to happen?

Child Item