Not looking forward to node destruction...

This is going to suck for so many players. I mean the level grind isnt really the main bulk of the game, its building your node and gathering and professions. Getting your node destroyed is total garbage.

And i dont know what kind of sadistic ass even wants to do that to someone else. I sure as hell dont. Why do I want to make people feel depressed and quit the game?

I'm all for some friendly competetition, fighting over spots and pvping etc., but this idea is just cruel.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Endowed

This is a PvP game that is way heavy on Gathering and spread sheet nausea crafting as the end game.

Leveling. PvE. Social. Lore. That isnt this game.

Ludullu

I'm real curious what the cost for it will be. Will we even have it in A2, once they fully implement node sieges, with destruction and all.

Xeeg

Ludullu wrote: »

I'm real curious what the cost for it will be. Will we even have it in A2, once they fully implement node sieges, with destruction and all.

Honestly, if nodes can be built fast then it wont be so bad.... but if it takes months to build a node up, thats going to be a devastating loss for many players.

I'd rather have it be a quick turn around thing that is happening all the time and an expected part of the gameplay loop than something that is rare but a quit point for those node citizens.

Still lots of tweaking to do.

If they want to test this well, they should give us some boosted time where nodes can be built quickly and attacked quickly to get data on this.

Ludullu

Xeeg wrote: »

Honestly, if nodes can be built fast then it wont be so bad.... but if it takes months to build a node up, thats going to be a devastating loss for many players.

But this works the other way as well. The more time you need to build up a node - the more time/resources the attackers would need to declare a siege on it.

And considering how long and how many people it takes to level up nodes higher and higher, I'd imagine that the only siegable ones will be the lvl3s and maaaybe 4s. This would mean that people will keep their more valuable stuff in the 5s and 6s, which means mat transfers and potentially a huuuuuge payoff if you do decide to siege a Metro.

But overall it's really difficult to guess how exactly it'll all go down. Especially for casuals who'll be coming to citizenship and home-owning way later than the hardcore players, which will most likely mean that all the casuals will be in those 3s and 4s. We'll have to see.

Volgaris

I see two elements that are in play here, that will effect the way a player feels if "their" node is destroyed.

1. The time to build the node.
2. The time to destroy the node.

Right now it's a LONG process to build a node. Which I think is good. We don't know the time to destroy a node. If it's anything like the 'war' than it's going to be WAY to quick. A Node that takes 3 months to build shouldn't be gone in a weekend, much less a few hours. It should be a week long event with few days warning to prep before it starts. It'd really feel bad to log in on a Friday to find your Node was destroyed at 3am the morning before.

There's an issue of node 'loyalty' that needs to be addressed. There's nothing really tying me to a node. If I'm a member of Node A I can go to Node B to use their stuff, even if Node B destroys Node A. I can still go to Node B to repair, caravan, sell glint, ect. Why would I contribute to a Node or even care about one? Why would I fight for one? I risk repair costs and exp debt and material loss for what? A crafting bench? Storage? I can use whatever Node I want. Some of this might change with vassals. But I don't see that being enough without a reputation with tied to the Nodes.

There's also the issue of the mega groups mowing down other Nodes just for the giggles. If a mega group is half the server than guilds won't stand a chance. A mega group filters all their players into Node A to siege Node B, tactics and skills won't matter with overwhelming numbers to fight against. So Node B is knocked down a level or destroyed, and Node A starts it's next siege, and then its next, and so on. But why would Node A even siege Node B? They could all just go join Node B and take it over, with the next vote. This is a bigger issue I don't see a solution for, because you can regulate out of game socialization. It just reinforces the feeling of node uselessness.

