Read more about Ashes of Creation ➜ https://ashesofcreation.mgn.tv
Follow me over on Twitch for LIVE Ashes gameplay once the visual NDA is lifted.
https://www.twitch.tv/xillin_live
Also, join my discord for Ashes discussion and to find people to play with during Alpha/Beta.
We all want Intrepid Studios to absolutely nail the node system in their highly anticipated upcoming MMORPG, Ashes of Creation. On paper, it’s a very good system, but there are some ways it could go wrong, so let’s dive in and talk about it.
source
How to stop mafia guilds? Simple. Disallow multiboxing or any way for one player to run different accounts. Also make it so that guild membership is account based, not character based. Boom, done. Single powerful guild leaders won't be able to just create alts to run other guilds the way you so often see. This means the only way to have any sort of mafia is to have huge alliances of different guilds, with different goals and ambitions, rather than having a dozen different guilds all run by one player and a dozen alts.
Before Cataclysm released every Dev interview was all about how great their underwater combat system was and how awesome the Raid would be. The raid ended up being cancelled and most players avoid the zone.
Warlords of Draenor introduced Garrisons. The version in the game was stripped down from the original vision and even then did tremendous damage to the community because there was no reason to go outside.
BFA introduced Warfronts – which were promised to be as popular as raiding. They weren't and abandoned after the second.
Island Expeditions – exploring procedurally-generated Islands while battling AI opponents. The most efficient way to do them was to never engage in combat.
Shadowlands Torghast – a Rogue-Like Dungeon. Players call it Choreghast – and left for BC Classic and FFXIV.
Nodes – have the advantage they aren't being implemented by Blizzard Developers but are definitely going to be hard to pull off.
great stuff
So I like the idea, but Steve has said that taking down a rank 6 node is going to be historic something that is not going to happen very often. I think they have designed the game that when the rank 6 nodes start appearing they will probably be sticking around awhile and will only see those nodes fall maybe once a year.
So what's you guy's timezones?For me it's night time
They kind of already have this system where kings of guild castles get those special t3 mounts. Those mounts are powerful and people will fight over them
Personally, I've always wished that there is a "Reset Server" a server that resets on some sort of regular timeframe…maybe a year or two years just a complete wipe and give everyone a chance to start from zero again on a level playing field.
I like the idea to add incentives for conflict, I don't know why that wouldn't be at launch. Hell I think that should be a thing for all node levels tbh. The higher the node level the better the gear that drops when you down level it.
Also make node changing events (like npc sieges) happen more often the longer the node is at max lvl. So once a node is max lvl for like seasons at a time it becomes perpetually under siege, making it too time consuming to keep out of npc hands and would really soften the node up to siege by others looking to knock it down.
That's a very general answer for reason 2 and 3. I mean, even if the system is really complicated I think just adding more transparency and tool tips could go a long way to alleviate that.
*cracks fingers*" essay timeeee!!! 1. Nodes as they are, are in no way too simple or too hard, all are based on exp accumulation and offer differenct rewards. 2. Mega guilds should not be a problem if guild size is reasonably set e.g. max 300 people. For alliances or sub guilds it's impossible to modarate. 3. Even if "mafia" guild wants to take over a node the random players still have a part to do/say through messing up the process of electing the major, plus I assume that keeping ones type of node permanetly won't be as benfitial in the long run as allowing for node type rotation. 4. If a few guilds can get together and orgonise all those people they need to control the nodes and rest of the server can't organise themselves to fight back, then these guilds deserve their spoils. 5. Correct me if I'm mistaken but there are 140-150 nodes per server so that doesn't add up with only 5-6 mega nodes existing, that would be extremely limiting. 6. I'm axpecting that at some point where you achieve insurmountable fame as an ashes of creation streamer/youtuber you will release a video where you adress your loyal subscribers while wearing proper Viking gear and not some flimsy blue t-shirt. 7. I love your videos ^^
Brother, I've watched a lot of videos about AOC from different content creators out there, and tbh I feel like we are asking too much from the developers, I mean I even watched a video about why the tank class should have a different name and as I see it, you would only call yourself a tank up until lvl 25 and after you pick your secondary class you will have a different class name and still they want to replace the Tank class name. and other creators asking for other stuff that they want the Devs to put in the game. IDK brother I think We are asking too much from the Devs right now. Maybe…. after the release yes we can ask for some stuff to be added but right now I think We are asking too much.
