Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
2. you don't have to be a citizen of any node and if you arn't you can either attack or defend in any node siege, i think guilds and other player alliances have roll to play aswel. For example if guilds move around in order to progress in other aspects of the game (like move to a scientific node to improve their artisan skills etc.) this could drastically effect the amount of citizens overnight.
3. if the same nodes would always be maxed out no new content would ever be unlocked, at some point we will know from other servers what new content awaits us if we level up other nodes. This will also drive up the need to keep changing things around, even for those who are citizens of the metro nodes. No particular setup of nodes will last forever
4. obviously we still don't have all the facts yet, we don't even know if there is going to be a a max number of participants on either side during siege events. Everything we do know is also subject to change when intrepid starts on ballancing this during Alpha/Beta testing i think we will see many things changed around.
I drew up an 8x10 grid (for 82 nodes), and put 5 lv 6 nodes, then put as many 5's and 4's i could whilst trying to respect node hierarchy, then 3-2-1's in between, and got about similar results as your calculations!
The population numbers you've posted actually make a lot of sense to me from a conflict perspective. Obviously, conflict will be around major node systems. Some areas of the map will be much less active. And remember its about 10k concurent players! If as you say, 5-7k of those revolve around the 5-10 major node/vassal/castle systems, seems to me like its gong to be action packed! I have no doubt people will congregate to zone events naturally.
I am not worried about this, but all remains to be tried!
This is the worst idea ive heard about siege defense strategy lol. If they enroll as attackers, they cant defend. Thats the bottom line.
If you are expecting there to be an "attacker limit" and to fulfill that limit with people who dont attack, you can be 100% sure Intrepid wont let this fly and put in a mechanic to detter this. There are a thousand ways this absolutely doesnt work. Like having no limits on attackers or defenders. Or citizens of a node not being able to enlist as attackers, etc.
You made me laugh tho
If Im a mega guild, I got enough defender, to send attackers to take spots and lower their attacker numbers....
I mean, that's the thing, you'd need to prove it. And there may or may not be ways to do so. But if you have people on the defensive doing nothing while maintaining themselves as not afk, it's pretty simple to penalize those players for throwing.
So ideally here the seige engine's and seige defenses require significant resources.
Lets say all together these machines, buffs and barricades, can have an influence of up to +50% to one side's brute strength on the battlefield. However to reach that +50% limit it would likely require the resource contributions of a node, and the overwhelming majority of its vassals. (Perhaps some added xp requirements or quests to build certain things after seige declaration, so that not all resources can be stock piled. Or simply the cost of wharehousing such materials have a cost benifit trade off, due to the potentially limited nature of storage.)
If then a disgruntled vassel chooses to instead support a agressor against their liege node with materials. They could substantially shift the odds of the seiges success. They could even negotiate conditions for their support, and politics ensues.
The other live question to me for disgruntled vassals is their citizens voting with their feet. While some may be invested due to free holds or node housing, others may simply decide to move on, causing the node to decay.
Last I heard intrepid were still deciding whether a node atrophying ment it would simply go down a tier, or reset all together.
Following, how that nodes' vassal or vassaled status changes in that situation I am not sure. Does that becomes a contested space or is it immediately re-vassaled?
Vassals.cant siege parent nodes, but parent nodes can siege vassals.
I always assumed that the ZoI of a metropolis will extend until they cover 20% of the map, including the Underrealm, to fulfill the requirement that they together cover 100% of the map.
But what shape the ZoI would be is unclear. Is it a circle? Is it a manually delimited area?
If the metropolis is on the coast of the ocean and if for some reason the ocean must be free of any ZoI then the ZoI shape might look distorted.
I think the coverage was needed to ensure that there are no nodes outside of the metropolis influence, in the previous concept when all nodes ended up being vassals.
I am curious if two metropolises end up close to each-other, how their ZoI look like: The way how I see this possible is when two adjacent level 5 nodes end up being vassals of different metropolises. Then one of the metropolises is destroyed and a level 5 becomes metropolis and gets other 2 x lvl 5 vassal nodes. Then the neighbor lvl 5 loses it's metro and becomes a metro too.
This could be possible only if both of them can get enough vassals.
Else, with hardcoded experience progression, a 60% populated server would fare better if players will maintain 3 metropolises. They'll have a lot of resources on the remaining 40% of the map and no reason to siege each-other.
Do you then punish any other guild that fails to progress beyond the same stage in other sieges? Cause I've seen countless sieges where people just didn't have the power to push through the very first gates of the castle. So if you then design a system that literally punishes the weaker side of the conflict - that'd be the highway to destroying your game's community.
So like I said, you can't prove who's abusing the system and who's not.
There will be a reputation system in the game.
Those who intercept and loot caravans will have a lower reputation toward that node.
Those with lower reputation should have a higher priority in the que when joining the siege.
You're definitely not wrong. What it comes down to is designing it in a way to be able to tell whether or not someone is cheesing the system. Which is not easy by any means. We should probably brainstorm for solutions when we have some free time.
Might start a thread about it in 4h, if no one else is up to that before that time.
Numbers scare me but I love a good theory-craft 🥺
Hope you feel well soon @Dolyem and great conversations happening in here, everyone!
I have a guild called "Asmon Sucks" which holds 600 guildies.
I will split the guild into 2 guildies "Asmon Sucks" and "Asmon Sucks2"
We now secure a castle.
All 600 players will be working on that node, thus gaining rep.
Seige War event begins, I will tell my second guild "Asmon Sucks2" to fill in all the spots as an Attacker.
GG - we locked everyone out from taking our castle.
Hell, if we can just secure 50-100 spots - they can AFK or pretend they are fighting, hand to hand combat for low DPS and throw for the attackers.
Reputation doesnt mean shit, since I got all 600 members working in our node.
And if it requires reputation from another noded needed, then I will just send those 300 there.
The rule
The player who originally declared the siege cannot exclude anyone from joining the attack.[15]
is to prevent "Asmon Sucks2" exclude real attackers.
The way I see it, is that 8000 players may sign up against "Asmon Sucks" and they'll be in the queue to join when the siege starts.
That queue should be ordered based on player history as combatant, e.g. if they attacked and destroyed caravans supporting the node under siege and should put gatherers at the end of the list (unless those are foreign gatherers who also ruined the resource respawn rate defying node policies)
Wiki quote:
We have progression paths that exist for bandits and that exists for defenders; and if you choose to opt into a caravan attack- you sign up for that attack and you fail that attack- it is detrimental to your path of progression down the bandit area.
A quest system will track a player's successful or failed defenses and attacks. This will provide rewards that scale up over time based on the player's history.[41][42][43]
If "Asmon Sucks2" consists of players rated as bandits toward Asmon's crazy node, to be able to be at the top of the siege participation queue, then they did quite some damage already and that node may fall by itself due to lack of resources, if we talk about a normal node.
But the same can be applied for a castle node too, which will have no defenses during siege and no resources/taxes left for the guild.
Why are the guilds "Asmon Sucks" and "Asmon Sucks2"not in an alliance?