Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

Military mayor should be based on monthly PvP score

Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
edited March 2023 in General Discussion
EDIT: currently the idea became using the monthly PvP score to feed the gladiator points, we are speaking about the gladiator that will be used in the arena where the mayor is elected

This is not about running quests and dailies to feed the gladiator, people should roam the world and fight as much as they want along the entire month and with that the gladiator will evolve.





The only way to ensure a military mayor's credibility and earn citizens' trust is by prioritizing a candidate's performance in the PvP Season.

The current method of selecting a mayor through a single free-for-all election is inadequate and insufficient for selecting a suitable candidate. Instead, a military mayor should possess a deep understanding of all aspects of PvP, remain active throughout the month, and have a consistently high PvP Season score.

To achieve this, there should be used a monthly PvP Season score for determining the who is the best candidate, and the title of mayor should be awarded to the candidate with the highest score for that month. This process ensures that the most deserving candidate assumes the role of mayor. So every citizens interested in being mayor in your node, should apply to be a candidate anytime along the month and in the end of the month who has the highest score will win .

The current free-for-all system may be entertaining, but it is not a credible or serious method of selecting a military mayor.

7e760m.jpg

I want to look at my mayor and immediately know that he has the chops for PvP, my first thought should be:
-That's the guy!
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
«13

Comments

  • insomniainsomnia Member
    edited March 2023
    Node elections

    Alpha-1 node election user interface.
    Once a node has reached Village stage there will be a one week cooldown period before node elections begin.

    This cooldown period allows players to establish citizenship at the village; which may require them to relinquish previous citizenship at another node.
    Following the initial cooldown, there will be a one week election process, then from that point on, elections will follow a monthly cadence.
    Node sieges may not be declared for 21 days following a node advancing to any stage.
    This was previously stated to apply only to nodes advancing to Village (stage 3), not higher stages.
    The village stage is a unique stage because that's when the government system comes online and all other stages past village there will have already been a cadence for the election system and it will follow that cadence, but after the initial village stage is completed there will be a one week period where players have an opportunity to establish citizenship at the village that also provides for the cooldown time that is- that would be present on players leaving another node to kind of participate in in this particular node leveling up. But that after that one week period then there will be a one-week election process and then from that point moving forward will be the one month cadence that the node experiences elections on.[36] – Steven Sharif

    Node elections occur on a monthly basis.

    Election notices will be mailed to the accounts of citizens.
    Only citizens of a node may participate in its elections.
    Only node citizens may be elected mayor.
    Only one citizenship may be declared per account, per server.
    A king or queen can also become a mayor.

    Node governments and mayors are chosen through different methods according to the node's type.

    Divine node governments are chosen from citizens via service oriented quests that prove faith and dedication to the node.
    Most of the devotion-oriented tasks are going to be on an individual basis and won't utilize outside support.
    Economic node governments are able to be bought and sold by citizens with the most money.
    The developers are in favor of a public accounting of campaign funds and contributions for mayoral candidates.
    Mayors of military nodes are chosen from citizens through last man standing (gladiatorial arena style) combat.
    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.
    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.
    Arena style combat is instanced but spectators may be possible through an interface.
    The winner of the combat can not transfer the mayoralty to another player.
    Scientific node governments are elected democratically. Records of who voted for who are not published.
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    @insomnia yes, here is the subject:
    Mayors of military nodes are chosen from citizens through last man standing (gladiatorial arena style) combat.[42][45][46]

    I do like gladiator arenas and free for all, but hear me out, there are many PvP activities where the citizens performance can be tracked among all that people in the ranking.

    It just makes sense putting together how the candidate is ranked on every ladder. Who cares if the guy won a free-for-all arena? This can also be manipulated as hell, manipulation could be fun sometimes, but this sucks.

    Hands down, the best choice is seeing who has best perfomance overall, this is the guy who should be mayor.
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    @insomnia yes, here is the subject:
    Mayors of military nodes are chosen from citizens through last man standing (gladiatorial arena style) combat.[42][45][46]

    I do like gladiator arenas and free for all, but hear me out, there are many PvP activities where the citizens performance can be tracked among all that people in the ranking.

    It just makes sense putting together how the candidate is ranked on every ladder. Who cares if the guy won a free-for-all arena? This can also be manipulated as hell, manipulation could be fun sometimes, but this sucks.

