Land management: 4x game mechanic, not for MMOs

I soft-disagree with all this for the usual reason .

Sure, there must usually be 'a point of change' or 'a roll-over' for the ordinary person to 'get it'.

Making it seasonal seems unnecessary, particularly since I wouldn't like shorter seasons.

Only two points. First, an apology, though I guess it isn't really one if I'm just going to keep doing the thing.

Usually when I do that sort of thing I'm just giving Intrepid data. Mostly because I don't really want nor expect you to go through all of that, so I just tell 'them' that I disagree and move on.

A point you might consider important though is.

Players always work out the values, and Elite doesn't give you that much data, to the point where there is STILL confusion about how some parts work, and specialists can use this confusion to their advantage. Basically, even the values given there are 'wrong' under certain conditions, groups all have their own personal tried and tested ways of affecting the Simulation that differ from those values.

Since I am used to players enjoying that sort of thing, I would not expect it to be a problem in Ashes and would welcome it. I don't need the GUI, but I can see how many would.

We have not received permission from maouw to share the quoted post.

Afaik EVE does not care about new players.

It is not necessary.

I don't think Ashes needs to either, other than clarifying outright 'you don't HAVE to participate in this, go find somewhere lower population and get used to it there'.

Which makes perfect sense with the designs we have seen proposed. I would not expect low level players to be hanging around Metropolis Nodes once they get their feet. I would expect strong high level players to escort them to outer nodes and lower level areas once they join a guild or just meet someone nice.

"Welcome to Verra, would you like to specialize in anything in particular?"

"Uh I like gathering herbs... but also hunting crabs!"
"Sure, my friend will be on in 30m and she'll escort you to the Northern Coast. Make sure to check in with Mayor Herba Crabasher, you two will get along."
"Thanks!"

Solved.

@neuroguy - Pretty sure this is a matter of preference, yes.

Do you need to be able to tell, as an individual? This isn't normally how I experience this content type.

The guild leader/logistics leader finds out what everyone likes doing, then sets up some supply/activity chains so that most people are happy. They log on, do what they like, pick up the items/product from someone else in the line, place down their own output for someone down the line.

The Logistics leader is 'playing 4x', and probably has the skill type for it. The average player is 'logging in to do what they enjoy, trusting the Logistics leader to make the Node effective and make them rich'.

That's directly what a Mayor's job is. Either that or they have an advisor for it and they are a figurehead who handles diplomacy (since the two skill types are often not related).

This sort of thing is naturally emergent from the TYPE of game Ashes is planning to be. In Elite, I know 'the Praetors of the 9th Legion' indirectly through our Diplomatic Liaison, and their internal structure is quite specific.

The average 'chopper of trees' is unlikely to affect much unless they choose to specialize, but that's already baked into the system. If you don't specialize in Lumbering, why are you cutting down ENOUGH trees for this to matter, regularly?

And if you really like chopping trees and your node doesn't have a lot of trees, SOMEONE like you is going to move to a node with more trees. It resolves itself except for the unspecialized player who 'just wants to do a little of everything and enjoy the game' with no Logistician. Since Ashes seems to WANT the type of gameplay described, and those people don't actually suffer that much, there's no reason to downplay it.

We have not received permission from neuroguy to share the quoted post.

I am not saying that this is a probable enjoyment for everyone.

But I hope you can understand that you're sort of taking things to the extreme here. Firstly, lots of people ARE exactly like that. Maybe not even 'half of humanity' but there's certainly ENOUGH.

Secondly, it's not usually 'do exactly this, specialize exactly this way'. That would be a POOR Logistician. It is 'You don't need to do this thing, someone else will handle it, focus on the things you enjoy, update me if they change'.

So it REALLY isn't 'check what the Mayor wants me to do today'. It is the Mayor's job to know what you like to do IN GENERAL and build their node economy systems around that.

Your personal freedom is the limiter on the MAYOR, not the other way around, because a 'control freak' who doesn't work like this quickly finds themselves voted out.

I don't know how to explain it to you any differently, perhaps you're just one of those minds that absolutely values their own complete freedom over everything else? Or just randomly enjoy different things and therefore your actions on login on any given day are ENTIRELY unpredictable? Those people get integrated too, they just often don't progress as easily.

I hope this gets through to you, if not, just lmk and I'll disengage.

We have not received permission from neuroguy to share the quoted post.

I agree that the Mayor should not be able to say 'it is illegal for node citizens to harvest X'. That would lead to all the problems you describe.

I just feel that there is still value in the system because a 'well managed node' is still a possibillity, particularly as Citizenship changes, and I would strongly expect that this is part of the type of friction Ashes intends to embody.

Quick example:

Let's assume the Mayor of my Node enacts a 'Node Economy Policy' that integrates all 20-ish citizens at the village level, the village becomes prosperous, more citizens arrive, who just want money and ruin the Node. The Mayor tries to do their job and expand the Economy Policy but they are ignored.

The Node loses cohesion, relevance, and wealth, and then stagnates and falls back to Village level. This is one of the things I have a big question for Intrepid for the FUTURE in.

"Do the original citizens get to automatically retain their citizenship?"

Based on the way housing works, it seems quite LIKELY to me that they will. But it isn't guaranteed, you could just 'hard reset' them so that people have a chance to completely change everything.

Management and logistics is not a common skill in MMOs, but it doesn't need to be common. That's why we have Guild Leaders and Mayors, I would hope.

tl;dr I'd be more concerned about that one asshole citizen that refuses to follow the rules that you have to literally hire outsiders to harass. That might get rough.

