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

2

Comments

  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    NiKr wrote: »
    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?

    They use their points to 'vote'.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • NiKr wrote: »
    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?

    The idea evolved along the topic and became: pvp score feeds the gladiator
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • SolvrynSolvryn Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited March 2023
    I do not see anything here that even denotes an understanding between tactics and strategy, let alone a good measurement of it in a game.

    There's tactics then there is strategy, a score is not going to show us who the general creating the strategy is nor is it going to tell us who is on the ground executing parts of the strategy.

    And it's a military node, and also despite its name, it's just going to take more than an understanding of PvP to run that particular node.

  • I like the idea of overall PvP being a qualifier of sorts, however the final deciding factor should be a Free-for-All to make it more distinct from the Religious nodes, where longterm commitment matters most.
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    The idea evolved along the topic and became: pvp score feeds the gladiator
    So, considering that we don't know the specifics of how we grow our champ, there's a chance that the suggestion literally went full circle and came back to the already planned system. I mean, I guess I can live with that :)
  • pyrealpyreal Member, Warrior of Old
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    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!

    This would just prioritize millennial basement dwellers mooching off their parents.
  • Song_WardenSong_Warden Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    The ideas are always to make the few have more power and positional gain than the many.
    2a3b8ichz0pd.gif
  • Cinq0Cinq0 Member
    The gladiator idea stuck out to me as weird, because it seems like the sort of thing that would be heavily luck based. You could have the best pvper in the entire server be attacked by 3 people at once and lose, and vice versa with the winner. Having a consistent basis for deciding this would be a lot better. The other option is that they could have a tournament bracket with the top 16 or whatever monthly score holders. This would mostly be if they really were set on having an instanced combat time for the decision, and it could help balance the selection so that it can be more sure that it goes to the actual most skilled player, rather than the guy with the most free time.
  • Cinq0Cinq0 Member
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    @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.
    .

    Actually I didn't see this, in this scenario the tournament idea is essentially pointless and would only be if the devs wanted a specific battle instance.
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    Cinq0 wrote: »
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    @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.
    .

    Actually I didn't see this, in this scenario the tournament idea is essentially pointless and would only be if the devs wanted a specific battle instance.

    The official Intrepid's idea today is that along the month people will run quests and make their gladiator stronger, then in the election day people will fight in free-for-all matches using their gladiators. The upside is they will be all using of the same class, avoiding hard counters and meta builds. The downside is no one has any idea about what kinda quests there will be, almost always quests as dumb and boring, the second downside is that players may rig the outcomes (which is not bad), so you could end up fighting by yourself against multiple people just to take you out.

    The arena thing is fun, having a standard gladiator instead of using the characters is fantastic!
    But I truly question this structure of quests for upgrading the gladiator, if I ever get to choose I would opt for making people grow their numbers in the monthly PvP ranking and from this ranking sort out how strong your gladiator is.

    If people have to do quests and dailies, then participating in a mayor election will be just pure grind and sad torment. My opinion is: people should have their fun across all PvP activities and just by playing the game, they will farm enough PvP points to help in the election of the military mayor.
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • maybe they create an arena like system that is over a few days period and people fight in a bracket system
  • (I'm sorry in advance, I probably can't understand a lot of what you wrote, my English is not very good.)

    I think the champion idea is a good one. I correctly understand that the node type is random? That is, let's say there is a large clan, and in this clan there is an excellent leader who can organize people, works well in the game, has good authority, and in general is a cool guy, but he is a bad pvp player. This clan enters the game, develops their node and they get a military node. And it turns out that a good leader will not be able to become a mayor, because he is bad at pvp?
    Now the leader has 2 options
    1) it will be a fake mayor from a clan that obeys the real leader
    2) or if a player not from the clan becomes the mayor, then the leader collects his belongings and leaves the node. downgrade node.
    The champion system will solve this problem, a smart leader will look for a champion of a strong player from the clan
  • Nah, I'd rather see a separate reward system for the top PvP scores.

    The current system ensures that all archetypes have a fair shot at mayor, so that skill counts rather than simple archetype choice. If all players start with an equal footing, you'll get the better PvP'ers coming out on top regardless, and that's what this election type is about.
    This link may help you: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/
  • pyreal wrote: »
    This would just prioritize millennial basement dwellers mooching off their parents.

    Not if
    Gospell wrote: »
    (I'm sorry in advance, I probably can't understand a lot of what you wrote, my English is not very good.)

