Greetings, glorious testers!

Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.

To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.

Do you actually want the other non-voting election methods?

NerrorNerror Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
edited May 26 in General Discussion
What with Steven saying we won't get any other election method than voting at the start of alpha 2, it got me thinking about if I even care if they ever implement the other types.

It's a bit of a mixed bag for me, tbh.

The Economic node one, where the mayor is determined by the highest blind bidder is the least interesting to me. And the biggest downside is how it incentivizes RMT.

The Military node's trial by combat might be fun, but it really comes down to how well they implement it obviously. It's probably the one with the least downsides of the three non-voting methods I think, if they nail the implementation.

The Divine node's PvE favor based system is something I on the surface would be more likely to be successful at with my playstyle and time I can spend on it, but it also sounds exhausting and grindy if you want to be mayor more than one month in a row. The constant grind might kill the enjoyment for me, and there won't be much time to actually spend on being a good mayor, and dealing with all the politics.

All three methods suffer from the same thing, which is that the election methods require little to no political and leadership skills. Odds are we'll get people who are good at doing one of those three things, but suck at doing the actual job of being a mayor.

Obviously, we'll test it and see how it goes, but my current feeling is that I would be ok if Intrepid end up completely dropping the non-voting election methods.

Thoughts?
«13

Comments

  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    eh i think voting incentivizes rmt more than bidding. idc tho xD
  • OtrOtr Member, Alpha Two
    I want to see the other election methods too and see how players use them.
    They represent how things work in real life too, some are dictators, some have a lot of money to buy their position or control from outside. And some are good at doing things but not to use words to manipulate others.
    All 4 of them can lead to having a mayor who is not good at organizing and citizens will have ways to prevent them destroying the node.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Nerror wrote: »
    it got me thinking about if I even care if they ever implement the other types.

    I don't care, personally.

    I think they are all quite weak. Economic obviously encourages RMT. Divine encourages account sharing. Military encourages collusion and bribery (which also encourages RMT).

    That said, the vote is also not perfect in an MMORPG setting.
  • VoeltzVoeltz Member
    I do, but sadly all of them appear to be easily overridden by sheer numbers.

    Scientific- simply vote their candidate in (more people=more votes)
    Economic - zerg guild pools their gold to one player
    Military - zerg all other smaller groups to death
    Divine - Flag/declare war on any opposing party trying to build favor to slow them down or prevent them.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Yes, I want them all. Ideally the military one would go back to champion-based pvp, rather than just a fucking "the more friends you have the better".

    All other node elections are already based on how many friends you have, so I want at least one to NOT be about that.
  • oOKingOooOKingOo Member, Alpha Two
    edited May 26
    I do want the other methods 100%. I dont think voting is a cool systhem as the single systhem because then you will have to be a streamer to become mayor. The other mathods are all more open to players who are not famous. Its good if you need to be the best pvper or have the most money or be the most grindy but just being famous outside of the game shouldnt be required to become mayor. Its fine tho if its only one of 4 ways to become a mayor.
    Personally i think millitarry should be a 1v1 tournament instead of a battle royal just becasue you can cheat the systhem less.
    For the empyre !!!
  • LaetitianLaetitian Member
    edited May 26
    NiKr wrote: »
    Yes, I want them all. Ideally the military one would go back to champion-based pvp, rather than just a fucking "the more friends you have the better".

    All other node elections are already based on how many friends you have, so I want at least one to NOT be about that.
    Not saying it's not a threat, but to be fair - it doesn't necessarily have to be how many friends you have; it might potentially just be how many people agree with you, if you present sufficiently charismatic or persuasive politics. You probably can't do it alone, but I can absolutely see many larger clans being convinced to pass the chance to members of smaller clans with a clear political directive - even if those larger clans originally had members with political ambitions. Definitely not everywhere, but in some nodes with more civilised communities.

    And I get that you might just be saying "I want fun ways to make the strongest strategy or power house dominate the political tone of at least some node types, rather than non-gamified politics," and that's definitely an intriguing prospect to increase variety across the community interactions.
    Just pointing out that Highest number of supporters =/= highest number of friends.

    I've just been having this discussion with a friend I've been informing about Ashes, and my biggest conclusion here is: No matter what the outcome of the design decisions or these discussions will be, these will definitely be debates the community will have on a monthly basis once this game releases.
    The only one who can validate you for all the posts you didn't write is you.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Laetitian wrote: »
    Just pointing out that Highest number of supporters =/= highest number of friends.
    Potato potahto. I meant friends as "literally anyone who's willing to help you". Obviously groups should always have an advantage, but I want at least one node mayorship to not be determined simply by numbers.

