Question/concern about the military node mayor selection system.

I have a concern about the mayor selection system of the military node.

I believe there's going to be a battle royale/arena of sorts to select who the most 'powerful' player is of that node, which in return will become mayor. How will 'peeling' be tackled? If members of the same guild all join this battle, what will stop them from protecting this one singular player and sacrificing themselves till that particular person is the last one standing?

I can already imagine where a powerful guild joins the fight, and they literally surround the one player (prob guildleader) and protect them to make sure they become mayor. You could argue its just another 'tactic' but i don't think this seems very fun.

To me it makes sense that you should only be able to select one person per guild, that way the guilds themselves need to select their ''champion'', although this completely leaves solo players out of the equation.

What is your take on this? Any potential solutions? Or has this already been addressed previously?

Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ramirez

And why you expect a solo player to manage a city, if is social skills is playing solo, i mean , i think should be some player with influence...

Jxshuwu

Ramirez wrote: »

And why you expect a solo player to manage a city, if is social skills is playing solo, i mean , i think should be some player with influence...

I don't at all, where did i say this?

Songcaller

There is nothing to prevent your fears. In fact, every single Mayor Position is susceptible to guilds taking over except perhaps the Divine Node, but, a guild could also farm Divine Node too. I suspect that possibly scientific node may see guilds being outvoted but not if its a mega guild.

The game becomes less attractive from a solo player perspective but then the game is a MMORPG and not a solo player game.

Jxshuwu

Neurath wrote: »

There is nothing to prevent your fears. In fact, every single Mayor Position is susceptible to guilds taking over except perhaps the Divine Node, but, a guild could also farm Divine Node too. I suspect that possibly scientific node may see guilds being outvoted but not if its a mega guild.

The game becomes less attractive from a solo player perspective but then the game is a MMORPG and not a solo player game.

I don't expect solo players to have much on option, i simply mentioned they're not in the equation.
The devs themselves said its a node of power, and the most powerful player will be the mayor. But in the example i mentioned, the player winning wouldnt be the most powerful at all, it'd be the person who was protected the most. And if anything, it means the mayor would have the most political power even though it isn't a political node.

VmanGman

Ramirez wrote: »

And why you expect a solo player to manage a city, if is social skills is playing solo, i mean , i think should be some player with influence...

As stated on the latest stream the developers want the military mayor selection process to be about power and not about politics. A system where politics (your friends) can totally swing the result of mayor selection process is not representative of the military node’s design and vision. If this issue is not addressed, the military node selection process will boil down to a few groups having a selected leader that they will protect to the end. It won’t be a free for all power struggle where the strongest rises (power). It will be about who has the most friends (politics). OP’s concern is valid.

The only way I can see this being resolved is to have many 1v1 battles in a bracket system. And even then you could have people intentionally losing to their friend, but at least each person will eventually have to fight a real opponent.

Edit: a period

Kionashi

VmanGman wrote: »

Ramirez wrote: »

And why you expect a solo player to manage a city, if is social skills is playing solo, i mean , i think should be some player with influence...

As stated on the latest stream the developers want the military mayor selection process to be about power and not about politics. A system where politics (your friends) can totally swing the result of mayor selection process is not representative of the military node’s design and vision. If this issue is not addressed, the military node selection process will boil down to a few groups having a selected leader that they will protect to the end. It won’t be a free for all power struggle where the strongest rises (power). It will be about who has the most friends (politics) OP’s concern is valid.

The only way I can see this being resolved is to have many 1v1 battles in a bracket system. And even then you could have people intentionally losing to their friend, but at least each person will eventually have to fight a real opponent.

that's the best solution to be honest

Noaani

I personally think a last man standing type thing is a better representation of a players power than a 1v1 is. A 1vq is a representation of a players ability.

Look at something like Game of Thrones. There's no doubt Cerci Lanister was one of the most powerful characters on the show, yet she wasn't exactly known for her ability to fight - she was powerful enough to have others do that for her.

