Concept for Military Node Mayor Selection

Just a little fun brainstorm since I saw a couple of topics on it.

The best way I can think to do this would be to have a signup sheet, a system to pick the best 50 players (or whatever) based on some criteria and then have players pick a class and subclass from a template system and assign experience points in a fashion that they feel would best counter what another competitor might choose - then work their way up a 1v1 arena chain using that template.

With templated character gear, limited augments etc it would balance against pay-to-win, being carried or other unsavory tactics and winning would demonstrate that they are the most knowledgeable about which classes others might pick and how to play against those classes. Combatants could play the class they were comfortable with or any other class/subclass combo of their choosing and if there became a common meta or flavor of the month then the player would have to work within that system to design a build/strategy that would beat that meta or predict and defend against those play styles.

If one predominant class/subclass combo rose to the top then that would reveal itself to the devs and actually have the added benefit of helping them to identify and 'adjust' that overpowered combo.

The system might be a little front-heavy to build but it would be a breeze to maintain by not having to address the countless combinations of pay-to-win and other methods players and guilds might come up with to game a different system.

Just think of it as putting together a tournament card deck for something like Magic the Gathering except in this case the winner demonstrates good knowledge of all of the games combat systems and class abilities.

Comments

  • DaeraxDaerax Member
    edited April 5
    I don't know, it's still 1v1 in game not balanced around that. If there will be that rock paper scissors situation, you can prepare the best build statistically for the meta but with that many players, you will still likely hit hard counter to your build and lose anyway. Luck would still play huge part in that, even if you could make your odds better with right decisions.

    In my opinion, the best concept (not mine, I've seen it somewhere else on forum) would be 3v3 or 5v5 tournament. Specific number of top players would be able to participate based on some selection (arena rating or anything else pvp related) just as you suggested. But hey would create a team and those teams would fight in the tournament for the mayor position representing the team captain. There would be similar options for planning and adjusting for/countering the meta (given they had large enough pool of friends/guildies to choose from - probably not a problem for someone with ambition to become a mayor) and I think that playing your character in that situation would also feel so much better as well.

    EDIT: I just realized you didn't necessarily mean single elimination tournament. If that would be the case, the number of participants would probably need to be quite limited, but the system seems much better, at least in my opinion.
  • NeauxNeaux Member
    Daerax wrote: »
    In my opinion, the best concept (not mine, I've seen it somewhere else on forum) would be 3v3 or 5v5 tournament. Specific number of top players would be able to participate based on some selection (arena rating or anything else pvp related) just as you suggested. But hey would create a team and those teams would fight in the tournament for the mayor position representing the team captain. There would be similar options for planning and adjusting for/countering the meta (given they had large enough pool of friends/guildies to choose from - probably not a problem for someone with ambition to become a mayor) and I think that playing your character in that situation would also feel so much better as well.

    This is definitely an easier method to implement but (to me) just leaves so much potential for people being carried - guild leaders being carried by their 2 strongest members etc. Also a guild with a lot of resources could just spend millions gearing their best team to win in their interest.

  • DaeraxDaerax Member
    Neaux wrote: »
    Daerax wrote: »
    In my opinion, the best concept (not mine, I've seen it somewhere else on forum) would be 3v3 or 5v5 tournament. Specific number of top players would be able to participate based on some selection (arena rating or anything else pvp related) just as you suggested. But hey would create a team and those teams would fight in the tournament for the mayor position representing the team captain. There would be similar options for planning and adjusting for/countering the meta (given they had large enough pool of friends/guildies to choose from - probably not a problem for someone with ambition to become a mayor) and I think that playing your character in that situation would also feel so much better as well.

    This is definitely an easier method to implement but (to me) just leaves so much potential for people being carried - guild leaders being carried by their 2 strongest members etc. Also a guild with a lot of resources could just spend millions gearing their best team to win in their interest.

    I don't think carrying would be that big of a problem if only selected amount of top players would be able to participate in the election tournament in the first place. Also, powerful guilds will have an advantage in any case - throwing matches, covering more strategies etc. I quite like the idea of people using gear of same tier instead of their actual gear to at least limit that. But it really depends on what the design philosophy behind this whole system is. If the selection is meant to reflect only your skill or strength of your character in actual game which combines both skill and gear. Could be either.
  • ArchmonkArchmonk Member
    What I say, is that this direction you have is great. I think they should do some Archetype-oriented selection if they are going to do a bracket system with 1v1.

    Fundamentally some classes will counter others in a 1v1! This is absolutely okay and critically important to have in a balanced game. So to counterbalance this in military nodes, matches between players should take Archetypes and their counters into account!

    Some classes won't be good in 1v1 combat. Like a Bard. If a bard is good in 1v1 combat it contradicts the fundamental aspects of a bard/support archetype. So realistically if you're a bard and military nodes are based on 1v1 combat, sorry.