    Hands down, the best choice is seeing who has best perfomance overall, this is the guy who should be mayor.

    no really. That is your oppinion. I have played on a pvp server in the past. It is never a fair fight.
  • WTB pirate node on an island where mayor is the one with the most kills :P
  • Taleof2CitiesTaleof2Cities Member
    edited March 2023
    The player with the highest monthly score is often a player with high contact time with the game, @Arya_Yeshe … not a player with the best PvP skill or “chops”.

    So, you’re basically rewarding that unemployed twenty-something player still living in their parents’ basement.

    How do you fix that problem?

    Could you use an MMR score instead?

    MMR has its own shortcomings though …
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    The player with the highest monthly score is often a player with high contact time with the game, @Arya_Yeshe … not a player with the best PvP skill or “chops”.

    So, you’re basically rewarding that unemployed twenty-something player still living in their parents’ basement.

    How do you fix that problem?

    This is not problem at all, because rulers, commanders, generals, leaders in general, should be online!

    Hey, who had leaders who were barely online before? I had and this is terrible.
    I don't care about the person's background in real life, real life should stay out of the game, in the game we need the that guy who is online a lot and who has his bearings on PvP otherwise the node will be destroyed.

    It just makes sense, the guy has to be online and has to know all kinds of PvP.
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    The actual system's proposal sucks, I will list the three problems in the current mayor election in the military node;
    • Problem #1: Along the month people will do quests and errands to improve their their champions, so these people won't be running their dungeons, fighting the wars, harvesting, etc. These quests are unrelated to other activities in the game
    • Problem #2: People who will be working in the champion evolution will be doing stuff that doesn't help you in becomming a better mayor, instead you should be preparing yourself against the node's enemies and competitors instead of running errands for this champion that is good for nothing other than in the election day
    • Problem #3: Players can fix results among themselves and simply ruin all the work you put into your champion over the month. Such schemes belong to the economic node, not to the military node

    In the military node, the mayor should be someone battle-hardened, who has fought on all fronts and knows well all PvP systems and regional threats.
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    Here's a better way of finding who has what it takes, let's imagine a node has 50 people but only 3 trying to become mayor:
    zs9ldfqmo3gz.png

    This is an example of PvP rankings, split by activity, we could have the average ranking or a weighted average ranking. I am considering this ranking as server ranking, so among thousands of people there's three top PvPers in our node, since our citizens are in the top 10 in all PvP activies

    It could be based on all PvP rankings or simply get your three best rankings for each person. Example: Vaknar's best rankings are: 1, 2, 5 then his average ranking would be 2,666666666666667.

    Or use the ranking to generate points to improve the Champion, then having a champion is "fine", but there's still a chance of players fixing results among themselves.
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    So, if mayor points is measured by all PvP activities, then the game could balance the election, so ranking better in sieges could favor the candidate over candidates who have no clue about sieges.
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • Song_WardenSong_Warden Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    I prefer the champion arena which we got added many months back.
    2a3b8ichz0pd.gif
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    Veeshan wrote: »
    WTB pirate node on an island where mayor is the one with the most kills :P

    If the node's policies included the option to vote on which ranking system should be used in the next election, then a node located on an island where piracy is loved could choose caravans and open world kills (naval) as their preferred ranking. This would allow the pirate mayor to lead in raiding and killing, making for an awesome experience.

    Even if the ranking is used for allocating points in a champion and then upgrading the champion for the election day in the arena. This is way, way better than running errands that have nothing to do with the game's actual content just to prepare a champion.

    Sounds amazing.
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    Neurath wrote: »
    I prefer the champion arena which we got added many months back.

    I am not entirely against the champion, I'm just 90% against it, but this is mostly because how the champion is prepared through useless quests that have nothing to do with the game's content.

    It's just stupid, if the champion system is kept then the champion should be fed with points comming from the PvP rankings. This is sensible.

    Performing quests to feed the champion is the same as cheating, UNLESS THE QUESTS ARE ABOUT MURDERING EVERYBODY ELSE in all sanctioned PvP activites... which leads to feeding the PvP ranking.
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • Song_WardenSong_Warden Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Well, we got the champions because of the hard counter mechanics in the archetypes. Only those interested in the martial arena will use a champion and anybquests would be no different to Divine Nodes.
    2a3b8ichz0pd.gif
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    Neurath wrote: »
    Well, we got the champions because of the hard counter mechanics in the archetypes. Only those interested in the martial arena will use a champion and anybquests would be no different to Divine Nodes.

    Super makes sense having a champion to avoid hard counters and meta in the arena. The idea itself is perfect if you only have the perspective on the election day.

    But I am thinking about the grand strategy in the game, makes sense?
    I would like my mayor to be someone who scored really high in sieges and caravans, makes sense?