    I think the champion idea is a good one. I correctly understand that the node type is random? That is, let's say there is a large clan, and in this clan there is an excellent leader who can organize people, works well in the game, has good authority, and in general is a cool guy, but he is a bad pvp player. This clan enters the game, develops their node and they get a military node. And it turns out that a good leader will not be able to become a mayor, because he is bad at pvp?
    Now the leader has 2 options
    1) it will be a fake mayor from a clan that obeys the real leader
    2) or if a player not from the clan becomes the mayor, then the leader collects his belongings and leaves the node. downgrade node.
    The champion system will solve this problem, a smart leader will look for a champion of a strong player from the clan

    There are 4 types of nodes:
    • religious
    • economic
    • scientific
    • military

    Eacho node type has it's own way of electing a mayor

    In today's model, the mayor in military node is decided in the PvP arena, everybody will use a generic gladiator in the fight, this generic gladiator is called champion. This is really good.

    WhatI am saying is that the way you would upgrade your champion is through PvP around the world, instead of running quests like how Intrepid announced.
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • The problem here lies in how points are allocated. If it's all about kills, then what about that Cleric that's been solo-healing the entire group of PvP'ers and hasn't lost a single one? What about the Tank who's been forcing aggro and soaking up damage so that the DDs can make the kills? What about that player that's been throwing traps and stuns, CC'ing the enemy so that they're shut down?
    And if it's not all about kills, then how do you determine the amount of points allocated to each activity? And can you be sure that you've accounted for each activity?

    Giving everybody equal access to demonstrate their skills in the arena is the better option. Currently, they've chosen to do this via quests open to everybody. But, this will be tested to death in Alpha-2 to determine its effectiveness.
    This link may help you: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    daveywavey wrote: »
    The problem here lies in how points are allocated. If it's all about kills, then what about that Cleric that's been solo-healing the entire group of PvP'ers and hasn't lost a single one? What about the Tank who's been forcing aggro and soaking up damage so that the DDs can make the kills? What about that player that's been throwing traps and stuns, CC'ing the enemy so that they're shut down?
    And if it's not all about kills, then how do you determine the amount of points allocated to each activity? And can you be sure that you've accounted for each activity?

    Giving everybody equal access to demonstrate their skills in the arena is the better option. Currently, they've chosen to do this via quests open to everybody. But, this will be tested to death in Alpha-2 to determine its effectiveness.

    That's pretty much Steven's fault :scream:

    Because in AoC the pvp score is not fed by damaged gear on the kill. If there was a PvP score based on how much gear damage you or your party dealt on that kill, shared by the party, then clerics would be fine.

    Makes sense?
    Let's say you are in a party as healer, it is a 4 people party, then your party delivers a killing blow on another player... so he dies and he gets gear damage. Since he is a level 50 using very expensive gear, it will cost him 20,000 gold to fix his gear.

    So, 4 people party divided by 20,000 gold equals 5,000 gold in damages by player.
    This could be measured and a score can easily be done based on this, so in PvP all support classes in the party would have their fair share of score and rewards when there's rewards on the table.

    Makes sense?
    If the community is in for this, we should start asking this early on when the game is still in alpha.

    Nowadays support classes can score by running pvp objectives in the structured pvp with his party/guild, we don't know if the pvp ranking system will reward the rest of the party yet.
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    This is not problem at all, because rulers, commanders, generals, leaders in general, should be online!
    It is probably worth pointing out that a mayor isn't any of these things.

    In a siege, if both the mayor and a proven combat leader are tussling for the role of leadership, literally everyone will follow the proven leader, regardless of if they have a position.

    Likewise, if it comes down to listening to your mayor or guild leader, it will be your guild leader every time - your guild leader has the ability to remove you from your guild, the mayor does not have the ability to remove you from your node.

    Being mayor is about bragging rights mostly.
  • LinikerLiniker Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    I must say, I'm not a fan of the champion idea, having to play a different character sucks, not sure about the pvp score tho
    img]
    Recrutamento aberto - Nosso Site: Clique aqui
  • tautautautau Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    I wonder if it would work if they gave us the choice or either playing our character OR creating a champion. Do you think that would work?

    What about if they also had something similar to the NCAA Basketball Tournament with random opponents in the first round, double elimination maybe?
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    tautau wrote: »
    I wonder if it would work if they gave us the choice or either playing our character OR creating a champion. Do you think that would work?
    Would be an absolute pain to balance. I personally think that mayor arena should only have one "class" that has tools that counter each other. And the best mechanical/strategical player will win.