EDIT: Forgot to add, I would absolutely be down for 'Mayoral Referendum' on a bunch of stuff. Then it isn't the Mayor making harvesting illegal, they propose that it should be and the citizens vote. There's already a voting system, might as well use it for more than that. That would also help solve some of the issues with those nodes where the Mayor is not even elected.

We have not received permission from neuroguy to share the quoted post.

I am completely confident that no example I give will change your mind, but I want to express it without insulting/drawing conclusions about you, so gimme a bit to talk way too much again.

I don't know anyone that would be bothered by the above fully, because they are 'node Minded'. They are a community who want to achieve group goals, not specific individual ones.

In my gaming communities, not just my group, none of that NORMALLY happens.

1. I want to upgrade my freehold, my Mayor will know.
2. I need 50 trees to upgrade my freehold, my Mayor will know and will have told others about this.
3. I therefore don't log in with that plan. For me to LOG IN with 'the plan of upgrading my freehold' someone would have to know OR I would 'accept that because I told no one, I don't necessarily have that freedom'. (the same thing would happen if all the trees simply hadn't respawned yet, kinda)
4. If the above did happen and others knew, I would ask Bob 'hey are you cutting down trees for a specific purpose?' and then have a discussion with Bob to... find out if Bob is acting in good faith or not.
5. If the node is consistently over-harvested relative to its Tree density EITHER Intrepid needs to tweak something, or someone needs to change their flow.

So I perceive that this gameplay is promoted by this system FOR players who are very individualistic and for whom none of the above applies.

I just also perceive that Steven is trying to make a game where it works closer to what I'm used to. Communication, teamwork, and resolution of friction based on that.

I like that loop.

I like 'that I need to tell the rest of the Node that I need a ton of trees to upgrade my Freehold and that we will decide who harvests them (or I can tell them that I plan to log in and harvest them myself so could everyone else just not do that for a bit).

I like 'that the story doesn't allow me to just log in with my own plans having consulted with no one'.

I like that I have to talk to Bob to figure out what's up with his harvesting. If we don't want the world to be full of NPCs, in my OPINION we should accept 'this sort of thing as a replacement', otherwise the game becomes just another 'single player push-for-my-stuff game'. Even many 'social' games are much more 'I'll interact with people when it helps me get what I want'. Whereas this is 'I'll interact with people so we can coordinate relative to each other's goals'.

I get that this isn't necessarily the MMO experience everyone wants, and I'll leave it to you to confirm if it is what you want or not, but to me, this is a positive to the point of being a draw to play more, not a concern at all.

We have not received permission from neuroguy to share the quoted post.

Not quite. I don't think you should change your mind. If you believe that such a game would not be good/successful, then you should hold that stance and give feedback based on it.

From my perspective though, it's a bunch of stuff about incentivized behaviour.

1. If the players/Nodes that DON'T do this FAIL, whoever succeeds will become the Metro Mayors (this is what happens in Elite Dangerous)
2. If Steven WISHES that style of world and gameplay, there is no point in changing the incentive system, especially since early-game will be a mess either way.
3. If the game incentivizes this type of play AND there are enough players out there, some 'silent number' who don't play other games due to the LACK of this, then Ashes WILL truly capture the Niche of those who want Node-based community gameplay.

So if there isn't actually a market for that type of game, then Ashes will teach us this.

My experience is for a very different game, obviously. A 'space trading simulator' that added all its combat and 'progression' mechanics later probably draws in that player type more. Or perhaps all the ones who failed at it quit because of it, leaving only the ones that succeed at it and those that don't care. It also doesn't have the same TYPE of thing.

But from merely the perspective of 'This is how a Node Based game should work', I don't think Land Management is a negative to that goal. It could be a negative to 'players who have a specific style' and definitely a possible negative to 'number of players willing to play'. But every game has its negative points to someone. The only question from the Director's side is 'are people who consider these features to be pain points supposed to be playing the game'?

I think without land management I would consider Ashes to be BDO-lite and worse than the aggregate of things I play, but I think I don't often have 'popular' wishes for design.

So my reframed question to you is this. Would YOU dislike a game like this? If 'social agreements and following your Node's policies' were a requirement of success, and nodes that didn't succeed at this would fall?

After all, it literally only requires 5% of nodes/Mayors to be good enough at this. Those ARE the ones that would rise.

We have not received permission from Percimes to share the quoted post.

Usual disclaimer about how I don't mean this badly, etc...

Why do you want to play Ashes SPECIFICALLY then?

Its whole 'selling point' is the social/Node aspect, when COMPARED to other upcoming MMORPGs. For some it's simpler things like no P2W, but I don't think that's what Steven should target really.

That's kind of what I meant when I said I would just consider it BDO-lite.

I agree that the Land Management system has a chance to 'be a pain-point for a solo minded player'. I just think that Ashes wouldn't be Ashes if it took out Node-Social supporting SYSTEMS in order to reduce pain-points for such players.

But as noted, it could be that Intrepid just 'hasn't learned why people don't make this game type'. Fortunately it'd be easy to scrap.

For those of you who don't actually know the history of it, another part of the reason I made that 'BDO-lite' statement is that ORIGINALLY, that game was a LOT closer both in goals and mechanics to Ashes than it is now. And slowly, it got ground down more and more into what it is today. It's still being ground down, I'm watching it happen in real time.

It's easy to 'grind down' the Ambitious into the Commonly Acceptable, but it's not easy to go the other way, so I prefer Intrepid aims high first.

We have not received permission from Percimes to share the quoted post.

Just out of curiosity, have you played non-faction-based mmos? And how many of the mmos you've played required you to play in a group rather than allowing full solo play?