If someone in Ashes is powerful enough to have people protect them in an arena until all opposition is dead, and then fight each other until only that one person is left, that person has the power that Intrepid are claiming they want for a military node.

Shoelid

There's an easy solution here: make everybody anonymous inside the battle. Sure, guilds can all get to the same area pretty easily, but will they be able to properly defend the leader? If they have time to organize, sure. In the heat of battle though? No chance.

Anonymity makes organization difficult, and makes things like betrayal, infiltration, and chaos easy.

Guild play will still be a thing, but if everybody's anonymous, it's much more likely to still be a "free for all" format, where the guild simply tries to get any one of their members elected through sheer numbers, rather than a chosen leader.

If somebody manages to lead a group through that chaos, then they probably deserve it. like @Noaani said, a "leader of men" can be powerful without doing much of the fighting themselves. Besides, I think a war strategist/general type would be perfect for a militaristic mayor.

VmanGman

Noaani wrote: »

I personally think a last man standing type thing is a better representation of a players power than a 1v1 is. A 1vq is a representation of a players ability.

Look at something like Game of Thrones. There's no doubt Cerci Lanister was one of the most powerful characters on the show, yet she wasn't exactly known for her ability to fight - she was powerful enough to have others do that for her.

If someone in Ashes is powerful enough to have people protect them in an arena until all opposition is dead, and then fight each other until only that one person is left, that person has the power that Intrepid are claiming they want for a military node.

Except that we all know that the power you are talking about in GoT would not be represented the same in a video game. People feared for their lives because of Cersei... that's not how video games work. People will help someone become mayor because they're friends IRL or because they got paid IRL. That's not power...

Noaani

Shoelid wrote: »

There's an easy solution here: make everybody anonymous inside the battle.

That seems to me to be a far better solution.

Significantly better than 1v1, and exponentially better than the champion idea Intrepid talked about.

zammwich

Shoelid wrote: »

There's an easy solution here: make everybody anonymous inside the battle. Sure, guilds can all get to the same area pretty easily, but will they be able to properly defend the leader? If they have time to organize, sure. In the heat of battle though? No chance.

Anonymity makes organization difficult, and makes things like betrayal, infiltration, and chaos easy.

Guild play will still be a thing, but if everybody's anonymous, it's much more likely to still be a "free for all" format, where the guild simply tries to get any one of their members elected through sheer numbers, rather than a chosen leader.

If somebody manages to lead a group through that chaos, then they probably deserve it. like @Noaani said, a "leader of men" can be powerful without doing much of the fighting themselves. Besides, I think a war strategist/general type would be perfect for a militaristic mayor.

Best solution imo

Noaani

VmanGman wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I personally think a last man standing type thing is a better representation of a players power than a 1v1 is. A 1vq is a representation of a players ability.

Look at something like Game of Thrones. There's no doubt Cerci Lanister was one of the most powerful characters on the show, yet she wasn't exactly known for her ability to fight - she was powerful enough to have others do that for her.

If someone in Ashes is powerful enough to have people protect them in an arena until all opposition is dead, and then fight each other until only that one person is left, that person has the power that Intrepid are claiming they want for a military node.

Except that we all know that the power you are talking about in GoT would not be represented the same in a video game. People feared for their lives because of Cersei... that's not how video games work. People will help someone become mayor because they're friends IRL or because they got paid IRL. That's not power...

It wont be represented exactly the same, of course. Examples and such shouldnt be taken that literally - no two things are exactly the same, if they were exactly the same then they would be the same thing, not two different things.

The reason I pointed it out was to illustrate that 1v1 combat is not a demonstration of power, not even close.

The leader of a large guild has more power on a given server than the best 1v1 player in the game. That kind of power (which is very similar to the kind of power the Lannisters in general have in GoT - even if not exactly the same) ABSOLUTELY is represented in game.

If there is a FFA arena, it wont be people with real life friends or people that have paid others that will win, it will be guilds that are nominating a player from their ranks to attempt to be mayor of the node, and it will be that guild in the arena making sure that happens.