Birqa

the whole game is designed around nodes and them being destructable.

i agree that it comes down to how slow building and destroying is. thats whats alpha 2 is for. to find the sweetspot that it really hurts but doesnt make people quit.
atm they test sieges on ptr for that reason to make a nodesiege difficult but possible to succeed.

i cannot wait to test all of this myself and then give feedback. fun fun fun

Vyllz

🔥 The Philosophy Behind Node Destruction

The idea isn't to grief or make players miserable—it's to create a world where nothing is permanent, and every victory or loss has weight. The alternative would be a static world where once a node reaches max level, it can never be challenged, leading to a stale and predictable experience.

Political & Strategic Play 🏰 –

The destruction of a node isn’t just a random act of cruelty. It’s usually part of larger conflicts over resources, trade routes, and alliances. The best guilds and nations will protect their territories, forming diplomacy, coalitions, and defensive strategies.

Risk vs Reward ⚖️ – A world where cities can't fall would create unshakable monopolies. Ashes forces players to stay active, always engaged in politics, economics, and war.

Player-Driven Narrative 📜 – Every major siege shapes the history of the server. If a metropolis falls, a new civilization can rise. That’s the core of Ashes—it’s about stories written by players, not scripted content that repeats endlessly.

You might not want to destroy someone’s hard work, and that’s fair. But in a player-driven world, there will always be groups with different motivations:

Conquerors & Warmongers – Those who want to rule and expand their influence.
Defenders & Guardians – Players who form alliances to protect key locations.
Economists & Traders – Who will thrive in times of war, managing supply chains.
Nomads & Survivors – Who adapt and rebuild when change comes.

Lucascp92

Xeeg wrote: »

This is going to suck for so many players. I mean the level grind isnt really the main bulk of the game, its building your node and gathering and professions. Getting your node destroyed is total garbage.

And i dont know what kind of sadistic ass even wants to do that to someone else. I sure as hell dont. Why do I want to make people feel depressed and quit the game?

I'm all for some friendly competetition, fighting over spots and pvping etc., but this idea is just cruel.

We are here to test the game... not to play it. Real life is cruel.... they need our data to balance it the best way possible, so... don't quit.

Endowed wrote: »

This is a PvP game that is way heavy on Gathering and spread sheet nausea crafting as the end game.

Leveling. PvE. Social. Lore. That isnt this game.

Please, stop staying you people that leveling, pve, social, lore isnt part of an MMOO.... they need to take care of it as well, if not, the game is destined to die.

Xeeg

REHOC wrote: »

🔥 The Philosophy Behind Node Destruction

The idea isn't to grief or make players miserable—it's to create a world where nothing is permanent, and every victory or loss has weight. The alternative would be a static world where once a node reaches max level, it can never be challenged, leading to a stale and predictable experience.

Political & Strategic Play 🏰 –

The destruction of a node isn’t just a random act of cruelty. It’s usually part of larger conflicts over resources, trade routes, and alliances. The best guilds and nations will protect their territories, forming diplomacy, coalitions, and defensive strategies.

Risk vs Reward ⚖️ – A world where cities can't fall would create unshakable monopolies. Ashes forces players to stay active, always engaged in politics, economics, and war.

Player-Driven Narrative 📜 – Every major siege shapes the history of the server. If a metropolis falls, a new civilization can rise. That’s the core of Ashes—it’s about stories written by players, not scripted content that repeats endlessly.

You might not want to destroy someone’s hard work, and that’s fair. But in a player-driven world, there will always be groups with different motivations:

Conquerors & Warmongers – Those who want to rule and expand their influence.
Defenders & Guardians – Players who form alliances to protect key locations.
Economists & Traders – Who will thrive in times of war, managing supply chains.
Nomads & Survivors – Who adapt and rebuild when change comes.

I really like this response!

Still going to feel bad about destroying people's hard work though... =(

But, I guess I like to PVP and PVX and mob train etc. Not because I want to make people mad or feel bad, but because I consider it a fun competition. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose. I suppose I can think of node destruction in the same way. Not sure how many others will view it like that, people get mad from just simple fights over grind spots, or caravan ganks.

