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.
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.
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.
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!
daveywavey wrote: » I prefer the current Champion-based idea.
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.
Noaani wrote: » There shouldn't be equalized gear or levels.
daveywavey wrote: » Was good enough for the Ancient Romans, it's good enough here.
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.
Noaani wrote: » You seem to have missed the point of my post. There shouldnt be champions.
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
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.