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

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Diamaht

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.

Azherae

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.

Voeltz

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.

Ludullu

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.

Voeltz

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.

tautau

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.

Diamaht

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.

Goalid

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

Kilion

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.

Voeltz

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.

Flanker

Nerror wrote: »

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.

If we use that logic, then literally anything that requires gold incentivizes RMT.

At this point, we can only say that it may and most likely will be a decent gold sink.

Jhoren

Flanker wrote: »

Nerror wrote: »

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.

If we use that logic, then literally anything that requires gold incentivizes RMT.

Yes, it does, and that's the basic reality nowadays. But there are different degrees of importance and potential for harmful impact on the game. Being able to buy the mayorship with deep enough pockets in real life has a fairly significant impact on the game due to the power of the position. It ranks up there with being able to buy all legendary gear at least.

JamesSunderland

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.

tbh at this point i just want the military mayor to be decided in a huge 1v1 gladiator tournament with a nice randomized bracket. Far from perfect but in my opinion the best way to deal with the "too many friends problem".

Ludullu

JamesSunderland wrote: »

tbh at this point i just want the military mayor to be decided in a huge 1v1 gladiator tournament with a nice randomized bracket. Far from perfect but in my opinion the best way to deal with the "too many friends problem".

Yep, I was thinking along the same lines.

Diamaht

Voeltz wrote: »

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.

For the most part I tend to be in smaller guilds, so not sure what you mean about defensive.

It seems like you are wanting the system to ensure that smaller guilds or even lone individuals rule. But why should that be the case? I think the whole point is to create rivalry and drama between player organizations and give a variety of ways that can occur.

Dygz

Nerror wrote: »

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.
Thoughts?

Well, the election methods should impact how people with different playstyles have an opportunity to become Mayors. And should also supplement the Sother paths of character progression besides just the Adventurer path.

If I want to become the Mayor of a Divine Node, especially after Max Adventurer Level, I should be focusing on maintaining a high standing in the Religious progression path.

If I want to become the Mayor of an Economic Node, I should probably be focusing heavily on Artisan progression.

@Vaknar [CLARIFICATION?]
That being said...
I'm more interested, I think, in the other ways that a Divine Node would differ from a Scientifc Node beside just the Voting system. The Voting system is of least interest.
So, I definitely want to see the following at the start of Alpha 2:

At the Village Stage, the Economic Node’s Unique Building is the Market, which serves as a center for the transaction of goods and services within the area. Players can use the Market to access features including (but not limited to) some of the following:

The Market – Level 3 (Village Stage)
Auction House where raw resources and processed goods may be posted
Trade Hauling Stables for Tier 1 Mule Training
Player Shop Areas for Personal Shop deployment and Rental Stalls
Private Property Sale Certificates
Hunter’s Post (higher redemption for Tier 1 Creature Bounties)
____

The Library - Level 3 (Village Stage)
At the Village Stage, the Scientific Node’s Unique Building is the Library, which records the history of the server. Players can use the Library to access information, including (but not limited to) the following:

History of narrative events and when they occurred
Locations and last known quantity of gatherable resources
Locations and inhabitants of new Dungeons or POIs (Points of Interest) that have spawned
Runic Power Stones for armor
Common armor and weapon recipes (Level 25 and under)

Hopefully we will see at least that much at the beginning of Alpha 2 - preferably the equivalent of that much for all 4 Node Types.

If Steven was saying that we will see that much but all 4 Node Types will only use the Voting method for government... that seems fine.

If Steven was saying that Alpha 2 will begin with just the Scientific Node attributes online -- that is pathetic for a key Pillar that has been in development for 7 years.
Most of what we've seen so far is pretty much generic MMORPG content.
I backed Ashes of Creation primarily to support the development of the Nodes System, so for the beginning of Alpha 2, I would like to see more, after 7 years of development, than just the attributes for one Node Type.

Dygz

tautau wrote: »

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.

Yeah, it's not just the Mayor, alone.
There is also a Council that contributes to some of the decision-making - supposedly.
And I think those Council positions are not simply appointed by the Mayor.

Depraved

Voeltz wrote: »

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.

why there is no point in having them? i mean the point is that you can win by having good social skills. different people are good at different things. not everybody can be a good warrior, politician, artist or engineer. if you do a bad job as a major, you probably wont win the next month.

anyways, not all nodes will have the same amount of players. most players will be citizens of a few nodes, including rival guilds with lots of members who will fight each other for majorship. other nodes will have lower pop and it will be easier for any individual to win.

i like the idea of doing 1v1 for majorship, but if you think about it, who is a better leader, the soldier who can beat anyone in 1v1 or the general who is really good at controlling armies, good with strategy and can even win outnumbered?

Diamaht

You also have to think, are the lone wolf or small guild member the best person to lead a large node?

At the very least, the large guild leaders are able to gain and keep wide spread support. They will do a better job at leading a node through a hostile seige.

I feel like the gladiator approach will lead to nothing but instability. A fun story for sure but people may just not choose that option as time goes on.

Ludullu

Diamaht wrote: »

I feel like the gladiator approach will lead to nothing but instability. A fun story for sure but people may just not choose that option as time goes on.

That's the point though. Fun stories are way better for the game than "best people to lead". Drama brings interest, interest brings people.

Child Item