My main concerns with nodes are more about how players will use them. If nodes get reset too often or too little then that will cause problems – player storage may not be stable or node sieges will be unengaging because nodes never fall.
The other concern I have is that once metropolises start showing up, will low tier nodes have players? What incentivizes players to stay in a low tier node if there are more artisan opportunities and such in metropolises?
– No king(s) rules forever; the max rank metropolis will fall just for the shit of being able to do so by other players because this game is attached to the internet. The thought of being able to cause a catastrophic server impacting event that essentially destroys months (years?) of progress is to tempting for people to just do for the fuck of it. EVE has a lot of this happening to the mega corps with infiltrations of competition wanting to topple them to consolidate power.
– There needs to be a massive incentive to destroy these max rank nodes and not let them stand around forever. A max rank metropolis needs to look like a giant dragon treasure trove waiting to be raided by everyone not a part of that node's lifecycle. This will fuel stevens vision of pvp being the "catalyst for change".
– The noted 250 v 250 siege events put A LOT of pressure on the owning holder to keep a thicc stacked standing trained army for each of these fights. That is a massive room for error in each fight due to the volume of players and the disparity of skill gear etc. In Albion the massive guilds are able to keep their power and territory by only needing mostly a core 5 man ultra gear fed ultra skilled people defending most gvg challenges(90% of fights), and then only a 25-40 man for castles when it gets that far. This wont be possible really in AOC, you cant keep thousands of zergling alliance members protected by less than 1% of your most skilled people.
– Local auction and market economies will be key to balance (certificate worth etc) mega metropolis vs smaller nodes.
New subscriber here. Here is my suggestion:
Bringing a maxed out node to zero might be a tough ask from the less powerful guilds. There will always be an elite guild defending the node, with the help from other allied guilds, and or mercenary guilds.
So what is stronger than elite guilds? It is Nature. I think a natural disaster that would occur in like every six month for example, or, that can be triggered by small guilds somehow, would then wipe out a whole node and bring it down to zero.
The node or nodes, that will be wiped will need some time to rebuild, but you will have other lesser nodes nearby that has some edge in terms of progress.
This can create a new frontier and complexity to each server.
Which node to be wiped? There will have to be a system that depends on some metric, so the weakest node in that metric gets wiped. But this way the strongest guilds will always be untouchable. There has to be something better. Some RNG? Not sure really.. can't think of something now.
I would love to see a volcano, a flood, or an earthquake, out of nowhere, brings a node down. Hell, it can also be a meteor!
Hey there. I think your scenario of a statgnated server could only happen if one "family" or guild controlls all the 6 level 6 nodes. Othervise, the dofferent guilds would go to war with each other for rewards be it achievements or items. There are many factors and barriers against it, for example the limitations of guild members. If theres a limit, like 100 people, it would require alliances between guilds to coordinate there moves and control a node. One guild could not be able to outpower the other even in one level 6 node, let alone 6. The ide you have is really simple and great. There could also be achievemnts regarding it, or there could be content locked behind deleveling a zone. But there comes another problem with this. If there are rewards for deleveling, there should be equal amount of revards saving it from delevelong, othervise everyone would intentionally destroy their homes for content wich is absurd. The reward for building, defending and destroyong a node should be balanced to motivate people for participating in it.
Nodes too simple: Well, yeah. They're designed to be simple in practice. The only things nodes do is grow, and when they grow, they unlock content. If the content they unlock is bad, they can be destroyed and a different node can grow instead. Even with four different types of nodes, the only real difference between them is the content they unlock.
Nodes too complex: There is never a time when players aren't interacting with the node they're in, because nodes are the world. If a city develops, even the most casual of players can see a store that opens and buy stuff. If the city has a church or mercenary guild, even the most casual of players can accept a quest. If a dungeon appears, even the most casual of players can form a party and explore the dungeon. The most hardcore players become Mayors and raiders, so of course they're going to interact more directly with the node. Learning about bonuses and augments is for the people who care about them and want to know more, and the people who don't care… don't care. They're just enjoying the game.
