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!
Options
Military: Trial By Combat?
Rebutko
Member
When I first heard about the “military: trial by combat” election mode I was very excited thinking that it would be a pure 1v1 “gladiator” style system allowing players to fight on a “fair” basis for control of the node. A “strongest warleader” mindset, if you will.
The more that was explained about the system in the live stream the more discouraged I became. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it sounds like the player with the most support will have the most help when competing in the “trial by combat” objectives and therefore will take control of the node simply by having the most help. While there’s nothing wrong with this type of system it is discouraging that this system will essentially remove any hope of a skill based system to determine mayoral status thus leaving skill as a determining factor only in the PvE mode that will be base upon individual prowess.
I sure hope I am understanding this wrong because a 1v1 gladiator style system to determine the mayor would be absolutely epic! Anything short of this is a giant fail in my opinion and I can’t overstate how much of a squandered opportunity for many, many players like myself.
The more that was explained about the system in the live stream the more discouraged I became. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it sounds like the player with the most support will have the most help when competing in the “trial by combat” objectives and therefore will take control of the node simply by having the most help. While there’s nothing wrong with this type of system it is discouraging that this system will essentially remove any hope of a skill based system to determine mayoral status thus leaving skill as a determining factor only in the PvE mode that will be base upon individual prowess.
I sure hope I am understanding this wrong because a 1v1 gladiator style system to determine the mayor would be absolutely epic! Anything short of this is a giant fail in my opinion and I can’t overstate how much of a squandered opportunity for many, many players like myself.
1
Comments
When it was first mentioned as a possibility years ago, the discussion that happened on the forum (potentially the old forum, it was a while ago) basically resulted in a realization that 1v1 wouldn't happen.
We haven't talked on these forums about mayors for a while, but it has long been the understanding that all four node types will require many friends in order to become mayor.
This isn't a bad thing - if you are a good leader, you should already have people backing you up. If you don't have those people around you, you probably shouldn't be attempting to run as mayor.
It’s extremely discouraging that this system will have nothing at all to do with PvP skill I must say and I think squanders a hugely epic opportunity. I know there are many players like myself that would salivate at the chance to compete in epic content like this.
It’s funny because when I first heard about this system I *instinctively* knew it would be an epic gladiator style competition to determine leadership and I got very, very excited. Needless to say I am now very bummed!
It will still have a lot to do with PvP.
That said, I can see exactly why you would come to the conclusion about the system that you did. It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to come to, especially if you didn't get in to discussions on it with others.
I'll attempt to give you a very high level overview of how we arrived at the point we are now at, perhaps that will fill in some gaps as to ymwhy that perfectly reasonable conclusion you came to can't happen.
Intrepid; military node mayors are going to be decided by 1v1 combat!
The forum; so, only players running what ever happens to be the current meta build have a shot at being mayor?
Intrepid; now, we have champions instead of player classes to decide who is going to be mayor of military nodes!
The forum; so, mayors of military nodes will be the ones that spend the most amount of time getting good at fighting with these champions that serve no purpose outside of this competition, rather than it being a display of something that players may want from their mayor?
Intrepid;...
The forum;...
Intrepid;...
The forum;...
Intrepid; the mayor of military nodes will now be based on holding PvP objectives!
The questions I still have left about what is proposed all relate to timing of this hour long window. Will it coinside with castle sieges? If so, that makes it harder for people needing to defend a castle to become mayor of a military node, as they are likely to not be available on the Saturday of the week in question. This isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Second, am I still able to declare a siege on the node during this week, specifically over this hour long window?
Realistically, as a display of valid leadership skills, this is by far the best idea Intrepid have come uo with for military node leaders - it is actually asking them to demonstrate that they are the best at something they will likely have to do as said leader.
I think the fallacy lies in the first question that seemed to be skipped over because of a concern with what is currently “meta” having an advantage.
Considering each mode will have an “unfair” advantage I’m not sure what the problem is with “meta” characters having an advantage. That simply means that players who have invested in their character to be the most effective in PvP as possible will have an advantage, just like a rich player will have an advantage in the blind bidding mode.
I honestly don’t see an issue with meta builds having an advantage whatsoever especially considering the multitude of class options and rock/paper/scissor style of balance. I think someone that wins a battle royal in this type of environment would have to face various counter matchups and be an overall very skilled player.
There’s absolutely no question in my mind that a gladiator 1v1 style that determines leadership would be far more entertaining, engaging and just straight up epic than a Zerg of acolytes helping a streamer like asmongold achieve mayorship.
Please tell me you understand where I’m coming from!
with the team based system, i suppose there will be a limit on how many people can support one person running for major, so you wont have something like 100 vs 10.
there will also probably be penalties for those who afk or throw the game, hopefully. but you will most likely have a fair chance to win if you bring your people to help you.
there could still be an imbalance if a team loses on purpose vs another team to make that person a mayor, but people who compete fairly and are good still have a chance if they keep winning. also, the team being fed still has a chance to lose vs other teams who fight. and in the end, you would just be winning 1 point in a 10v10 for example, instead of having 19 people feeding 1 and giving him 19 points.
Are you at the level of a tactician or strategist?
In the real militaries, Generals were once Lieutenants where they learned tactics first. Then they progressed onto strategy.
Also think it would generate some really interesting conflicts that you take your best 15 fighters and go at it against rivial guilds and their best.
Like people have already mentioned, there are possibilities of players gaming the systems, not sure how you'd stop a mega guild putting forward lots of candidates and essentially taking groups in to protect/feed their chosen Mayor. But we'd have to test it and see how specifically the election system will work.
Yeah, it could easily just become another Scientific Node-style popularity contest without some sort of limit. And we already have the popularity contest in the Scientific Node.
