Question/concern about the military node mayor selection system.

I have a concern about the mayor selection system of the military node.

I believe there's going to be a battle royale/arena of sorts to select who the most 'powerful' player is of that node, which in return will become mayor. How will 'peeling' be tackled? If members of the same guild all join this battle, what will stop them from protecting this one singular player and sacrificing themselves till that particular person is the last one standing?

I can already imagine where a powerful guild joins the fight, and they literally surround the one player (prob guildleader) and protect them to make sure they become mayor. You could argue its just another 'tactic' but i don't think this seems very fun.

To me it makes sense that you should only be able to select one person per guild, that way the guilds themselves need to select their ''champion'', although this completely leaves solo players out of the equation.

What is your take on this? Any potential solutions? Or has this already been addressed previously?

Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Vhaeyne

VmanGman wrote: »

How can you say that it seems less thought out when they haven’t even revealed exactly what they plan to do with it...? They are professional game designers. I’m sorry, but who are you to say based on little tidbits that you’ve heard here and there that the system is not well thought out? We literally do not have the full picture yet. How can you make such an accusation when you don’t yet have all the facts and information?

I can say that it is less well thought out because they say the idea is not complete.

"An idea currently under consideration is to have players build out a champion that they can then fight in the arena, rather then using their regular characters. These champions can be equipped with gear and skills via quests, along with materials and gold to make the champion stronger"

"An idea currently under consideration"

Dose not sound "Well Thought out" to me.

It sounds like they intend to have a system where the best PvP player in the node is the mayor for a little while, but they are still trying to figure out who to best do that.

Read the one of the smallest pages on the wiki if you would like to know more:
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Military_nodes

Noaani

VmanGman wrote: »

How can you say that it seems less thought out when they haven’t even revealed exactly what they plan to do with it...?

Because people pointed out that a game where 1v1 balance wasn't planned, but that had 1v1 combat as a means of leadership challenge was a contradiction.

So Steven then decided to make it something that was fought out by champions - proxies of the person that was to be mayor.

Then people pointed out issues with that plan as well.

How can you say this isn't a poorly thought out aspect of this games design?

Like, honestly, how can you say that? Even Intrepid have all but admitted that to be the case.

Stop defending the game for the sake of defending the game. Intrepid get things wrong too, and sometimes we point them out.

VmanGman

Noaani wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

What you’re describing goes directly against it.

I haven't described anything.

You described a system where political power should be taken into account of deciding the leader of a node.

Noaani

VmanGman wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

What you’re describing goes directly against it.

I haven't described anything.

You described a system where political power should be taken into account of deciding the leader of a node.

No I didn't.

I pointed out that what Intrepid are talking about is not power, but rather combat strength/ability.

Quote for me this system I supposedly described.

VmanGman

Noaani wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

How can you say that it seems less thought out when they haven’t even revealed exactly what they plan to do with it...?

Because people pointed out that a game where 1v1 balance wasn't planned, but that had 1v1 combat as a means of leadership challenge was a contradiction.

So Steven then decided to make it something that was fought out by champions - proxies of the person that was to be mayor.

Then people pointed out issues with that plan as well.

How can you say this isn't a poorly thought out aspect of this games design?

Like, honestly, how can you say that? Even Intrepid have all but admitted that to be the case.

Stop defending the game for the sake of defending the game. Intrepid get things wrong too, and sometimes we point them out.

There you go with the contradictions again.

Having champions fight instead of the player characters to help with balance since the game won’t have 1v1 class balance isn’t a contradiction. It’s a deliberate game design decision to allow for the system to work. They can choose to not balance the classes around 1v1 battles and create a different 1v1 system to enable 1v1 battles. That’s not a contradiction. They are still not balancing the classes for 1v1 battles. It would have been a contradiction if they said that they won’t balance the classes around 1v1 battles and then implemented a system where the classes need to engage in 1v1 battles for meaningful rewards.

You can’t say that something is poorly thought out when it’s still being actively designed and when it’s not finished or when you don’t have the full picture and all the information. Do you know exactly how the system will work? You don’t. Then you don’t know if it’s poorly thought out or not... because you don’t know the full extent of how it’s been thought out.

