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.
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.
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".
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".
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.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
you can have fun stories in group battles as well ;3
you can have fun stories in group battles as well ;3
Groups imply that this group will be behind the mayor. I want the possibility that some random solo player can win a mayorship, if they're good enough at champion combat.
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.
you can have fun stories in group battles as well ;3
True
And are even better if you are with the right people.
you can have fun stories in group battles as well ;3
Groups imply that this group will be behind the mayor. I want the possibility that some random solo play can win a mayorship, if they're good enough at champion combat.
Why not have that as the option for lower tiers like 1 to 3, and then a larger group for tiers 4 and 5?
Edit: Then as the "local champion" gains a following, he'll have numbers necessary to challenge a larger node
Why not have that as the option for lower tiers like 1 to 3, and then a larger group for theirs 4 and 5?
Cause I want sole tyrants at the peak of power. And if military nodes are seen as "bad" due to this mechanic - they won't be at max stage either way, so it's a self-resolving problem.
Literally everything in the game is more beneficial for a group and is more easily controlled by a bigger group. Why not have a single solo option?
You also have to think, are the lone wolf or small guild member the best person to lead a large node?
I don't think the idea of the nodes are for them to be lead by "the best person", designwise.
Like the Econ node will be led by the wealthiest, and the scientific by the most popular, i desire the military node to be lead by the strongest, in my opinion the worthiest to hold power.
Why not have that as the option for lower tiers like 1 to 3, and then a larger group for theirs 4 and 5?
Cause I want sole tyrants at the peak of power. And if military nodes are seen as "bad" due to this mechanic - they won't be at max stage either way, so it's a self-resolving problem.
Literally everything in the game is more beneficial for a group and is more easily controlled by a bigger group. Why not have a single solo option?
You also have to think, are the lone wolf or small guild member the best person to lead a large node?
I don't think the idea of the nodes are for them to be lead by "the best person", designwise.
Like the Econ node will be led by the wealthiest, and the scientific by the most popular, i desire the military node to be lead by the strongest, in my opinion the worthiest to hold power.
Well if they can design it to work, then what the hell, why not?
I suppose if it results in military node not being chosen as time goes on they'll just have to change it.
You also have to think, are the lone wolf or small guild member the best person to lead a large node?
I don't think the idea of the nodes are for them to be lead by "the best person", designwise.
Like the Econ node will be led by the wealthiest, and the scientific by the most popular, i desire the military node to be lead by the strongest, in my opinion the worthiest to hold power.
My problem with this is actually on the marketing/appeal side.
Even if we're going back to 'the old design', just 'designing for the benefit to go to Orgs/strength' or 'to create friction', is a relatively low bar, so I'd expect a ton of upcoming games with similar designs because you don't really have to do anything.
You also have to think, are the lone wolf or small guild member the best person to lead a large node?
I don't think the idea of the nodes are for them to be lead by "the best person", designwise.
Like the Econ node will be led by the wealthiest, and the scientific by the most popular, i desire the military node to be lead by the strongest, in my opinion the worthiest to hold power.
My problem with this is actually on the marketing/appeal side.
Even if we're going back to 'the old design', just 'designing for the benefit to go to Orgs/strength' or 'to create friction', is a relatively low bar, so I'd expect a ton of upcoming games with similar designs because you don't really have to do anything.
Do you think it's impact on the "marketing/appeal side" would be that meaningful?
Because even with the possible threat of the "ton of upcoming games with similar designs" i personally don't.
You also have to think, are the lone wolf or small guild member the best person to lead a large node?
I don't think the idea of the nodes are for them to be lead by "the best person", designwise.
Like the Econ node will be led by the wealthiest, and the scientific by the most popular, i desire the military node to be lead by the strongest, in my opinion the worthiest to hold power.
My problem with this is actually on the marketing/appeal side.
Even if we're going back to 'the old design', just 'designing for the benefit to go to Orgs/strength' or 'to create friction', is a relatively low bar, so I'd expect a ton of upcoming games with similar designs because you don't really have to do anything.
Do you think it's impact on the "marketing/appeal side" would be that meaningful?
Because even with the possible threat of the "ton of upcoming games with similar designs" i personally don't.
I can't be sure, because there's always demographic bias, but I can say that I think literally everyone I know interested in this game, if there was generally just a lot of 'rise and fall drama', would choose to play something else.