    It would also make sense to have a government that's built on "the strongest person around gets to tell others what to do".
  • GrilledCheeseMojitoGrilledCheeseMojito Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Yes, I want them all. Ideally the military one would go back to champion-based pvp, rather than just a fucking "the more friends you have the better".

    All other node elections are already based on how many friends you have, so I want at least one to NOT be about that.

    If it's champion-based PvP I think it could be interesting. Note I don't necessarily think it'd be good, the devil's in the details here, but it'd be extremely interesting for it to be this way as it means any random citizen can come up to wrassle the mayor, and it would lead to a different kind of culture overall. Making it anything else is kind of boring honestly, I agree that having something purely determined by individual strength adds flavor in contrast.
    Grilled cheese always tastes better when you eat it together!
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Note I don't necessarily think it'd be good, the devil's in the details here, but it'd be extremely interesting for it to be this way as it means any random citizen can come up to wrassle the mayor, and it would lead to a different kind of culture overall. Making it anything else is kind of boring honestly, I agree that having something purely determined by individual strength adds flavor in contrast.
    Yep, that's what I want. Obviously there should be several ways to minimize the exploit of this system (namely thrown fights), but that's all in the design and testing. The current design doesn't really need any testing, cause it simply "zerg = good".

    Military nodes being, potentially, controlled by sole tyrant travelers would add so much fun to the servers. And if one of those tyrants uses his power for absolute good - that's a huge piece of game history to tell, and a potential attractor to the server as well.
  • GrilledCheeseMojitoGrilledCheeseMojito Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Military nodes being, potentially, controlled by sole tyrant travelers would add so much fun to the servers. And if one of those tyrants uses his power for absolute good - that's a huge piece of game history to tell, and a potential attractor to the server as well.

    That's a story I definitely want to tell. Someone whose will to change things is so strong they train nonstop to beat the crap out of some dumb tyrant and run a tight ship ever since, without needing to convince 1000 people to make accounts and join a guild. That could be a very strong differentiator for Ashes, and I feel like Intrepid is underusing the potential that this model could hold as a result. If you want to be bold and innovative, you need to think outside the guild box.
    Grilled cheese always tastes better when you eat it together!
  • OtrOtr Member, Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Note I don't necessarily think it'd be good, the devil's in the details here, but it'd be extremely interesting for it to be this way as it means any random citizen can come up to wrassle the mayor, and it would lead to a different kind of culture overall. Making it anything else is kind of boring honestly, I agree that having something purely determined by individual strength adds flavor in contrast.
    Yep, that's what I want. Obviously there should be several ways to minimize the exploit of this system (namely thrown fights), but that's all in the design and testing. The current design doesn't really need any testing, cause it simply "zerg = good".

    Military nodes being, potentially, controlled by sole tyrant travelers would add so much fun to the servers. And if one of those tyrants uses his power for absolute good - that's a huge piece of game history to tell, and a potential attractor to the server as well.

    if the military vote ends up being a zerg vs zerg, then might be similar to the democratic vote. The difference being that skill and gear can grant you more "weight" to influence the result.
  • NerrorNerror Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    What if the economic node bids are in Glint rather than Gold? It kills the RMT incentive, since Glint can't be traded, and puts the onus on the potential mayor to get friends to grind Glint with them, and letting the wannabe mayor be master looter.

    If they wanted to add some PvX chaos into the whole thing, stolen glint could be used as well at one fourth the value perhaps. The downside to that is it reintroduces RMT again, since stolen glint can be traded.
  • RocketFarmerRocketFarmer Member, Alpha Two
    There’s a trust factor in this game that players won’t screw things up no matter what method of selecting a mayor.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Nerror wrote: »
    What if the economic node bids are in Glint rather than Gold? It kills the RMT incentive, since Glint can't be traded, and puts the onus on the potential mayor to get friends to grind Glint with them, and letting the wannabe mayor be master looter.
    I kinda expect this to be the case tbh. This is ultimately still a "who's got more/stronger friends" situation, but at least it would take slightly longer for the guilds to boost their candidate to the top, and this longer period would also lead to more GvGs, which is a huge plus.
  • tautautautau Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I like having different selection methods for different node types.

    As discussed above, there are ways for large groups to attempt to manipulate all the different methods, but I suspect that the direct elections would be the easiest to manipulate so I am glad we have the other methods as well. It will be fascinating to see what happens over the course of time.