You cant say that kind of power isn't represented in game.

VmanGman

Noaani wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I personally think a last man standing type thing is a better representation of a players power than a 1v1 is. A 1vq is a representation of a players ability.

Look at something like Game of Thrones. There's no doubt Cerci Lanister was one of the most powerful characters on the show, yet she wasn't exactly known for her ability to fight - she was powerful enough to have others do that for her.

If someone in Ashes is powerful enough to have people protect them in an arena until all opposition is dead, and then fight each other until only that one person is left, that person has the power that Intrepid are claiming they want for a military node.

Except that we all know that the power you are talking about in GoT would not be represented the same in a video game. People feared for their lives because of Cersei... that's not how video games work. People will help someone become mayor because they're friends IRL or because they got paid IRL. That's not power...

It wont be represented exactly the same, of course. Examples and such shouldnt be taken that literally - no two things are exactly the same, if they were exactly the same then they would be the same thing, not two different things.

The reason I pointed it out was to illustrate that 1v1 combat is not a demonstration of power, not even close.

The leader of a large guild has more power on a given server than the best 1v1 player in the game. That kind of power (which is very similar to the kind of power the Lannisters in general have in GoT - even if not exactly the same) ABSOLUTELY is represented in game.

If there is a FFA arena, it wont be people with real life friends or people that have paid others that will win, it will be guilds that are nominating a player from their ranks to attempt to be mayor of the node, and it will be that guild in the arena making sure that happens.

You cant say that kind of power isn't represented in game.

But that’s not the kind of power that the military node and its mayor selection system represents... it’s clearly about combat power... what you’re describing is political power and on the most recent livestream the developers addressed this issue directly and stated that the military node isn’t about political power.

Jxshuwu

Noaani wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I personally think a last man standing type thing is a better representation of a players power than a 1v1 is. A 1vq is a representation of a players ability.

Look at something like Game of Thrones. There's no doubt Cerci Lanister was one of the most powerful characters on the show, yet she wasn't exactly known for her ability to fight - she was powerful enough to have others do that for her.

If someone in Ashes is powerful enough to have people protect them in an arena until all opposition is dead, and then fight each other until only that one person is left, that person has the power that Intrepid are claiming they want for a military node.

Except that we all know that the power you are talking about in GoT would not be represented the same in a video game. People feared for their lives because of Cersei... that's not how video games work. People will help someone become mayor because they're friends IRL or because they got paid IRL. That's not power...

It wont be represented exactly the same, of course. Examples and such shouldnt be taken that literally - no two things are exactly the same, if they were exactly the same then they would be the same thing, not two different things.

The reason I pointed it out was to illustrate that 1v1 combat is not a demonstration of power, not even close.

The leader of a large guild has more power on a given server than the best 1v1 player in the game. That kind of power (which is very similar to the kind of power the Lannisters in general have in GoT - even if not exactly the same) ABSOLUTELY is represented in game.

If there is a FFA arena, it wont be people with real life friends or people that have paid others that will win, it will be guilds that are nominating a player from their ranks to attempt to be mayor of the node, and it will be that guild in the arena making sure that happens.

You cant say that kind of power isn't represented in game.

''The leader of a large guild has more power on a given server than the best 1v1 player in the game.''

When intrepid talked about power in their devstream, they didn't talk about influence... they talked about power as in battle power, power of being the strongest fighter. Not as in like, people in the government who have alot of ''power'' but more like MMA fighters who are very powerful.

Making everyone anonymous would cause chaos, but i feel like it could easily be fixed with some proper communication. All the dude who wants to be mayor has to say is ''Im the guy with the red helmet next to the green flag, im jumping, protect me'' and the rest in the arena will know what to do.

I personally agree with the 1v1 solution, it truly brings out the person who is the best fighter on an individual level and deserves the military node mayor title. Someone who is just good at asking people for favors doesn't deserve a place as mayor in a military node, its something meant for a warchief.