Mafia guilds could stagnate the map: This actually has two parts to it, so I'll address each part separately.
The map is stagnant. There are a couple pre-existing solutions to this. The first (and most basic) is to change servers. Chances are pretty good that the new map is different from the current one. The second is to declare war and destroy a node. Guilds can only have up to 300 people if they get the perks for it. Alliances can only have 4 guilds in them (up to 1200 people). Each server is intended to have 10,000 players concurrently, and 50,000 total. 'Mafia guilds' are really small in comparison, so gather some allies and make some plans. Once a node is destroyed, it opens up the growth potential of every node it was suppressing, so drastic changes to the map can happen quickly.
Mafia guilds have no reason to want the map to change. While this isn't necessarily false, there are plenty of reasons such a guild could want to change the map, even without something extra special like legendary augments. 1) For example, let's say two different alliances hold power in two different metropolises. Each metropolis gains taxes from all the nodes in their zones of influence, including those at the fringes, and both guild's zones of influence border each other. The edge of Guild A's influence has a city, but the edge of Guild B's influence has a city and a village. Guild A could choose to declare war to reduce the amount of taxes being earned by Guild B. It would be easier to destroy the village and reduce the cash flow that way, but if they destroyed Guild B's city instead, then taxes from the village would go to Guild A's city, which would then get funneled up to the metropolis. 2) Another reason to destroy a node is to open up new content or materials. The guilds have farmed a raid boss for everything it's worth, gotten a flying mount, and decked out their leader in the best armor. Now they want something new, so they have someone declare war on one of their cities, relocate the citizens, and start farming the next node's content.
Did everyone forget that the server size that they are going for is 8-10k per server? And the max for guilds at the moment is around 300. Though could be higher. The idea of a guild literally controlling a server that supports 8-10k players on it is not really feasible for just one guild. Since there is a max number of people that can be in a guild. There would have to be a coalition of guilds. Which is where Steven’s risk vs reward system comes in. Yes! It can be done. But pleasing that many people would at some point dissolve.
So, there are mechanisms in place to thwart the mafia guild scenario. At some point someone will “F” up and do something like take mayorship of a node when it was agreed that “so and so” would be the mayor this month; to break this delicate balance. An ever changing world works best when there is strife. Anyways, Steven has said many times that they aren’t worried and at some points during development given indication that the game world will right itself if something like this were to happen.
Let’s not forget that there will be about 108 or so nodes per server when launch. So, the nodes will level differently and won’t be the same levels all do because players can choose where they spawn. I usually don’t comment but had to this time.
Nothing against you but I almost never subscribe to anything unless it's some godly thing I'm massively interested in. Best you can hope for from me is a thumbs up which I give you 90% of the time.
Interesting about the maps stagnating because massive guilds own the main part of the maps. Perhaps Intrepid can make it so the longer you hold that part of the map the harder it becomes to keep it. Maybe the longer you hold it the more resources it takes to maintain it? Eventually you just can't keep up and others have a chance to take it from you?
Idk man.. if it gets to the point there are 5 nodes at r6 and nothing is going on.. the nodes will just die.. xD
I personally think it will be way harder to push a node to a metro stage than people think to begin with.. These people talking about rushing a node to metro, burning it down to game the system, etc… It takes a LOT of people a LOT of time to build up a metro. There is no gaming that system..
I imagine most normal players will be so scatterbrained about long term node commitment that most servers won't even see a metro until long after the supposed time it would take to build one up. The hardcore guilds with big plans already in place will be the only kind of people to jump right in and go straight for building up a specific node long term, but unless they have serious numbers they might not even be able to do it unless they coax other people into joining in their efforts. Which.. most people aren't going to be into just because of the nature of mega-guilds. Nobody wants to be under the boot of some streamer and his fans right off the bat.