Vyllz

I totally get that feeling—there’s always a level of guilt when destroying something someone worked hard on, especially in a world where players are shaping the environment. But at the same time, that’s what makes Ashes of Creation different.

A world without loss is a world without real victories. If nothing is at stake, then winning loses meaning. Every destroyed node, every toppled guild, every reclaimed city—they aren’t just about tearing something down. They’re about new opportunities, revenge arcs, and the ever-shifting political landscape.

⚔️ Competition vs. Griefing
It’s important to remember that PvP, node wars, and caravans aren’t about ruining someone’s fun—they’re about strategic competition. You wouldn’t feel bad about winning a siege in a strategy game or outmaneuvering an opponent in chess, right? Ashes operates on that same philosophy—a battle of wits, alliances, and calculated risks.

Yes, some people will get mad—that’s inevitable. But emotions in competition are part of what makes victories so rewarding. When your guild defends a node against impossible odds, or rebuilds a fallen city stronger than before, those moments will feel legendary.

So yeah, maybe node destruction stings in the moment, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s just one chapter in an evolving story—a story written by players, for players. And if you’re part of that, you’re not just playing Ashes of Creation—you’re making history in Verra. 🔥🏰

I apologize, but I love the world of Verra, and I already have my path set: creating a defensive and economic big guild with ex WoW, Albion, Archeage, Lineaje ll players. While others kill each other, I plan to accumulate strength and wealth… and when the time is right, I will fight back. ⚖️💰🏹

GrilledCheeseMojito

I get the feeling of stomping on other people's hard work, but the whole point of node destruction is to increase the feeling of immersion for RPers on both sides of the fence: both the people building up the node and the ones choosing to siege it. It isn't "just" about cruel people stomping on other's work, but the fact that nodes can be lost motivates people to come to their aid, whether to protect the node during a siege, or to build it up so that it is too expensive to siege in the first place.

I feel like if you want Verra to have long-running player storylines involving the struggles and fights between guilds, you need the risk of nodes being destroyed to exist in the first place. I think it makes for a richer world if you can give more meaning to heroes coming to the defense of their beloved city in a grand fight this way.

Otr

Xeeg wrote: »

This is going to suck for so many players. I mean the level grind isnt really the main bulk of the game, its building your node and gathering and professions. Getting your node destroyed is total garbage.

And i dont know what kind of sadistic ass even wants to do that to someone else. I sure as hell dont. Why do I want to make people feel depressed and quit the game?

I'm all for some friendly competetition, fighting over spots and pvping etc., but this idea is just cruel.

Ashes of Creation aims to have a dynamic similar to Eve Online.
Nodes are placed in predetermined locations on the map like stars in the Eve galaxy.
Large guilds are supposed to try to control areas by locating themselves in metropolises and fighting for castles every weekend/month.
Loyalty is supposed to happen toward the guild even though there is the citizenship concept which makes you think otherwise.
Metropolises will not fall often because their existence shows there is a strong enough community behind it.
But when they fall, that community will have to relocate. To which node they do is hard to tell because Steven wants to make the map dynamic less predictable; for that reason he created the 20 cushion nodes which live outside the 5 metropolises influence.
Small guilds will have to participate in politics and probably will locate themselves in smaller nodes.
Some will live in the 20 cushion nodes.
Steven's problem is how to attract the audience which wants to play the game he envisioned while he also builds up the game step by step.
I've seen about 10 months ago an Eve veteran streamer who said he will not support AoC but he told to the viewer to join his discord if he wants to know why, as he wanted to avoid telling the reason publicly.

Anyway, we need to have many more nodes on the map, including the 5 castles to see if Steven's vision will function or not.

@Arya_Yeshe You have Eve Online experience. What is your opinion on this?

JustVine

It's easy to confuse Eve given they have the same level of cult like atmosphere in their developer community and Steven seems incensed to steal all the bad parts out of Eve for AoC but it just isn't the same. I can't buy a whole ass kitted out character like I can buy a ship in Eve, travel times are way different, combat has a completely different set of rules of engagement and general functionality and what else, oh right the alliance system, the crafting, the general function of npcs. There are a lot of games that are similar to Ashes in the mmo genre and mmo adjacent genre but EVE is not one of them on any level.