And I’m not defending the game for the sake of defending the game. I’m stating facts... you can’t say that something is poorly thought out when the system is still being actively developed and when you don’t have all the information yet. I’ll be the first to say that Intrepid have mishandled Apocalyspe greatly and that the frequency of their monthly cosmetics for an unreleased game has severely hurt their imagine in the eyes of the MMORPG community at large.

@Vhaeyne When you say that something is not well thought out, you’re implying that the developers have not done a good job at designing the system. Saying that the system is not yet complete is a whole other thing.

Biccus

Vhaeyne’s idea is by far my favourite and I’ll add my thoughts to it.

During the election period players can stake their claim on the node. Players can then apply to join that players arena team. Winning player becomes the mayor. Winning team forms the nodes government.

As much as I’d like it to be, I think that the election system of military nodes is almost impossible to be perfectly fair without splitting people and an anonymous mode. Splitting and tournaments though could take up a lot of extra time.

Edit: maybe even add some sort of PvP score requirement to lead a team

Vhaeyne

VmanGman wrote: »

@Vhaeyne When you say that something is not well thought out, you’re implying that the developers have not done a good job at designing the system. Saying that the system is not yet complete is a whole other thing.

You are going to tell me what I am implying? You keep putting words in my mouth.
You did this in another thread early today where you tried to say I was arguing something I was not even arguing.

I merely stated that a under construction system is not a well thought out system. It lacks the level of detail and planning that some of the other systems they have put forth. If it was more well thought out they would be more certain about the system themselves. They currently have a general idea of how they want the system to work. A general idea is not as well thought out as a fully planned out system.

In the spirt of having a interesting discussion I put forth my own idea of a design direction they could go in. I don't do this to be disrespectful of the DEVs ideas. I do it because I know the DEVs read the forums, and want our feedback.

As much as I enjoy arguing with the regulars on the forums. I would not be killing time here if I did not know the DEVs valued our feedback. If I thought the system was bad I would say it is bad. To me giving honest feedback is the only way to give feedback. I am not going to ever tip toe around the DEVs feelings and imply things. That would be a waste of my time and theirs.

Noaani

VmanGman wrote: »

You can’t say that something is poorly thought out when it’s still being actively designed

Yes you can.

An idea that isn't fully formed is - by definition - poorly thought out.

An idea that has been presented and then had holes ripped in it by others can be said to be poorly thought out.

Both of these apply to the current topic.

How can you say the idea is not poorly thought out?

Even after fixing the hole they fixed with champions, there are issues with it. The system no longer represents a players combat ability in the actual game world. Rather, the system is going to be more one of the winner being the player that spends the most time equipping their arena proxy - a task that surves no purpose outside of the mayoral arena.

A better fix for that issue would have been to allow players to contend for mayor under their characters surname which should be unique to your account. This allows players to use what ever class they want to use, and means the ability (not power, power is the wrong word here still) players represent inside the arena is exactly the same as the ability they represent out in the world - and SURELY that is supposed to be the actual point.

Songcaller

I don't believe one can 'equip an arena proxy'. The Devs haven't stated that to be a function. You can't expect a combat arena with the reward of Mayor to have balance issues. If the game is not balanced between 1vs1 then it would indeed boil down to Guild vs Guild.

There is nothing to stop a solo player challenging the other combatants and learning the capabilities of the 'champion'. In such circumstance, anyone could become proficient and succeed. The major flaw I see in these circumstances would be skill balance. Would we even get to choose whether we have TT or AC majority skills on a champion? If AC does more damage than TT then once again the system would be flawed and lack substantial balance.

VmanGman

Noaani wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

You can’t say that something is poorly thought out when it’s still being actively designed

An idea that isn't fully formed is - by definition - poorly thought out.

@Vhaeyne @Noaani Poorly thought out or not well thought out means that the idea is flawed and that the developers have not done a good job. When we don’t have the full picture because the developers have not revealed the system in its entirety, we cannot in good conscience accuse them of not having done a good job. We don’t know how good of a job they have done because we don’t know all that they have done. You can’t grade a test if you only see half of it and claim that the student only got half of the overall answers correct. Of course only half of the answers can be correct... because that’s all you can see.