    1v1 balancing will be rps, but I'm sure that there'll be an archetype or two that have way higher chances against their supposed superiors, so I don't think that adding normal classes to the champion pool would work.

    I did like the idea of investing points into your champion to have different builds, so the base abilities might be the same, but each person would have their own special build to utilize those abilities. Some will follow the meta and some will try to break it.
  • SolvrynSolvryn Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Player can be good at PvP all they want but if they don't know shit about how to manage a node they're going to fail.

    I rather a decent player, not necessarily the best but manages a node extremely well be a mayor.
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    Solvryn wrote: »
    Player can be good at PvP all they want but if they don't know shit about how to manage a node they're going to fail.

    I rather a decent player, not necessarily the best but manages a node extremely well be a mayor.
    All the good managers are free to go to scientific nodes. The point of having different types of nodes with different election methods is to give different people the ability to rule.

    If all military nodes end up failing - that's just part of the server's story.
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    Solvryn wrote: »
    Player can be good at PvP all they want but if they don't know shit about how to manage a node they're going to fail.

    I rather a decent player, not necessarily the best but manages a node extremely well be a mayor.

    All the mayor activities are nothing compared to preparing the node for sieges and wars, this is why a military mayor should be experienced in many kinds of pvp. Taxes, building stuff, policies for harvesting more wood... this is nothing!

    Sieges will be meta for all mayors, because if the node falls then it will be completely destroyed
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • SolvrynSolvryn Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Solvryn wrote: »
    Player can be good at PvP all they want but if they don't know shit about how to manage a node they're going to fail.

    I rather a decent player, not necessarily the best but manages a node extremely well be a mayor.

    All the mayor activities are nothing compared to preparing the node for sieges and wars, this is why a military mayor should be experienced in many kinds of pvp. Taxes, building stuff, policies for harvesting more wood... this is nothing!

    Sieges will be meta for all mayors, because if the node falls then it will be completely destroyed

    That's not really how running a city, node, or township works.

    City defense is only one aspect of running a node.

    Granted, we have fuck all knowledge of the purpose of a military node. But all nodes still need to run and meet their purpose.

    ..and nothing in this thread illuminates to us the player, of the mayors strategical and tactical acumen other than they can maybe win a duel or score some points.

    The best PvPer doesn't always make the best tactician or best strategist.

    Just like it doesn't mean they will be a good mayor.

  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    Solvryn wrote: »
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Solvryn wrote: »
    Player can be good at PvP all they want but if they don't know shit about how to manage a node they're going to fail.

    I rather a decent player, not necessarily the best but manages a node extremely well be a mayor.

    All the mayor activities are nothing compared to preparing the node for sieges and wars, this is why a military mayor should be experienced in many kinds of pvp. Taxes, building stuff, policies for harvesting more wood... this is nothing!

    Sieges will be meta for all mayors, because if the node falls then it will be completely destroyed

    That's not really how running a city, node, or township works.

    City defense is only one aspect of running a node.

    Granted, we have fuck all knowledge of the purpose of a military node. But all nodes still need to run and meet their purpose.

    ..and nothing in this thread illuminates to us the player, of the mayors strategical and tactical acumen other than they can maybe win a duel or score some points.

    The best PvPer doesn't always make the best tactician or best strategist.

    Just like it doesn't mean they will be a good mayor.

    Mayors will pretty much sit on their asses and they will only worry about stuff when there's a siege against them, other them that any "administrative skill" is irrelevant

    No one cares if you are a "good administrator" if you have no idea how to set up a PvP defense and the node gets destroyed and ramsacked

    All "administrativa" things come under PvP
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • 7edmpp.jpg
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • SpifSpif Member
    If military node leadership is based on a monthly "military" score, then some people will just game that scoring system. If you read the Military node Barracks, there's a little bit of killing nearby boss monsters, so it's not totally PvP based.

    If military node leadership is based on a Battle Royal, then teaming is going to be part of that battle. That's not necessarily a bad thing. The person with the best PvP support team will win. That implies the winning person will be part of a group with multiple good PvP'rs to help run things.

    Politics will also play a role here, as a truly disliked person will have multiple factions gun for them "Whatever happens, don't let Snidely Backstabber win!". Also, someone who has been a bad mayor in the past can be taken out.