Caww

New World ( I know... I know..) had a little element of this where the crafting stations and other town benefits would be degraded after certain events ( I'm not sure what events but PvP had a role in some of it) and after awhile the player population just couldn't stand it anymore and it was eventually stopped and now, at least crafting stations, don't degrade at all. It would not be surprising to see a substantial relaxing of this mechanism in order to respect the players time and commitment to the game overall.

daveywavey

Xeeg wrote: »

This is going to suck for so many players. I mean the level grind isnt really the main bulk of the game, its building your node and gathering and professions. Getting your node destroyed is total garbage.

And i dont know what kind of sadistic ass even wants to do that to someone else. I sure as hell dont. Why do I want to make people feel depressed and quit the game?

I'm all for some friendly competetition, fighting over spots and pvping etc., but this idea is just cruel.

GrilledCheeseMojito

Caww wrote: »

New World ( I know... I know..) had a little element of this where the crafting stations and other town benefits would be degraded after certain events ( I'm not sure what events but PvP had a role in some of it) and after awhile the player population just couldn't stand it anymore and it was eventually stopped and now, at least crafting stations, don't degrade at all. It would not be surprising to see a substantial relaxing of this mechanism in order to respect the players time and commitment to the game overall.

I think that's the problem with trying to build an immersive MMO. You build a world that has mechanics that increase immersion like node destruction, but then you still get mechanics-focused players who just see those mechanics as obstacles to their mechanical gameplay. If those mechanical players are influential enough to the devs, the mechanic will get removed and immersion drops.

Because New World is, as far as I can tell, operated by project managers rather than designers, they often give in to their player complaints regardless of whether it actively hurts their core design. I hope Ashes doesn't end up doing the same thing and end up sacrificing the impact of their most unique mechanic because players see it as an obstacle and not part of why they're playing in the first place.

Vyllz

🔥 The Balance in Node Destruction

I'm sure that while there will be those who want to destroy nodes for strategy, power, or even just for fun, many will also band together to defend them. That’s precisely what will make Ashes of Creation so unique: a constant struggle between conquest and preservation.

🌍 Defenders and Strategies
There will be guilds and communities dedicated to protecting their homes, forming alliances, fortifying nodes, and organizing counterattacks. Not every player will be interested in all-out war; many will find purpose in trade, economy, and stability, making node defense a top priority.

⚔️ A Living, Breathing World
The destruction of a node isn’t the end of a story—it’s the beginning of another. The fall of a metropolis could mean the rise of a new civilization with different leaders and strategies. It’s a cycle of war and peace, dominance and rebellion, keeping the world of Verra in constant evolution.

🛡️ A Game of Community
This won’t be a world where lone wolves dominate without opposition. Defensive guilds, merchants invested in stability, and players who prefer building over destruction will play just as crucial a role. And if a node falls, people won’t just give up—many will fight to rebuild it stronger than before.

The real question isn’t whether nodes will fall, but who will be there to defend them… and who will seize the opportunity to rebuild them?

Aszkalon

Xeeg wrote: »

This is going to suck for so many players.

In understand exactly what you mean i think.

But here comes the harsh Reality. -> It will be the most boring thing of all time -> if one big Guild builds up a Node ONE. SINGLE. TIME. -> and then this Node will never be destroyed for the completely remaining Time in which the Game's Servers are online.

Technically -> it should slowly - > bit by bit -> "Month for Month" (Reallife Time) become harder and ever harder piece by piece, to hold a Node.

Why ? Because otherwise a few Hardcore Guilds will always and without even a single Pause inbetween, hold some Places forever.

This will suck just as much as being unsure if a Node lasts longer than just a few Weeks.

Child Item