You can deny that poorly thought out/not well thought out means that the developers didn’t do a good job, but that is what the statement implies in the English language. Once again, you fellas have a good day. It’s clear we cannot see eye to eye.

Rhuell

Noaani wrote: »

Even after fixing the hole they fixed with champions, there are issues with it. The system no longer represents a players combat ability in the actual game world. Rather, the system is going to be more one of the winner being the player that spends the most time equipping their arena proxy - a task that surves no purpose outside of the mayoral arena.

I believe that the dev team wants players to spend time on becoming mayor prior to the selection process.

Divine nodes require players to spend substantial time questing for the church in or der to be chosen.
Economic nodes require players to spend time padding their bank account.
Scientific nodes require players to spend time networking, to include building and sustaining a guild / alliance.

Forcing those striving to become mayor of a military node to spend time building up their champion would run along the same vein. I mean, otherwise people could luckily stroll into a node at the last opportunity to sign up, spend no time prepping, and "possibly" win the contest.

Seems to me that a little more effort should be involved.

Jxshuwu

@Vhaeyne I really like your general idea! I think that fixes a bunch of things. There's ofcourse some minor problems like, people wanting to grind arena points but not wanting to become mayor, they might throw the election system.

Simple fix for that would be to have them vote if they want to participate or not, and if they don't, the next highest person on the boards will be asked to participate instead.

That's a cool idea, +10 points.

P.S. Let's keep it civil guys, didn't want to start an argument with this thread, just discussion.

bigepeen

I think it should be a tournament bracket. If they don't want 1v1 for balance reasons, then use teams instead. The winning team would need to cast votes for their choice of mayor out of the members of their team. If there is a tie, then a random team member is chosen as mayor.

Randomly seed everyone in the bracket so that large guilds can't try to snipe their main competition with specific counter builds. For this reason, they don't need to have pvp ranking be a factor in the mayoral election process.

The idea of a military node is that the mayor is the best at pvp. So, if teams are used instead of 1v1, then they need to be small teams (like 3v3), to ensure that someone doesn't just buy their way onto a good team and get carried to mayor. At least the mayor will have to be very good at pvp, or their team won't win the tournament.

Anonymous ffa battlefield won't work. People will have a system and communicate via 3rd party apps like discord. For example, you could tell your entire guild to not attack anyone (healing people running in that direction as necessary) and run to the northwest corner as soon as they spawn in. After everyone else is dead, then verify that everyone left is part of the guild via discord, and then suicide everyone who is not the guild's choice for mayor.

Jxshuwu

bigepeen wrote: »

I think it should be a tournament bracket. If they don't want 1v1 for balance reasons, then use teams instead. The winning team would need to cast votes for their choice of mayor out of the members of their team. If there is a tie, then a random team member is chosen as mayor.

Randomly seed everyone in the bracket so that large guilds can't try to snipe their main competition with specific counter builds. For this reason, they don't need to have pvp ranking be a factor in the mayoral election process.

The idea of a military node is that the mayor is the best at pvp. So, if teams are used instead of 1v1, then they need to be small teams (like 3v3), to ensure that someone doesn't just buy their way onto a good team and get carried to mayor. At least the mayor will have to be very good at pvp, or their team won't win the tournament.

Anonymous ffa battlefield won't work. People will have a system and communicate via 3rd party apps like discord. For example, you could tell your entire guild to not attack anyone (healing people running in that direction as necessary) and run to the northwest corner as soon as they spawn in. After everyone else is dead, then verify that everyone left is part of the guild via discord, and then suicide everyone who is not the guild's choice for mayor.

I like the sound of this idea a lot too! Very creative.

I do think its still possible to get carried in 3v3s though, 2 very skilled players can def carry a 3v3 if they mastered their class. Although this is definitely better than an open arena which im not too fond of.