Jxshuwu

Shoelid wrote: »

There's an easy solution here: make everybody anonymous inside the battle. Sure, guilds can all get to the same area pretty easily, but will they be able to properly defend the leader? If they have time to organize, sure. In the heat of battle though? No chance.

Anonymity makes organization difficult, and makes things like betrayal, infiltration, and chaos easy.

Guild play will still be a thing, but if everybody's anonymous, it's much more likely to still be a "free for all" format, where the guild simply tries to get any one of their members elected through sheer numbers, rather than a chosen leader.

If somebody manages to lead a group through that chaos, then they probably deserve it. like @Noaani said, a "leader of men" can be powerful without doing much of the fighting themselves. Besides, I think a war strategist/general type would be perfect for a militaristic mayor.

Being anonymous in an arena isn't something a little communication won't fix.
I believe you're right to an extent, but that's not what intrepid envisioned.

The devs explained themselves that the military node selection system will be based on who has the most combat power individually, not who has alot of political ''power'' to order people around.

Noaani

Jxshuwu wrote: »

When intrepid talked about power in their devstream, they didn't talk about influence... they talked about power as in battle power, power of being the strongest fighter. Not as in like, people in the government who have alot of ''power'' but more like MMA fighters who are very powerful.

Then they used the wrong word, as that is not a form of power.

Strength? Sure.
Martial prowess? Absolutely.
Power? Nope, that is a different thing.

The stupid thing is, their champion system flies directly in the face of this notion anyway. We want the best, strongest individual to be leader of military nodes, but you can use a champion in your stead.

What the actual fuck?

I mean, I get it from the perspective of not all classes being balanced for 1v1 combat. The thing is, you then need to drop the notion of if being the character that is strongest being the leader of the node, one way or another, because it is not the character that is doing the fighting.

Jxshuwu wrote: »

Making everyone anonymous would cause chaos, but i feel like it could easily be fixed with some proper communication.

Indeed it could.

And what is more powerful (or more suited to ruling a military node) than someone that can make some semblence of order in such chaos.

Vhaeyne

They should just abandon the champion system idea and have the two guys with the highest arena rating pick 4 other players to form a 5 man team and fight for mayor periodically. Or maybe they could have the top ten guys do a march madness style tournament for the mayor position with 5 man teams that they assembled.

This would solve the 1v1 dual imbalance and show that the player has some leadership qualities by having them form a team and lead it to victory.

They could just use a aggregate score from all of a players the different arena team sizes to qualify to determine who is a contender for mayor.

To me having the citizens choose who they think is strongest is kind of a waste for this node type, when we can just use recent match history and things like elo to know for sure who is actually currently a champion. Otherwise we are just going to see two streamers duke it out every time.

Looking at the proposed system as it currently is seems a little less well thought out than other areas of the game. The concept of organized fighting to be mayor is worth putting more thought into to get right. I like the general idea.

VmanGman

@Noaani The developers have made their design goal regarding the military node very clear. What you’re describing goes directly against it. No matter how much you try to rationalize it, as long as it doesn’t line up with their design goal your argument is irrelevant.

Power in this case means combat power. The champion you have fighting for you is their way to help with class balance. You need stop spinning it this way and that way and accept the fact that it’s about one single player’s combat power against all other players. The goal is to not allow political power and teaming up to be a factor in this mayoral selection.

VmanGman

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Looking at the proposed system as it currently is seems a little less well thought out than other areas of the game. The concept of organized fighting to be mayor is worth putting more thought into to get right. I like the general idea.

How can you say that it seems less thought out when they haven’t even revealed exactly what they plan to do with it...? They are professional game designers. I’m sorry, but who are you to say based on little tidbits that you’ve heard here and there that the system is not well thought out? We literally do not have the full picture yet. How can you make such an accusation when you don’t yet have all the facts and information?

Noaani

VmanGman wrote: »

What you’re describing goes directly against it.

I haven't described anything.

Child Item