It's definitely not 'Ashes is terrible', it would be top of the list compared to anything that exists now other than what we play already, but other offerings (TL, Pax Dei, AA2, etc) would have to be really bad.
I think it's because playing something simple implemented well is just overall more fun for people I know, long term, than playing something complex with one or two meaningful flaws, because of just how frustration happens.
You also have to think, are the lone wolf or small guild member the best person to lead a large node?
I don't think the idea of the nodes are for them to be lead by "the best person", designwise.
Like the Econ node will be led by the wealthiest, and the scientific by the most popular, i desire the military node to be lead by the strongest, in my opinion the worthiest to hold power.
My problem with this is actually on the marketing/appeal side.
Even if we're going back to 'the old design', just 'designing for the benefit to go to Orgs/strength' or 'to create friction', is a relatively low bar, so I'd expect a ton of upcoming games with similar designs because you don't really have to do anything.
Do you think it's impact on the "marketing/appeal side" would be that meaningful?
Because even with the possible threat of the "ton of upcoming games with similar designs" i personally don't.
I can't be sure, because there's always demographic bias, but I can say that I think literally everyone I know interested in this game, if there was generally just a lot of 'rise and fall drama', would choose to play something else.
It's definitely not 'Ashes is terrible', it would be top of the list compared to anything that exists now other than what we play already, but other offerings (TL, Pax Dei, AA2, etc) would have to be really bad.
I think it's because playing something simple implemented well is just overall more fun for people I know, long term, than playing something complex with one or two meaningful flaws, because of just how frustration happens.
I can see the point, it really becomes a matter of priorities of what designs people will favor over others when possible design similarities appear on the offerings, i think my personal bias may blind me when evaluating such designs even if i'm well versed in the concepts and designs of the other offerings.
You also have to think, are the lone wolf or small guild member the best person to lead a large node?
I don't think the idea of the nodes are for them to be lead by "the best person", designwise.
Like the Econ node will be led by the wealthiest, and the scientific by the most popular, i desire the military node to be lead by the strongest, in my opinion the worthiest to hold power.
My problem with this is actually on the marketing/appeal side.
Even if we're going back to 'the old design', just 'designing for the benefit to go to Orgs/strength' or 'to create friction', is a relatively low bar, so I'd expect a ton of upcoming games with similar designs because you don't really have to do anything.
Do you think it's impact on the "marketing/appeal side" would be that meaningful?
Because even with the possible threat of the "ton of upcoming games with similar designs" i personally don't.
I can't be sure, because there's always demographic bias, but I can say that I think literally everyone I know interested in this game, if there was generally just a lot of 'rise and fall drama', would choose to play something else.
It's definitely not 'Ashes is terrible', it would be top of the list compared to anything that exists now other than what we play already, but other offerings (TL, Pax Dei, AA2, etc) would have to be really bad.
I think it's because playing something simple implemented well is just overall more fun for people I know, long term, than playing something complex with one or two meaningful flaws, because of just how frustration happens.
I can see the point, it really becomes a matter of priorities of what designs people will favor over others when possible design similarities appear on the offerings, i think my personal bias may blind me when evaluating such designs even if i'm well versed in the concepts and designs of the other offerings.
Given the fact that the "solo king" idea could wind up not working, I wouldn't market it too heavily unless it's a hill they are fine dying on.
You also have to think, are the lone wolf or small guild member the best person to lead a large node?
I don't think the idea of the nodes are for them to be lead by "the best person", designwise.
Like the Econ node will be led by the wealthiest, and the scientific by the most popular, i desire the military node to be lead by the strongest, in my opinion the worthiest to hold power.
My problem with this is actually on the marketing/appeal side.
Even if we're going back to 'the old design', just 'designing for the benefit to go to Orgs/strength' or 'to create friction', is a relatively low bar, so I'd expect a ton of upcoming games with similar designs because you don't really have to do anything.
Do you think it's impact on the "marketing/appeal side" would be that meaningful?
Because even with the possible threat of the "ton of upcoming games with similar designs" i personally don't.
I can't be sure, because there's always demographic bias, but I can say that I think literally everyone I know interested in this game, if there was generally just a lot of 'rise and fall drama', would choose to play something else.
It's definitely not 'Ashes is terrible', it would be top of the list compared to anything that exists now other than what we play already, but other offerings (TL, Pax Dei, AA2, etc) would have to be really bad.