Songcaller

The champions probably won't be able to heal at all. Probably won't be able to buff at all and probably won't have a forced taunt like the tank class stands at current. I don't doubt people will try to assist each other but all they could do is focus targets. They won't be able to stop focussed attacks.

Jxshuwu

Neurath wrote: »

The champions probably won't be able to heal at all. Probably won't be able to buff at all and probably won't have a forced taunt like the tank class stands at current. I don't doubt people will try to assist each other but all they could do is focus targets. They won't be able to stop focussed attacks.

Thats very true, it will 100% be much harder. I just don't think its a surefire way of stopping carries to mayor.

Yuyukoyay

I like the champion system as it was described. Also you really have to build the champion because if you don't then being outnumbered might not even matter. That said I like the bracket system as well. I wouldn't mind if they used both.

FFA's usually just abuse dumb oversights anyway and are almost never interesting.

Noaani

VmanGman wrote: »

When we don’t have the full picture because the developers have not revealed the system in its entirety, we cannot in good conscience accuse them of not having done a good job

Your definition of "poorly thought out" is incomplete. As with most phrases, there are multiple definitions.

However, even if we go by your definition, we can still state that the system is poorly thought out.

They gave us details of the system, we pointed out issues with it, and forced them to change it. Until we have all the details of that change, we are able to state without reservation that the system is poorly thought out, as we know for an absolute fact that the details we have been given need to be changed.

You can not state that the system is not poorly thought out while still maintaining dignity. Intrepid have said the system was poorly thought out - yet you are trying to claim otherwise.

Noaani

Rhuell wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Even after fixing the hole they fixed with champions, there are issues with it. The system no longer represents a players combat ability in the actual game world. Rather, the system is going to be more one of the winner being the player that spends the most time equipping their arena proxy - a task that surves no purpose outside of the mayoral arena.

I believe that the dev team wants players to spend time on becoming mayor prior to the selection process.

Divine nodes require players to spend substantial time questing for the church in or der to be chosen.
Economic nodes require players to spend time padding their bank account.
Scientific nodes require players to spend time networking, to include building and sustaining a guild / alliance.

I'm not sure how anyone could think a FFA arena wouldn't require at least as much time as a scientific node in regards to networking and forming alliances, as well as an economic node in regards to equipping a few dozen players.

On the other hand, if you go the 1v1 arena where you pick a character on your account to use, you have the fairly high expense of needing to maintain a number of characters at the highest level in order to be able to conform to the games meta at each election.

If the winner of a military node is simply the player that spends the most amount of time gearing up their proxy, the leadership contest will be all too similar to that of a divine node - the arena part of it will become trivial.

Additionally, if that is indeed what the plan is, that would mean Intrepid need to continuously add new upgrades to these proxies, as players absolutely will attempt to max them out, and if players are able to max out their proxy the point you are making here about needing to spend time to become mayor falls very, very flat.

Basically, if what you are saying is true, Intrepid are committing to adding a form of perpetual progression to the game for a fight that happens once a month.

Seems like a bad idea to me.

bigepeen

Noaani wrote: »

On the other hand, if you go the 1v1 arena where you pick a character on your account to use, you have the fairly high expense of needing to maintain a number of characters at the highest level in order to be able to conform to the games meta at each election.

This is why I think the combat should be skill-based, and not overly dependent on gearing. Of course, gearing should give an advantage, but it shouldn't be the only thing that matters in pvp imo. Maybe an optimally-geared player would have around a 60% theoretical win rate over an equally skilled non-optimally-geared player, not a 90-100% win rate. A more skilled player should be able to even the odds against a better geared player, as long as the gear discrepancy isn't too big.

Noaani wrote: »

If the winner of a military node is simply the player that spends the most amount of time gearing up their proxy, the leadership contest will be all too similar to that of a divine node - the arena part of it will become trivial.

I don't think winning a pvp tournament will ever be trivial with enough entrants. You could prepare the most, but get outplayed or make a mistake during the tournament. Also, you could get an unfavorable matchup against an anti-meta build, and lose even if you have optimized the best meta build in existence. Thus, gearing someone up doesn't mean that they will automatically win the tournament.

Child Item