    The concept of mayors and their selection is just one of the many delightful innovations which AoC is giving us. Incidentally, these innovations are what make other discussions of server mergers, player retention and comparisons to other games somewhat irrelevant.
  • PercimesPercimes Member
    I think all voting methods will be interesting at the lower stage of a node, village. Past that, when things get more serious, players will act as players and game the system as much as they can. So, places doomed to stay small, either because their progression is locked in their ZoI or to far off to ever gain the population to grow past stage 3, will be the nodes where those who want to actually use the mechanics "as intended" might find them.

    But on the personal side of the subject, I don't really care about it.
    Be bold. Be brave. Roll a Tulnar !
  • AlpineWAlpineW Member, Alpha Two
    I want all types of election systems, but realistically in areas controlled by larger guilds it won’t matter what the election type is. In strategically important nodes, guild leadership or their alts will always end up as mayor.

    Note that I’m not strictly complaining about this. In fact I can’t wait for another game where guilds actually mean something; I just think that the only true elections will happen in very small, backwater type nodes that are lower level/don’t have a huge strategic value.
  • AszkalonAszkalon Member, Alpha Two
    Nerror wrote: »

    I see the Pros and Cons here, i think.

    Voting sounds pretty clean to me, but it is kinda same as prone and vulnerable to "Corruption" as bidding with the highest Money - and also same as flawed as in Trial by Combat. Well i guess in the latter i just mentioned People with superior Reflexes and Skills may find some fun in. ;)

    " If " - and that may as well be the Case,
    the Person with the highest Money as a Bidder for becoming Mayor is very good at gathering Money : it might benefit the Node real good.

    I am aware i sound naive. It "might" benefit the Node. If such a Mayor will care for his Node and be it only for the Money he can make from it, is a different Page. ^.^


    I forgot the fourth Option if there is any. Oh dear. And this as someone who is so incredibly thirsty for Knowledge about Nodes. x'D
    a50whcz343yn.png
    ✓ Occasional Roleplayer
    ✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
  • OtrOtr Member, Alpha Two
    Percimes wrote: »
    I think all voting methods will be interesting at the lower stage of a node, village. Past that, when things get more serious, players will act as players and game the system as much as they can. So, places doomed to stay small, either because their progression is locked in their ZoI or to far off to ever gain the population to grow past stage 3, will be the nodes where those who want to actually use the mechanics "as intended" might find them.

    But on the personal side of the subject, I don't really care about it.

    I doubt there will be such a case that node is " too far off to ever gain the population to grow past stage 3".
    Players will want to have freeholds and some will want to be mayors and if a node can grow, will grow.
  • DiamahtDiamaht Member, Braver of Worlds, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Voeltz wrote: »
    I do, but sadly all of them appear to be easily overridden by sheer numbers.

    Scientific- simply vote their candidate in (more people=more votes)
    Economic - zerg guild pools their gold to one player
    Military - zerg all other smaller groups to death
    Divine - Flag/declare war on any opposing party trying to build favor to slow them down or prevent them.

    I think no matter what method you come up with numbers will almost always prevail. You will still have multiple large organizations who compete with each other.

    However, this system provides differing methods. The variety will suit multiple types of player organizations. If you only have a single method, then all player organizations will conform to that and will be run and structured the exact same way.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I prefer none of them.

    They're all just varied ways to create drama anyway, as we understand them now.

    Since they're all easily gamed too, it's wasted potential, to me.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • VoeltzVoeltz Member
    Considering the game isn't going to be balanced 1v1, it made sense for them to change Military node elections. However, I think an 8v8 LTS tournament would be better than another zergfest. This would actually require skill to win instead of being yet another matter of numbers.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Voeltz wrote: »
    Considering the game isn't going to be balanced 1v1, it made sense for them to change Military node elections.
    From how it was described, the champions wouldn't be based on in-game classes, so balancing would be completely different. Or at least that's how I understood it.
  • VoeltzVoeltz Member
    Diamaht wrote: »
    I think no matter what method you come up with numbers will almost always prevail. You will still have multiple large organizations who compete with each other.

    However, this system provides differing methods. The variety will suit multiple types of player organizations. If you only have a single method, then all player organizations will conform to that and will be run and structured the exact same way.
    I disagree. Complicated issues don't have simple solutions, they require more in depth thinking and answers which aren't always obvious. Large organizations aren't the problem though, it's the poor design that allows their numbers such monumental influence over all elections. It's fine if some elections operate that way like scientific, but definitely not all of them. In some instances, the most skilled should win or the most dedicated. It doesn't matter if certain orgs are better "suited" for certain election types if they can all be gamed the same way.
  • tautautautau Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    There seems to be an underlying assumption on the part of most of the posters above (myself included): The assumption is that being a Mayor will give an advantage to the friends of the Mayor.