Keep in mind, as we have discussed in the past, the design of this game is based on the assumption that guilds consist of a leader, and anywhere from a few dozen to a few thousand sycophants.
I do get it.
At first, I was very much a fan of the notion that it didn't matter if only meta classes could become mayors. However, after thinking about it, I can see how it could be bad.
If the game had 1v1 for mayor where only those with meta classes having a shot, everyone wanting to be mayor would have those classes. Then, when Intrepid rebalance the games combat (as will need to be done, multiple times), that meta changes.
All of a sudden, you have a situation where the pool of people capable of beign effective military node mayors are no longer capable of getting that position.
This really is a bad situation to be in - player confidence in military nodes being lost due to a combat balance is not a situation the game needs.
I'm not saying that the currently proposed system is the best possible, but it is better than either of the other two at the intended purpose of the system.
I fully agree a 1v1 competition may well be more "epic" or what ever, but if you are entering the competition for the sake of the competition, you shouldn't be the mayor of that node. Rather, the point of the competition is to find the mayor for the next month - as such being fairly mundane is actually to the benefit of everyone in that node.
The best thing about that is that it means a 1v1 arena competition can still be added to the game, should Intrepid want to add it. It just won't result in the winner being mayor.
Meta gold farmer has an advantage to gain mayorship over economic.
Meta PvE class has an advantage on the PvE competition mode. There will most certainly be meta PvE classes that will become mayor simply because they are better at completing quests.
Has the “meta” reason been used as a reason to change these systems? Of course not! It’s the nature of an mmo!
Throw us PvPers a bone here!!!
Games not designed around 1v1 combat so doesnt make sense to do 1v1 combat for it would make more sense being group combat where leader of winning group gets mayor.
Throw all the groups in random instance battle field together and see who last group standing :P
But how to stop collusion between groups? It's almost impossible. FFA battle royale? There would be teaming until the end. Objective based open world PvP? Team B will take stuff from Team C, but not defend it against Team A.
Head-to-head instanced Arena (or objective-based battleground, but just one team vs another team) in a single elimination bracket tournament would probably be the fairest indicator of combat skill
People would come from around the world to watch these events. It would be epic absolutely epic. I support a tournament for the leadership of military nodes. It's thematic, it's not gimmicky like the champions. The stories that would be told from such would be grand and epic. I am absolutely with the OP on this. I must say some of the feedback he's received i've taken into account to, and was very well written, sensical and respectful. What a great community to be apart of.
It also has the “underdog” theme which people love. Rather than the “biggest streamer wins” theme which I think most true gamers despise.
I mean, sure, it would be more interesting, but it would go against the general design of the game as a whole.
I think it was about two and a half years ago when I first mentioned that this seems to be the way the game is being designed. People didnt think kuch of it at the time, and many still dont. However, every time we get new information, this notion is just built upon more and more. IMO the assumption should be that every aspect of the game we don't have information on that the end result will be more along the lines of guild leaders win, everyone else suffers.
That is what Ashes *actually* is.
This is precisely why there should be a node for the “little guy.” A gladiator style “the strongest leads” system. This will produce a type of leader that is unique to this specific node - which I feel is the entire point of the node system
To me it just doesn’t make sense to have another popularity contest for the military mayor that is already covered in the technology node format. The best way to choose a military leader is actual PvP prowess that correlates to understanding of PvP mechanics and combat, not just someone who can muster the largest Zerg of players. Imo just the simple fact that a “nobody” could become a “somebody” because of their individual skill and garner the respect of a whole node is just incredibly epic, and fits the military ideal to a T.
all mayors are a popularity contest.
also, do you really think you will be a mayor winning 1vs1 against a guild feeding wins to one person, even if its a small guild?
Also, I would think win trading would be looked at as cheating and punished like it is in every other game I can think of.
why guilds should only be allowed 1 champion per guild? what happenes with players who want to compete and they are in the same guild? why u want to ruin their game cuz ur a solo player?
also, they could simply leave the guild, participate in the tournament and then rejoin the guild /facepalm
The mode could possibly be team based as long as it has some semblance of skill involved and not who can muster the larger Zerg of support players.
Having said that I do think 1v1 would be the most epic scenario possible. Of course there would have to be rules just like in every other mode. I’m sure the PvE mode doesn’t allow guild members to follow the solo player around with constant buffs because that would be considered an exploit.
Regardless I think we are getting a bit off track here. My basic point is that leadership is already covered with technology, economic is covered , PvE solo is covered, and PvP solo (or “skill based” if you will - could be a small team) should also be given a leg to stand on. Combining leadship with military when it’s already covered in technology and PvE getting a “solo” or “skill” option (if you will) while military doesn’t just doesn’t make sense to me.
If the general consensus is that nodes should all represent leadership ability why isn’t the PvE node based on who can lead the best raid against a PvE encounter? No - it’s a solo skill based option which is fantastic. That same respect should be shown to the PvP side.
This only applies to a point-based system. I woulda preferred a huge tournament bracket of 1v1s, until only one winner emerges.
Even if literally all other spots are taken by the same guild and you're the only one going against them, if your skill is higher than all of theirs - you'll be the mayor.
I did a rough write up of this system probably a year or more back, when we last discussed military elections. This wouldn't take long and it would be the best spectacle for the entire server (especially if it's a metro election).
The main time investment would be the boosting of your champion and your training in its combat, but that's the same as other elections where you'd be spending time making connections or money or quests. It's just that this method would be the most solo-friendly and have the most "warlord tyrant" kind of result, which imo would spice up the game.
Not just doesn't want to, is doubling down on it.
Expect the divine node to also require you to have a lot of people behind you to be successful.