I think it's because playing something simple implemented well is just overall more fun for people I know, long term, than playing something complex with one or two meaningful flaws, because of just how frustration happens.
I can see the point, it really becomes a matter of priorities of what designs people will favor over others when possible design similarities appear on the offerings, i think my personal bias may blind me when evaluating such designs even if i'm well versed in the concepts and designs of the other offerings.
Given the fact that the "solo king" idea could wind up not working, I wouldn't market it too heavily unless it's a hill they are fine dying on.
You see, the other idea could also wind up not working, and even so i still don't think marketing it or not would be "a hill to die on".
You also have to think, are the lone wolf or small guild member the best person to lead a large node?
I don't think the idea of the nodes are for them to be lead by "the best person", designwise.
Like the Econ node will be led by the wealthiest, and the scientific by the most popular, i desire the military node to be lead by the strongest, in my opinion the worthiest to hold power.
My problem with this is actually on the marketing/appeal side.
Even if we're going back to 'the old design', just 'designing for the benefit to go to Orgs/strength' or 'to create friction', is a relatively low bar, so I'd expect a ton of upcoming games with similar designs because you don't really have to do anything.
Do you think it's impact on the "marketing/appeal side" would be that meaningful?
Because even with the possible threat of the "ton of upcoming games with similar designs" i personally don't.
I can't be sure, because there's always demographic bias, but I can say that I think literally everyone I know interested in this game, if there was generally just a lot of 'rise and fall drama', would choose to play something else.
It's definitely not 'Ashes is terrible', it would be top of the list compared to anything that exists now other than what we play already, but other offerings (TL, Pax Dei, AA2, etc) would have to be really bad.
I think it's because playing something simple implemented well is just overall more fun for people I know, long term, than playing something complex with one or two meaningful flaws, because of just how frustration happens.
I can see the point, it really becomes a matter of priorities of what designs people will favor over others when possible design similarities appear on the offerings, i think my personal bias may blind me when evaluating such designs even if i'm well versed in the concepts and designs of the other offerings.
Given the fact that the "solo king" idea could wind up not working, I wouldn't market it too heavily unless it's a hill they are fine dying on.
You see, the other idea could also wind up not working, and even so i still don't think marketing it or not would be "a hill to die on".
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?
Best way to decide the Military Node Mayor is for them to form a team and show off their strategic and tactical prowess.
They're doing something of the sort, which is good.
Buy in for an Economic Node makes sense.
Divine Nodes I have no opinion on.
I don't really think voting systems for Mayors are always the go to. Sometimes people need to prove themselves rather than be the center of a cult of personality.
you can have fun stories in group battles as well ;3
Groups imply that this group will be behind the mayor. I want the possibility that some random solo play can win a mayorship, if they're good enough at champion combat.
Even with Champions, this was never going to happen.
The plan with them was that you would need to gear them up - the assumption being that this would be a monthly thing (it makes no sense for it to be a permanant thing).
Thus, the player with the best support network to gear up their Champion was always going to win.
Thus, the player with the best support network to gear up their Champion was always going to win.
We had no clue what you'd need to do to gear them up though. If Intrepid truly pursued a soloable mayorship - they could make that gearing a soloable activity. Hell, I'd definitely expect it to be that way.
Thus, the player with the best support network to gear up their Champion was always going to win.
We had no clue what you'd need to do to gear them up though. If Intrepid truly pursued a soloable mayorship - they could make that gearing a soloable activity. Hell, I'd definitely expect it to be that way.
Even if it was solo, unless it was purely random drops from any mob in the game, or was instanced with multipe entrances to said instance, you would still need a group or more.
If me and my guild decide that we want to be mayor of a military node with Champions as the deciding mechanic, we would obviously go out of our way to prevent others from gearing up their champion.
Sure, we never got any info at all on it, but since everything else in Ashes needs the backing of a lot of people, I see no reason why that would have been any different.
you can have fun stories in group battles as well ;3
Groups imply that this group will be behind the mayor. I want the possibility that some random solo player can win a mayorship, if they're good enough at champion combat.
That's how I remember it was described on wiki some time ago. And it is sill mentioned.
Previously the developers were considering champions that fought in a last-man-standing arena.[8][9][10][11][12]
But if the best fighter can become mayor, it means the best 20 players on server can hold mayor position forever month after month in all military nodes.
We need a bit more dynamic.
