Military node elections, an idea on how to preserve the dream.

George BlackGeorge Black Member
edited November 22 in General Discussion
Different nodes will provide their citizens the means to fight against other nodes in different ways, be it with themes of knowledge, faith, wealth or an iron fist.

But for me, one node, even if it's benefits suck, awards prestige. The military node.

It was said early on that players would fight 1v1 for the mayorship.
Then it was changed to players using a champion "character" to fight another players "champion" and the winner becomes mayor.

I must say I was a bit dissapointed that people wouldn't be able to take full advantage of their lv, stats, skills, (looks) and gear.



My proposition is that military nodes should be decided by group combat.
One group leader registers with 15 more players.
16 vs 16 teams, let the players make the best composition.
Ty @Thedeadnight
Send the rogues to the healer? What if the healer is protected by a rangers trap?
Go full tanks?
Go full nukers?
Full summoners?
The winning groups leader becomes the mayor. Will it be the healer? The tank? It's up to the group.

The core idea that strength decides the ruler of the military node should be preserved. Group v group may safeguard the event from min/maxers.

Or 15 v 15 guild fights and the leader of the winning guild becomes the mayor. The military nodes might as well resemble castles.

Comments

  • ThedeadnightThedeadnight Member, Phoenix Initiative, Avatar of the Phoenix
    edited November 22
    It would make far more sense to be 16, group cap is 8, so 2 groups of 8. But there is a big flaw with this. Might makes right for the arena. The strongest individual should beable to claim the title of leader, otherwise it becomes a popularity contest between the who can get the strongest players on their side. Turns more into a democracy that way. Also its a big no for guild competitions for nodes. They get to fight over guild castles, nodes are a place where while it might not be likely an unaffiliated player can take control. Guild castles already exist, why remake them in node form?
  • I'm not the biggset fan of the champion idea for node leadership with military node either - seems to go against the idea that it is the strongest character in game that is running the node.

    I understand their reason for doing it - as there absolutely would be people complain that their class isn't good enough at PvP to win. Thing is, if you want to be leader of a military node, I don't consider it too much to state that you need to play a class that is good at that type of PvP.

    While your suggestion isn't a bad idea, it then moves from the best PvP'er to the player with the best PvP friends (though that is better than the champion idea). I like the idea that a single player that has differing opinions on how the node should be run to others is able to win the position in that node if they are good enough.

    What I will say though, is that the group size should be a multiple of 8, as the group size is 8 - as opposed to some games that have groups of 5 as standard (and thus use multiples of 5).
  • Noaani wrote: »
    I understand their reason for doing it - as there absolutely would be people complain that their class isn't good enough at PvP to win. Thing is, if you want to be leader of a military node, I don't consider it too much to state that you need to play a class that is good at that type of PvP.

    We know PvP will be rock paper scissors, there's nothing to suggest that one class will end up being the dominate so it'd have to depend on knowing who your opponent is and what they're playing.

    As for Champions I'm kinda okay w/ having one aspect of the game favoring raw player skill over time invested.
  • I agree with this, the "champion" thing is very unninmersive and goes against the philosophy of "not everybody can win" that Steven has.

    You feel more like an Aristocrat who bought a gladiator to fight for you, so might as well be another Economic node.

    The game is not balanced for 1v1 combat so everybody will play Rogue?? Then why wont everybody pick a Rogue champion to fight?? Is not the same thing??
    And if champions have no class, wouldnt it be too bland?

    I agree with your solution but hear me out on my idea:

    The participants will pick armor and weapons from a wall. Like gladiators. You will have some counterplay and easy balance on this, since it's a small selection of items. Maybe they get stripped from racial passives or whatnot to make it more "fair".

    Why wouldn't the strongest PvP player be the mayor of a military city if it's what is supposed to be?? Just make it how it is.
    You don't want to be a rich guy buying a "champion" for you. You want to be the WARLORD of that tribe, the strongest and scariest to fight by his people and his neighbours, that's what it's supposed to be and what goes with the game philosophy of not everybody can "win". I want a game with the balls to do that.
  • I don't mind the Champion thing as much. To me a leader of a military node shouldn't be about battle prowess, but the ability to rally their troops, strategise and have some tactical acumen.
    giphy-0.jpg

  • SathragoSathrago Member
    edited November 22
    I mean if we want to wittle down a mass of competitors into a single champion for mayorship you want to have a large scale free for all ending in 50 players, then match those players in 1v1 single round eliminations until you have your sole winner. As for how many can be in the free for all? No need for a limit if the game can handle the amount of contenders.
  • ariatras wrote: »
    I don't mind the Champion thing as much. To me a leader of a military node shouldn't be about battle prowess, but the ability to rally their troops, strategise and have some tactical acumen.

    It's kinda fun to see how very different the sides of this are. I can see the argument for being the "unbeatable warlord" as well as the "tactical general."
  • Maezriel wrote: »
    ariatras wrote: »
    I don't mind the Champion thing as much. To me a leader of a military node shouldn't be about battle prowess, but the ability to rally their troops, strategise and have some tactical acumen.

    It's kinda fun to see how very different the sides of this are. I can see the argument for being the "unbeatable warlord" as well as the "tactical general."

    i'd like it tp be the best individual player, but the game design simply doesn't lend it to be based on 1v1 pvp with your base char
  • Kings wouldn't generally do the jousting themselves. They'd have a champion to do it for them. Wouldn't want to risk their own life, would they?!
  • daveywavey wrote: »
    Kings wouldn't generally do the jousting themselves. They'd have a champion to do it for them. Wouldn't want to risk their own life, would they?!

    kings, yes.

    Tribal leaders would in many historic cultures
  • Maezriel wrote: »
    We know PvP will be rock paper scissors, there's nothing to suggest that one class will end up being the dominate so it'd have to depend on knowing who your opponent is and what they're playing.
    More to the point, they straight up aren't balancing PvP around 1v1.

    Even if there is a rock, paper scissors paradigm going on, there will still be a few classes that excel in 1v1 PvP, and many classes that do not.

    Champions get around this, and from that perspective, I totally understand why they are looking at it.

    As I said though, I don't consider the need to be a specific string solo PvP class to be too much to ask for a player to be the mayor of a military node.
Sign In or Register to comment.