    Champions will have to be the way they go, as much as I would rather play my own character. Otherwise you will get an ultra-tank with 5 pocket healers as the winner. Or a stealther just avoiding combat. Also, Bards would be at a serious disadvantage

    Now, the compromise I think would work best is that come tournament day, the top XX highest people by monthly military score qualify to fight in the Battle Royale. This way slackers can't just jump in at the last minute. You have to work to qualify, as do the people you hope will be on your "team".
  • Spif wrote: »
    If military node leadership is based on a monthly "military" score, then some people will just game that scoring system. If you read the Military node Barracks, there's a little bit of killing nearby boss monsters, so it's not totally PvP based.

    If military node leadership is based on a Battle Royal, then teaming is going to be part of that battle. That's not necessarily a bad thing. The person with the best PvP support team will win. That implies the winning person will be part of a group with multiple good PvP'rs to help run things.

    Politics will also play a role here, as a truly disliked person will have multiple factions gun for them "Whatever happens, don't let Snidely Backstabber win!". Also, someone who has been a bad mayor in the past can be taken out.

    Champions will have to be the way they go, as much as I would rather play my own character. Otherwise you will get an ultra-tank with 5 pocket healers as the winner. Or a stealther just avoiding combat. Also, Bards would be at a serious disadvantage

    Now, the compromise I think would work best is that come tournament day, the top XX highest people by monthly military score qualify to fight in the Battle Royale. This way slackers can't just jump in at the last minute. You have to work to qualify, as do the people you hope will be on your "team".

    At the momment the idea is on: PvP score feeds the gladiator for the arena

    Anyway, people will always be like "oh, but then people will just this or just that", it's always "just" no matter what is said
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • SolvrynSolvryn Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Solvryn wrote: »
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Solvryn wrote: »
    Player can be good at PvP all they want but if they don't know shit about how to manage a node they're going to fail.

    I rather a decent player, not necessarily the best but manages a node extremely well be a mayor.

    All the mayor activities are nothing compared to preparing the node for sieges and wars, this is why a military mayor should be experienced in many kinds of pvp. Taxes, building stuff, policies for harvesting more wood... this is nothing!

    Sieges will be meta for all mayors, because if the node falls then it will be completely destroyed

    That's not really how running a city, node, or township works.

    City defense is only one aspect of running a node.

    Granted, we have fuck all knowledge of the purpose of a military node. But all nodes still need to run and meet their purpose.

    ..and nothing in this thread illuminates to us the player, of the mayors strategical and tactical acumen other than they can maybe win a duel or score some points.

    The best PvPer doesn't always make the best tactician or best strategist.

    Just like it doesn't mean they will be a good mayor.

    Mayors will pretty much sit on their asses and they will only worry about stuff when there's a siege against them, other them that any "administrative skill" is irrelevant

    No one cares if you are a "good administrator" if you have no idea how to set up a PvP defense and the node gets destroyed and ramsacked

    All "administrativa" things come under PvP

    No one knows what the function of a mayor is, because it's never been explained into great depth. Not to mention the mayor of a military node.

    And still, none of the suggestions I've seen really highlight or demonstrate tactical and strategic acumen.





  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Liniker wrote: »
    I must say, I'm not a fan of the champion idea, having to play a different character sucks, not sure about the pvp score tho
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Solvryn wrote: »
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Solvryn wrote: »
    Player can be good at PvP all they want but if they don't know shit about how to manage a node they're going to fail.

    I rather a decent player, not necessarily the best but manages a node extremely well be a mayor.

    All the mayor activities are nothing compared to preparing the node for sieges and wars, this is why a military mayor should be experienced in many kinds of pvp. Taxes, building stuff, policies for harvesting more wood... this is nothing!

    Sieges will be meta for all mayors, because if the node falls then it will be completely destroyed

    That's not really how running a city, node, or township works.

    City defense is only one aspect of running a node.

    Granted, we have fuck all knowledge of the purpose of a military node. But all nodes still need to run and meet their purpose.

    ..and nothing in this thread illuminates to us the player, of the mayors strategical and tactical acumen other than they can maybe win a duel or score some points.

    The best PvPer doesn't always make the best tactician or best strategist.

    Just like it doesn't mean they will be a good mayor.

    Mayors will pretty much sit on their asses and they will only worry about stuff when there's a siege against them, other them that any "administrative skill" is irrelevant

    No one cares if you are a "good administrator" if you have no idea how to set up a PvP defense and the node gets destroyed and ramsacked

    All "administrativa" things come under PvP

    There is no reason to inherently assume a mayor will lead a siege defense.

    They absolutely might, without a doubt. However, it is only a "might", as opposed to something players should expect.

    No one really cares if a mayor doesnt know how to set up a good defense, because someone else will probably be doing it anyway.
Sign In or Register to comment.