Retaining player pop after total loss

This is a very good question that strikes at the heart of AoC's game play loop. I was discussing with Azherae about this not too long ago and we came to the conclusion that there was a relatively easy way to increase the game play loop without spending too many resources on it development wise (Azherae can correct me if I missed any points.) While loss rates will almost assuredly be tweaked and tested during Alpha 2 and Beta 1, I feel this solution needs to be on Intrepid Studio's radar as a possible approach to not just player retention but making AoC feel more like a living world.

Refugees and Quest:

An enemy attacking a node should and probably will have some form of preparation time for the defending players. During this preparation period it would be great if there were quests that spawned in surrounding nodes of npc's sympathetic to the situation. This could possibly spawn a quest to help fortify the area in some way. Upon victory, this would result in some form of 'increased confidence in alliance' between the two nodes. Upon defeat, this would result in the sympathetic party offering to take in the player as a refugee in some outskirts outside of town to temporarily store their stuff and possibly offer some form of limited temporary citizenship to give some access to vital utilities.

Why do this:

There are a few reasons why this makes for an effective game play loop.

1. The type of person who owns a house in a node and gets emotionally upset at losing their home is likely to be the sort heavily invested in the PvE, questing, and crafting side of the game. They are economic contributors adding real value and capital to the game.
2. A quest in a surrounding area gives the player a mental default as to where to retreat to and lessens the devastating effect of not just losing a large chunk of your property, reward, and feeling of progress in the game, but all the utilities that made it possible to be an effective economic actor as well.
3. Such quests offer a sense that connections to surrounding nodes are important and expand the players scope of what they are investing in. In other words if you are interested in a surrounding area not just one specific place at any given time, it is harder to fall into the emotion that you have truly lost everything.
4. It also helps reshape the context of REBUILDING. Rebuilding after loss is part of the gameplay loop. Losing your stuff and home can be extremely demoralizing. Changing the context to 'being a refugee on your back foot amongst allies with somewhere to go and refocus your efforts' can be inspiring.
5. When a player is emotionally upset it's harder to think clearly. Having a quest to nudge the player to a default area (that they chose through their own agency by starting the quest) provides an anchor point while they mentally regroup and get back to what 'fun' is for them.

Overall, I think this will really flesh out AoC's game play loop. Even in the real world we have refugees after catastrophic battles. Giving a way for players to have a tent outside a familiar enough area and some access to essentials for getting back on their feet is a great way to both make the world feel like a constantly changing and fleshed out place and mitigate some of the real player psychology challenges that arise from AoC's core gameplay. Not only that, but the quest writing and generation is quite easy to do without expending a lot of resources. Even just the quest itself without the refugee status will almost assuredly lead to a less negative and more immersive game play loop for some section of players.

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

Rule Exception! (I'm posting in this thread, that is)

The part JustVine 'forgot' from our discussion was related to the feelings for the attacker. She mostly directly answered the question, so this is just context.

Anything that makes the attacker feel like they wasted their time, or that the target 'got off easy', is likely to be annoying. Drama or sometimes even without drama, some people just want their enemies to suffer as much as possible.

Politics therefore becomes the main thing here, the attackers feel 'good' because their opponents really have lost the full amount, and they can even threaten the node that dares to act as their refuge, if they think that the players will regroup and strike back.

Alternately they can try to convert people who were defeated to their side, telling them to come live in their nodes and not have to face the wrath of the advancing army again, and some people will do this because they join the winning side if they have nothing left to lose.

You can even add an alternate quest in the attack origin node (or node run by the attacking guild) where they offer to integrate citizens similarly, for 'those people who didn't agree with fighting back', though it is likely that quite a few of those people technically defected to begin with, and just 'became unable to move their stuff' once the Siege was declared.

So you've got three different emotions to grab most involved. Attackers get to feel powerful or as if they inflicted whatever effect they wanted. Defenders can feel 'accepted into the powerful army and safe' or 'accepted into the friendly nearby node as refugees and plot'. Not to mention the double agents, the political posturing, and the fallout from any dungeons or points of interest that despawned when the Node fell.

It won't catch everyone, but it should probably be enough, especially if it's really clear.

Good game design with loss gives you some sort of feeling of choice or control. Usually systems, with loss are bad when they take away from this sense of agency.

Loss (of progress in particular) is difficult in this regard. Minecraft, Darksouls, even Mario, recognize this issue. This is why they try to give you a second chance. If you succeed after the second chance, it makes you feel good, possibly even better than if you never fell in the hole or got stabbed by the hidden skeleton in the first place because you conqured the personal obstacle. Game companies are fielding focus testing and research into how to optimize the second chance and how to minimize the feeling of agency loss all the time. It is a pretty big deal if your game does it wrong as you lose a lot of players over time. It's just basic human psychology.

Mmos are far more difficult, because other players are acting against you and the other player is generally taking away your agency. This is the real reason why people hate being ganked. They feel a loss of agency. In a game with no 1v1 balance I can only imagine it being so much worse. Node wars can have this same feeling depending on their design, but amplified. I highly doubt node wars will always be even. Especially with many large guilds. In fact if Intrepid isn't accounting for it to be commonly uneven I would be surprised (because that is short sighted game design and they have shown themselves to not be so far.)

AoC pushes the limit of good game design just on its core design principles and systems. This is why I think they would benefit highly from my solution above. It still fits their design culture as far as I understand it, and adds more layers to the politics of the game as well. It gives you the opportunity for a comeback type feeling and helps mitigate your sense of loss a little bit while also giving you an outlet for some feeling of agency in the situation.