    I agree with @Daerax 3v3, 5v5, or 8v8 would be better to properly represent a good understanding of the game mechanics and execution of complicated strategies, and would basically assuage all your concerns!
  • NeauxNeaux Member
    Archmonk wrote: »
    Some classes won't be good in 1v1 combat. Like a Bard. If a bard is good in 1v1 combat it contradicts the fundamental aspects of a bard/support archetype. So realistically if you're a bard and military nodes are based on 1v1 combat, sorry.
    That's why I said that it would be a templated system where the player could pick from any class based on what they thought would be a good general counter.
    Archmonk wrote: »
    I agree with @Daerax 3v3, 5v5, or 8v8 would be better to properly represent a good understanding of the game mechanics and execution of complicated strategies, and would basically assuage all your concerns!

    Don't get me wrong, in a perfect world 3v3, 5v5, or 8v8 would be fine but it wouldn't demonstrate a single person's ability (which I believe is the goal of the Military Node selection process anyway) - nor would it protect against pay-to-win and other scenarios where guild leaders get carried by a team or whatever.

    I'm not "all in" on my idea, I just thought the template system might be fun to play around with :smile:


  • daveywaveydaveywavey Member
    edited April 6
    I prefer the current Champion-based idea.

    "Mayors of military nodes are chosen from citizens through last man standing (gladiatorial arena style) combat.[20][22][23]
    An idea currently under consideration is to have players build out a champion that they can then fight in the arena, rather then using their regular characters. These champions can be equipped with gear and skills via quests, along with materials and gold to make the champion stronger.[24]
    The reason for the champion idea is because the game isn't balanced for 1v1 PvP. Utilizing champions makes arena combat more of a level playing ground.[24]
    Arena style combat is instanced but spectators may be possible through an interface.[25]
    The winner of the combat can not transfer the mayoralty to another player.[26]
    "
    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_elections
    Daveywavey-member.png
  • BiccusBiccus Member
    edited April 6
    daveywavey wrote: »
    I prefer the current Champion-based idea.

    The issue I have with that is you’re building an entirely new system where you have to buy/make your champion gear, level it with quests and even more gold.. just to patch the fact the game isn’t balanced for 1v1

    This isn’t an economy node or a divine node. Quests and gold can stay the heck away from it.

    Just equalise levels and gear if you want a fair game, then do team based arena tournament. People say there’s a problem with being carried to mayor. Maybe at the town/village levels but at the higher level nodes with the better teams, a good 3v3 team will, I assume.. easily beat a duo carrying a dead weight.

    Edit: Just want to say I’m not really sure why we needed a new thread for the same discussion
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    There shouldn't be equalized gear or levels.

    The idea of PvP being the way to decide the mayor of a military node is that the strongest should win. Since this is in relation to an open world PvP game, it should be the strongest in that world.
  • Biccus wrote: »
    daveywavey wrote: »
    I prefer the current Champion-based idea.

    The issue I have with that is you’re building an entirely new system where you have to buy/make your champion gear, level it with quests and even more gold.. just to patch the fact the game isn’t balanced for 1v1

    This isn’t an economy node or a divine node. Quests and gold can stay the heck away from it.

    Was good enough for the Ancient Romans, it's good enough here.
    Daveywavey-member.png
  • BiccusBiccus Member
    edited April 6
    Noaani wrote: »
    There shouldn't be equalized gear or levels.

    I agree with that. Nor should you be able to spend gold or do quests to improve a “champion” as that’s not an indication of your characters PvP ability.
    daveywavey wrote: »
    Was good enough for the Ancient Romans, it's good enough here.

    Hmm I didn’t realise this game was balanced based on Ancient Rome, my bad.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited April 6
    Biccus wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    There shouldn't be equalized gear or levels.

    I agree with that. Nor should you be able to spend gold or do quests to improve a “champion” as that’s not an indication of your characters PvP ability.

    You seem to have missed the point of my post.

    There shouldnt be champions.

    The idea is that the strongest should be running the show. If we have a leadership contest, and when it is all done I come along and one-shot the winner/mayor, something is wrong with the system.

    The champion idea absolutely leaves this open as a possibility.
  • BiccusBiccus Member
    Noaani wrote: »
    You seem to have missed the point of my post.

    There shouldnt be champions.
    I definitely said there was issues with champions and I clearly wasn’t advocating for them. You didn’t agree with anything I said so I can’t see why you’d think I’d assume your point correctly.

    Are you still arguing for a FFA that can be abused by an organised group? Just so we can be clear on where you
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Biccus wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    You seem to have missed the point of my post.

    There shouldnt be champions.
    I definitely said there was issues with champions and I clearly wasn’t advocating for them. You didn’t agree with anything I said so I can’t see why you’d think I’d assume your point correctly.

    Are you still arguing for a FFA that can be abused by an organised group? Just so we can be clear on where you

    Nope, I'm not advocating anything, as there is no perfect solution.

    No matter which option is taken, there are issues, and any discussion on the topic is literally just about which set of issues we each prefer.
  • Biccus wrote: »
    daveywavey wrote: »
    Was good enough for the Ancient Romans, it's good enough here.

    Hmm I didn’t realise this game was balanced based on Ancient Rome, my bad.

    That's ok, you're still quite new here. No need to feel bad. :)
    Daveywavey-member.png
Sign In or Register to comment.