Maybe you can say mayors should not be able to hold their position more than 2 months consecutively and then they should not be able to return soon. But that might be too democratic.
An 8v8 last team standing tournament would strike a nice balance between being able to lead a team and prove your worth in combat. The current system is too much like the others and can be summed up to a popularity contest. They've already discussed having an in node arena of some sorts, which can easily be dual purpose for other activities. It uses group combat which is what the game will be balanced around, and it gives smaller guilds/groups an opportunity to face off with Zergs on an even playing field. So much of the game already benefits zergs, there should be at least some facets of the game that aren't completely overrun by them.
Comments
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.
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.
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".
Aren't we all sinners?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
you can have fun stories in group battles as well ;3
True
And are even better if you are with the right people.
Why not have that as the option for lower tiers like 1 to 3, and then a larger group for tiers 4 and 5?
Edit: Then as the "local champion" gains a following, he'll have numbers necessary to challenge a larger node
Literally everything in the game is more beneficial for a group and is more easily controlled by a bigger group. Why not have a single solo option?
I don't think the idea of the nodes are for them to be lead by "the best person", designwise.
Like the Econ node will be led by the wealthiest, and the scientific by the most popular, i desire the military node to be lead by the strongest, in my opinion the worthiest to hold power.
Aren't we all sinners?
Well if they can design it to work, then what the hell, why not?
I suppose if it results in military node not being chosen as time goes on they'll just have to change it.
My problem with this is actually on the marketing/appeal side.
Even if we're going back to 'the old design', just 'designing for the benefit to go to Orgs/strength' or 'to create friction', is a relatively low bar, so I'd expect a ton of upcoming games with similar designs because you don't really have to do anything.
Do you think it's impact on the "marketing/appeal side" would be that meaningful?
Because even with the possible threat of the "ton of upcoming games with similar designs" i personally don't.
Aren't we all sinners?
I can't be sure, because there's always demographic bias, but I can say that I think literally everyone I know interested in this game, if there was generally just a lot of 'rise and fall drama', would choose to play something else.
It's definitely not 'Ashes is terrible', it would be top of the list compared to anything that exists now other than what we play already, but other offerings (TL, Pax Dei, AA2, etc) would have to be really bad.
I think it's because playing something simple implemented well is just overall more fun for people I know, long term, than playing something complex with one or two meaningful flaws, because of just how frustration happens.
I can see the point, it really becomes a matter of priorities of what designs people will favor over others when possible design similarities appear on the offerings, i think my personal bias may blind me when evaluating such designs even if i'm well versed in the concepts and designs of the other offerings.
Aren't we all sinners?
Given the fact that the "solo king" idea could wind up not working, I wouldn't market it too heavily unless it's a hill they are fine dying on.
You see, the other idea could also wind up not working, and even so i still don't think marketing it or not would be "a hill to die on".
Aren't we all sinners?
Oh I know, I'm more joking than anything else.
I'm certainly not a marketing expert.
Best way to decide the Military Node Mayor is for them to form a team and show off their strategic and tactical prowess.
They're doing something of the sort, which is good.
Buy in for an Economic Node makes sense.
Divine Nodes I have no opinion on.
I don't really think voting systems for Mayors are always the go to. Sometimes people need to prove themselves rather than be the center of a cult of personality.
Even with Champions, this was never going to happen.
The plan with them was that you would need to gear them up - the assumption being that this would be a monthly thing (it makes no sense for it to be a permanant thing).
Thus, the player with the best support network to gear up their Champion was always going to win.
Even if it was solo, unless it was purely random drops from any mob in the game, or was instanced with multipe entrances to said instance, you would still need a group or more.
If me and my guild decide that we want to be mayor of a military node with Champions as the deciding mechanic, we would obviously go out of our way to prevent others from gearing up their champion.
Sure, we never got any info at all on it, but since everything else in Ashes needs the backing of a lot of people, I see no reason why that would have been any different.
Ashes really isn't a game for the solo player.
That's how I remember it was described on wiki some time ago. And it is sill mentioned.
Previously the developers were considering champions that fought in a last-man-standing arena.[8][9][10][11][12]
But if the best fighter can become mayor, it means the best 20 players on server can hold mayor position forever month after month in all military nodes.
We need a bit more dynamic.
Maybe you can say mayors should not be able to hold their position more than 2 months consecutively and then they should not be able to return soon. But that might be too democratic.