    If the champion points are fed by ranking, that is cool, the candidates with the best champions will be players who are battle-hardened.

    Or the quests that feed the champion are 100% PvP based, just to make sure that the candidates have what it takes.
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • Song_WardenSong_Warden Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    There might not be a seige for months. Caravans might be much more common. I'd rather have the ability to counter a challenger though. You can't challenge a competitor so easily in a points based system. The martial arena will be very competitive.
    2a3b8ichz0pd.gif
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    Neurath wrote: »
    There might not be a seige for months. Caravans might be much more common. I'd rather have the ability to counter a challenger though. You can't challenge a competitor so easily in a points based system. The martial arena will be very competitive.

    This is also another reason why the election itself or the champion evolution should be fed by the PvP rankings, considering multiple rankings among all PvP sanction rankings. If nobody in the node fought a siege, then there's all those other rankings.

    Arena day has no relation to the montly PvP perfomance, which is really bad.Sieges and wars are not won by arena experience. No one cares if you are good in the real, that doesn't help the node in the sense of bringing a better mayor.

    There's no reason for having a PvP imbecile as mayor in the military node.
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • insomnia wrote: »
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    @insomnia yes, here is the subject:
    Mayors of military nodes are chosen from citizens through last man standing (gladiatorial arena style) combat.[42][45][46]

    I do like gladiator arenas and free for all, but hear me out, there are many PvP activities where the citizens performance can be tracked among all that people in the ranking.

    It just makes sense putting together how the candidate is ranked on every ladder. Who cares if the guy won a free-for-all arena? This can also be manipulated as hell, manipulation could be fun sometimes, but this sucks.

    Hands down, the best choice is seeing who has best perfomance overall, this is the guy who should be mayor.

    no really. That is your oppinion. I have played on a pvp server in the past. It is never a fair fight.

    kind of agree on the op at this point, having a pvp score can just be the amount of fair pvp you are doing with ques also related to it that people can grind and get point for.

    Free for all will not be fair either as a guild all signs up and kills everyone else until they have who they want to win.
  • tautautautau Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Arya brings up an interesting point here, there is not necessarily any correlation between someone who is good at PvP and someone who is good at being a mayor. Indeed, someone who is really focused at PvP over the month (rather than just during the competition for mayor of a Military node) is likely to ignore much of the mayoral responsibilities because of their PvP enjoyment. Diplomacy, economics, day-to-day management, building cohesion among the citizens and all the other things that a mayor ought to be good at would be ignored in order to increase this 'PvP score'.

    As a result, we might expect that Military nodes would end up as the least viable nodes for growth, overall health and success. Which type of nodes might be the most likely to succeed, and why, would be a potentially interesting topic for another thread.
  • Taleof2CitiesTaleof2Cities Member
    edited March 2023
    tautau wrote: »
    Arya brings up an interesting point here, there is not necessarily any correlation between someone who is good at PvP and someone who is good at being a mayor.

    Though I agree with you @tautau, if you're vying for mayor you should have some conscientiousness of the the job before going into the arena.

    Just like every other node type there will be some good mayors and some bad mayors ... it's not specific to military nodes.

  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    @tautau my point is that if the PvP rankings have an influence on deciding the mayor or giving gladiator points to his gladiator, then he has already proven beforehand that knows combat all across the board.

    PvP is has more than just smashing buttons, PvP has tactics, strategy, pvp trickery, ambushing, baiting, he will have connections, he will know adversaries and have a better grasp in group combat. In the military node, this is the meta!

    This knowledge is way above knowing how to click a few buttons, building a couple buildings and setting taxes. Also, definitely being online a lot gives the guy enough time to attend to his mayoral activities, being online and being there for your citizens is important.

    A military node mayor should know how to set up caravan operations, party compositions, sieges, bounty hunting, etc. It's logical, sensible and has roleplay.
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    edited March 2023
    Disagree with the score part, agree with ffa being a shit way to determine it. But I think the best way would be to combine the two.

    Pvp score should be a part of the champion's power (probably 30-40% overall). The rest of the power should come from daily and weekly bracket pvp, with weighted distribution. And then at the end of the election cycle you get a seeded bracket (size depending on the lvl of the node) that leads into a winner/loser brackets and at the end the top loser (who lost their first fight, but then won all the other fights against other losers) gets a chance to win against the top winner.

    This way you get the "they can pvp in the open world", you get "they need to keep pvping in the open world, so that their champ gets more power every day to use in the daily/weekly arena" and you get "they're great at semi-equalized pvp of the arena champions" (which should be the most skill-based pvp gameplay in the game).