    This may be true.

    Or it might not. What does the mayor do? They make decisions on node development, such as which buildings to build and upgrade. They make decisions on node diplomacy, who to declare a persona non grata, and similar things. Many of the decisions, particularly the important ones, require substantial agreement of the citizens of the node.

    Some people may enjoy being mayor, a lot of others will consider it to be too much thankless work and a lot of bother. But I am interested to hear which of the Mayoral decisions you all think would be worth a guild investing a lot of effort into so they can choose the decision.
  • DiamahtDiamaht Member, Braver of Worlds, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Voeltz wrote: »
    Diamaht wrote: »
    I think no matter what method you come up with numbers will almost always prevail. You will still have multiple large organizations who compete with each other.

    However, this system provides differing methods. The variety will suit multiple types of player organizations. If you only have a single method, then all player organizations will conform to that and will be run and structured the exact same way.
    I disagree. Complicated issues don't have simple solutions, they require more in depth thinking and answers which aren't always obvious. Large organizations aren't the problem though, it's the poor design that allows their numbers such monumental influence over all elections. It's fine if some elections operate that way like scientific, but definitely not all of them. In some instances, the most skilled should win or the most dedicated. It doesn't matter if certain orgs are better "suited" for certain election types if they can all be gamed the same way.

    You need to be more specific. What part is "bad design"? How should "most skilled" be defined? What actions make you the "most dedicated".

    There seems to be an assumption that the largest guilds are the lowest skilled, when it's usually the opposite. The best players often attract others to them and their numbers grow. At the same time, the best players will commonly like the resources and opportunities provided by some the most successful guilds and will seeks to join then. Not much you are going to do about this. It's predictable human behavior.

    What you can do, is attempt to create a variety of cultures by incentivizing certain types of players to group together. You can use incentives as levers to make that happen.

    You will never create a system that can't be "gamed" and you can't make it fair (what ever that means). What you can do is create a variety of political and social environments that players can choose to exist in.

  • GoalidGoalid Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Yes, I want them all. Ideally the military one would go back to champion-based pvp, rather than just a fucking "the more friends you have the better".

    All other node elections are already based on how many friends you have, so I want at least one to NOT be about that.

    Seriously, when I heard they changed the system to this mass PvP event I was so disappointed
    Tgz0d27.png
  • KilionKilion Member, Alpha Two
    I am in favor of different voting systems because each of them has its own flaws and advantages. It also creates divide (and therefore incentives for PvP) amongst the players and lastly will support long term migration of ciizens. Growing alongside an economic Node might be all fun and games, but once it reaches stage 5 or 6, big trading organizations will take over their political ranks; players who do not benefits from that will naturally be inclined to sell their property in the Node (usually with larger profits the earlier they joined) and move on to the next Node - this is a development that could stretch over months. On the other hand it undermines the Nodes strength, so those with the resources to become mayor will now face the choice: (A) Give up on the power to find a mayor who can stabilize the grown node or (B) hold on to the power which bares the risk of destroying the wealth they themseves have created.

    I think these kinds of conflicts amonst players as well as within them is exactly what we would want to see if the world ought to change continuously.
    The answer is probably >>> HERE <<<
  • VoeltzVoeltz Member
    Diamaht wrote: »
    You need to be more specific. What part is "bad design"?
    I already broke it down in the simplest way on my first post. If you have 4 election methods that all result in being zerg dominated, there's no point in having them. You're wasting your time. It's pretty obvious that's what will happen with the current design.
    How should "most skilled" be defined? What actions make you the "most dedicated".
    Most skilled in combat. That can't realistically be determined in a 50v300.
    Most dedicated to the religious organization that resides in the node. Whoever has achieved the top rank within that org and maintains it.
    There seems to be an assumption that the largest guilds are the lowest skilled, when it's usually the opposite. The best players often attract others to them and their numbers grow. At the same time, the best players will commonly like the resources and opportunities provided by some the most successful guilds and will seeks to join then. Not much you are going to do about this. It's predictable human behavior
    Why are you so defensive about zerg guilds? This isn't about them being low skill, it's about wanting node types to actually mean something and be unique, that includes their election processes.
    You will never create a system that can't be "gamed" and you can't make it fair (what ever that means). What you can do is create a variety of political and social environments that players can choose to exist in.
    Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Sign In or Register to comment.