People will abandon nodes even before they hit metro just to go live in other areas of the map, play with other people they meet, experience different node types and their features. For example, I can imagine myself abandoning a node for something as simple as.. I only own an apartment and I heard tell of a new node cropping up.. and I want to try moving over and changing up my citizenship to get an actual in-node home. The littlest things could send people packing.
Constructive criticism is necessary.
Your idea would definitely be bad, but in degree, not in kind. If there was a boss that spawns from a rank 6 being de-leveled, there would never be consistent cities. I think the solution would instead be that there are exclusive bosses/loot/augments for specific nodes when they reach the metropolis stage. That way, when such things are discovered on a server, there will be interest in doing after it.
Perhaps though, there is a group that hasn't had a chance to farm a specific boss that already exists, they will have a lot of incentive to fight for the boss that currently exists, plus all the others who are currently benefiting from the status quo. This would be the best solution, because there are checks and balances and opportunities for player decision and prioritization. Do you campaign to keep the current map and get more of your members the good thing you have access to now? Or is it time to change things up and go after something new that would help improve things further?
For a "MegaGuild" to hold 5 Castles, and 5 Metropolis nodes, AND every vassel node is very unlikely.
Even if this were to happen, there would be natural disasters to prevent the "Stagnant Server" you're afraid of.
I think this is for sure on the radar of intrepid being a period of stagnation and complacency causing a world boss to spawn or natural disasters to occur
do like the idea. enjoy you videos keep up the good work for all of us as to having a voice.
I think the most important thing is that there have to be boosts and rewards for being part of a node. People have to care if their node is destroyed. I think an add on to your solution is to introduce some resource scarcity. So suppose you create a super valuable boss loot or powerful crafting recipe etc that is only available to the holder of a specific node. If this node specific bonus is powerful enough, it may encourage war between the metropolises sort of like a resource war in history.
Your idea is already something they talked about, but instead of delevelling a node to get that stuff you get access to their reliquiry that could hold legendary mats or even armour/items that have been stored there. I'm pretty sure Steven talked about the incentives for guilds to attack eachother on a few streams already. Plus large guilds will always have a reason to attack other large guilds if they want access to a specific node that spawns a certain dungeon
You will just reinforce the power structure already created by doing that. It will encourage “trading” destruction between the most powerful guilds. They will just take turns doing this until their entire guild is outfitted with these powerful items/recipes.
There needs to be multiple systems to undermine a metropolis. Sabotage/subterfuge to aid with war decs and assaults, complicated/intricate political maneuvers to vie for control, RNG events that create instances of opportunity for smaller guilds to seize an upper hand to circumvent the large guild power cycle.
The legendary gear on level 6 node destruction only….. sounds good on paper as a bribe, but I think will present its own problems.
The problem I have with it is, at level 6 they should already have legendary gear open to them, to entice them to get to level 6 anyway.
So why would they give up their life of prosperous tranquility, for no real benefit once a character is established.
Then you also have the potential god mode (arms race inflation) problem again.
On the alternate solution side (which granted is not too far distant from the general concept of difficulty/node level vs gated gear quality anyway).
Low level nodes will be full of new and inexperienced players with low level gear. This suits a much easier game difficulty than a linear ramp.
High level nodes will be full of old and experienced players with high level gear. This suits a much harder game difficulty than a linear ramp.
So that imples there would be a leve 3 node sweet spot, in the middle of an infite difficulty hysteries loop.
IMHO, this will drive people to level 6 just to get the best gear (legendary content) thet they can…but they wont be able to sustain that legendary difficulty for long.
And obviously level one nodes would be too easy for experienced players who will want to upgrade quick, while allowing new players a hand up so to speak.
So the fix for me the solution is the difficulty curve vs node level.
Excessively simple at min level 0 (beginner friendly), and excessively hard at max level 6 (hard core friendly).
Care Bear… 0 > 1 > 2 > 3 < 4 < 5 < 6 …Hard Core
Actually, this is also a reason I wanted the Nodes to be able to de-level if they could not get sufficient resources.
ie, using a recource supply difficulty curve to throttle/regulate node level.
So I was surprised when Steven said level 6 nodes would go straight to level 0 after a siege as delevelling was problematic ???
Dont recall why that was so.