    The weekly and the election arena fights should be watchable by other people, so that you get entertainment for the people. A lvl6 military node election would be the biggest monthly event on the server, would pull a ton of people to the node, bring money to the traders there, and the mayor would be known as the biggest pvper on the server.

    Just doing "your top score = you're the mayor" is not only highly abusable, but also super boring.
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    NiKr wrote: »
    Disagree with the score part, agree with ffa being a shit way to determine it. But I think the best way would be to combine the two.

    Pvp score should be a part of the champion's power (probably 30-40% overall). The rest of the power should come from daily and weekly bracket pvp, with weighted distribution. And then at the end of the election cycle you get seeded bracket (size depending on the lvl of the node) that leads into a winner/loser brackets and at the end the top loser (who lost their first fight, but then won all the other fights against other losers) gets a chance to win against the top winner.

    This way you get the "they can pvp in the open world", you get "they need to keep pvping in the open world, so that their champ gets more power every day to use in the daily/weekly arena" and you get "they're great at semi-equalized pvp of the arena champions" (which should be the most skill-based pvp gameplay in the game).

    The weekly and the election arena fights should be watchable by other people, so that you get entertainment for the people. A lvl6 military node election would be the biggest monthly event on the server, would pull a ton of people to the node, bring money to the traders there, and the mayor would be known as the biggest pvper on the server.

    Just doing "your top score = you're the mayor" is not only highly abusable, but also super boring.

    Yes, the thread started with pvp score only and now it is a hybrid system, now it is pvp score feeds the gladiator.

    I am against PvP dailies for a number of reasons that I won't describe today, I have done countless of those, but weekly or monthly goals are fine! What I don't like about quests is that they are disruptive to your gamming session and they are unnatural, in that day you could desire to go chase some people, but instead you have force yourself in another direction because there's a quest, this is not good.

    Honestly, I would let people collect PvP score from all PvP rankings (owpvp, sanctioned, structured, etc) and let the people spend these points in their gladiator. People should be able to use these points in anything they want and the amount of spent points should have a maximum, otherwise people will just mindlessly grind score and burn themselves.

    Big public events could be fun if there's gambling, maybe players could run their own gambling den, 100% player run. In EVE Online, it happened one of the greatest wars in gamming history, the war revolved around gambling, it was called Casino Wars, there's news about it.
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    I am against PvP dailies for a number of reasons that I won't describe today, I have done countless of those, but weekly or monthly goals are fine!
    I saw it more of a
    • you register for it when you log in
    • the bracket gets set up at the same time every day during prime time
    • you get a visible and hanging notification 20 mins before the fighting begins, so that you can prepare yourself
    • you get teleported to the arena for a 5min fight (less if ends quicker)
    • if you lose - your daily is finished
    • if you win - you keep going
    • at most it'd be ~an hour of arena for the strongest players in the node
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Honestly, I would let people collect PvP score from all PvP rankings (owpvp, sanctioned, structured, etc) and let the people spend these points in their gladiator. People should be able to use these points in anything they want and the amount of spent points should have a maximum, otherwise people will just mindlessly grind score and burn themselves.
    Yeah, point distribution to allow some builds and metas would be nice. It could even change week to week, so there'd be a flow to the overall meta. Giving the "change your build" token for the participation in the weekly bracket would also make people participate there.
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    NiKr wrote: »
    I saw it more of a
    • you register for it when you log in
    • the bracket gets set up at the same time every day during prime time
    • you get a visible and hanging notification 20 mins before the fighting begins, so that you can prepare yourself
    • you get teleported to the arena for a 5min fight (less if ends quicker)
    • if you lose - your daily is finished
    • if you win - you keep going
    • at most it'd be ~an hour of arena for the strongest players in the node

    I would refrain from dailies like that, this remembers me of GW2 arena dailies, which I ran more than I should. When there's dailies people just force themselves repeatedly day after day. There's also qeue times, there's the days the qeue is running very slowly, there's days you have to logoff, etc.

    Also, in arenas if you have dailies, then it always ends in massive amounts of afk players.
    NiKr wrote: »
    Yeah, point distribution to allow some builds and metas would be nice. It could even change week to week, so there'd be a flow to the overall meta. Giving the "change your build" token for the participation in the weekly bracket would also make people participate there.

    Yes, I would let people farm points from all PvP sources in any way they want, in any day they want, along the month. Then they would spend their points in their gladiator build in the election day.
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • Meh. Aside from the elected mayors of scientific nodes, all the other forms have little to do with being a good mayor.

    Divine node mayors will be good quest oriented players, or have the backing of many to boost them there.
    Economic node mayors will buy their places... yeah... guilds will definitely not pool/redirect their funds to the one they chose.
    Military node mayors are good duellists, or allowed to win in a semi-rigged competition.

    If good governance was the only factor to take into consideration, all non-scientific types of nodes would be second rate options for any citizen not aligned with the "random" mayor's interests. Getting a bad/incompetent mayor is still possible for the scientific ones, but to properly rig the system they have to win over the citizenry, and can be booted out the next month. In other types, really bothered citizens may have to vote with their feet. So, I guess, the current system for military nodes is as good/bad as any, and complicating or improving it with other tasks tracking wouldn't change much.

    But what will determine why people choose one types over another is not be about how the leaders get their positions: it will all be about the sweet sweet bonuses coming with the types. (my thoughts on that in the spoilered part)
    In this regard, all types have something interesting, except for the military one which, so far, seems lacking to me compared with the others. It needs more oomph than allowing Bounty Hunters, I hope their is more to be announced.

    From a role playing and world building point of view, they're all great. I'm not sure how the efficiency blander of the player mindset will treat them though, especially in the long run. At first I think we will see all types popping over the servers, but I fear a "best option" will become the meta at some point and most cities will
    Be bold. Be brave. Roll a Tulnar !
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    I would refrain from dailies like that, this remembers me of GW2 arena dailies, which I ran more than I should. When there's dailies people just force themselves repeatedly day after day.
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Yes, I would let people farm points from all PvP sources in any way they want, in any day they want, along the month. Then they would spend their points in their gladiator build in the election day.
    These points contradict themselves. If pvp score directly determines whether you'll become a mayor - people will feel like they NEED to pvp every single day, except instead of "I spend <60m a day fighting in great pvp" they'll be running around like headless chickens looking for pvp to up their score. And what would more likely happen is that quite a lot of people will just start abusing the score system, make alts to pvp, ask friends to die to them, etc etc.
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    There's also qeue times, there's the days the qeue is running very slowly, there's days you have to logoff, etc.
    Also, in arenas if you have dailies, then it always ends in massive amounts of afk players.
    Like I said, the queue is building up for several hours of primetime, so there'll be no waiting in the end. If you have to log off, that the same as losing a day of getting more pvp score, so nothing special. I also said that weekly/daily arena would be weighted, so missing a few dailies would not impact your power all that much.

    Afk players would lose in their first 5min match and that's it. The 5 min is the fight timer, it wouldn't be unlimited time fights, because fuck that. Even at 1k registered people in a single node, if you win all your matches that's only 1h out of your day, where you're free to concede at any point and just leave.

    This is way freer than spending an hour running around hoping to find some pvp, but then not being able to escape it if you need to. But it also allows you to do both, which is why I said that you'd get a notification way before the fighting starts, so that you can disengage from your current content and get ready to be TPed out. Your character would disappear, but you'd return to the same place after the arena.
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    @NiKr they will not feel like they have to do PvP everyday, they will not need alts as punching bags.

    I said many times here that people would just play PvP along the month in any way they want and this would accumulate score. The monthly PvP score is a natural source of score, this would release Intrepid from spending more time and money in repetitive boring quests.

    Getting enough score should suffice, let's imagine the gladiator can have up to 500 points, so along the month you could farm that when you feel like it. People could farm 500 points within a few days if they play hard.

    Something like this:
    • ow kill: 1 point
    • bh kills corrupted: 2 points
    • caravan wagon kill: 10 points
    • sucessful siege: 100 points
    • maybe have a couple monthly PvP quests which are worth 50-100 points each.
    • etc
    Could be rebalanced, Intrepid could even bring special events in which the score is higher.

    I would let people roam Verra in any way they want and still farm all the points they need, so when election day comes, people would spend these points in their gladiator.
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    I would let people accumulate PvP score in a more organic, natural and laid back way, without grinding dailies or quests
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • I have a feeling that none of this will matter. But I do enjoy these hilariously delusional diatribes, so please keep making them!
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    I would let people roam Verra in any way they want and still farm all the points they need, so when election day comes, people would spend these points in their gladiator.
    I think I missed your suggestion for the election itself. You say "mayor should be based on pvp score", but you want to set a max limit on the points. So how exactly will the mayor be elected if everyone has the same amount of points?
Sign In or Register to comment.