Should the "Champions" Be Beasts, for Military Node Mayorships?

It kind of feels like it'd be weird for your "champion" to be another humanoid. The classes are largely archetype-based, and thus not inherently balanced. If your champions were humanoid, it'd have to be between a different universal-classed avatar, or your normal avatar - but with skills you don't normally have with your normal class.

From the Wiki:

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_governments

Mayors of military nodes are chosen from citizens through last man standing (gladiatorial arena style) combat.
=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.
=The reason for the champion idea is because the game isn't balanced for 1v1 PvP. Utilizing champions makes arena
combat more of a level playing ground.
=Arena style combat is instanced but spectators may be possible through an interface.
=The winner of the combat can not transfer the mayoralty to another player.

Maybe the avatar for these battles could instead be a military-type beast that both contestants have little experience with? Yours truly feels that this would be less awkward than using a humanoid toon that you don't normally play with, or a stripped-down, universal-ized set of skills that your normal toon doesn't normally fight with.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Sathrago

Is this your official endorsement for the giant chicken fighting pits? Because I don't think you can handle the hail of gold coins coming your way if it is.

edit: To add to the conversation, Why not go with magically created dolls/golems that our characters hook up to remotely and use in the "fight to the death" kinda like a vr setup? The point of this would be that the player is still canonically doing the fighting.

Zeshio

I think either way is fine depending on how they implement it. I can see the idea of 'raising your own gladiator' and pitting them against others, which feels a little more grounded in reality. The monster idea is also really cool, I could definitely see golems fighting each other, or something that might have less 'ethical issues' around real beings killing each other so their winner becomes mayor.

George_Black

The military node mayorship was a cool concept.
If we move away from the original design, the rule of the strongest, Ill just pick any other node type with good benefits.

The military node mayor doesnt have to be a cleric.

Let the strongest archetype combos fight 1v1 for this prestige mayorship.

Saedu

Did someone say "Feral Tulnar"?

Maezriel

I could get down w/ that. Animals were used in the Colosseum so there's an easy basis for it.

Maybe instead of 1v1 duals where we have to worry about class balance potential mayors could fight wave after wave of beast and the one who last the longest wins...would also eliminate the need for everyone to be online at the exact same time.

Asgerr

Pokémon tournament arc!

Azherae

It'd probably turn into metagaming, though. I mean, everything would, but there's other ways to do it using the Champions idea that still sort of fits the flow.

e.g. You pick your Champion's Archetype or Class (probably to match yours), give them some gear (if you're awesome, maybe yours) and supplies, then play a minigame where you train them against various things, total 1-2 hours, or even just leave them doing it without micromanaging them/do it from your phone if that's integrated.

Now your personal strength matters in terms of 'your ability to adapt militarily and use the Champion's skills, which might be different from your own', your 'concept of builds for PvP' and getting to experiment with those, gets used without you having to do your own stuff (people might use it just for build testing without caring about even becoming mayor).

Guilds could pool good gear onto the person they want to support and help them gear their champion, introducing a bit of 'democracy'. And it all ends up feeling like your military skill (ability to train soldiers, make decisions, and technically PvP if they allow you to control the Champion outright) matter to the outcome. The matches could even be used to improve and constantly test the AI of certain archetypes in the world, instead of having the players control the Champions.

I believe the meme is "I see this as an absolute win!'

Beasts would be interesting if they don't have the time to implement something on this level, but dream big!

Noaani

In my opinion, the "champion" should be the player character, with that characters class, build and equipment.

Anything else dilutes the idea of the strongest ruling a military node.

If I am an NPC in a military node and some player character asks me to fight in the competition for them, why would I fight for them and not fight for myself? If I win that fight, the notion of the strongest rules means I should be the mayor.

Anything else is wrong.

Ventharien

I'm completely fine with the Champion system, having it be a beast of some sort feels odd to me though. I kind of hope the Champion will be around the town hall/ throne room when not in an 'Election'.

Noaani wrote: »

In my opinion, the "champion" should be the player character, with that characters class, build and equipment.

Anything else dilutes the idea of the strongest ruling a military node.

If I am an NPC in a military node and some player character asks me to fight in the competition for them, why would I fight for them and not fight for myself? If I win that fight, the notion of the strongest rules means I should be the mayor.

Anything else is wrong.

I think it still fits in with the theme, as you're in the running to be the Military leader of a settlement, If you can't get one person to follow and obey you why should anyone. I see it like a Roman patron like dealy, with your Sponsored warrior fighting for your honor. And mechanically, it's still your skill and knowledge that wins the fight, so you (sitting behind the screen) are the strongest if you're the last one standing at the end.

Dygz

It sounds like we would basically be building avatars based on the Primary Archetypes.
And, those who invest enough time and gold could have multiple Champions.
I don't know how they would be registered to try to ensure that the 1v1 is rock v rock or paper v paper.
Seems like matches would have to be registered in advance for that...otherwise it's basically the same issue, once-removed.

I kind of like the idea of the Champions being characters from the player races.
That is great RP for reputations of characters as we players talk about the exploits of those named NPCs.
Especially if we can also use our Champions as the mercenaries who guard our Caravans and Freeholds.

Ventharien

@Dygz Don't you think if the Champions are based on the Archtypes, and the system is 1v1, they run into the exact same problem they were trying to get away from?

Tyranthraxus

Sathrago wrote: »

Is this your official endorsement for the giant chicken fighting pits? Because I don't think you can handle the hail of gold coins coming your way if it is.

edit: To add to the conversation, Why not go with magically created dolls/golems that our characters hook up to remotely and use in the "fight to the death" kinda like a vr setup? The point of this would be that the player is still canonically doing the fighting.

I like this notion. It could serve as AoC's version of "Rock'em Sock'em Robots", dually entitled "Roll'em Troll'em Golems!".

Golems are another way to go with this; It's another option away from humanoids.

George Black wrote: »

The military node mayorship was a cool concept.
If we move away from the original design, the rule of the strongest, Ill just pick any other node type with good benefits.

The military node mayor doesnt have to be a cleric.

Let the strongest archetype combos fight 1v1 for this prestige mayorship.

Well, as they address it in the Wiki, the classes/archetypes aren't balanced to fight eachother. There will likely be variants that are stronger in each archetype, but it does feel a tad off that we'd fight with our normal toons, being that they aren't intended to be combat-balanced, per their specialty roles/sub-roles.

Maezriel wrote: »

I could get down w/ that. Animals were used in the Colosseum so there's an easy basis for it.

Maybe instead of 1v1 duals where we have to worry about class balance potential mayors could fight wave after wave of beast and the one who last the longest wins...would also eliminate the need for everyone to be online at the exact same time.

Interesting - a "survival trial", essentially. Aye, that would make it less-difficult than ensuring players match up directly, during the month.

Still: Since the classes and archetypes aren't matched, wouldn't this still infer a need for some non-avatar with a universal skill-set, as to ensure balance and fairness, in such a competition?

Noaani wrote: »

In my opinion, the "champion" should be the player character, with that characters class, build and equipment.

Anything else dilutes the idea of the strongest ruling a military node.

If I am an NPC in a military node and some player character asks me to fight in the competition for them, why would I fight for them and not fight for myself? If I win that fight, the notion of the strongest rules means I should be the mayor.

Anything else is wrong.

Well, but what if something like Knight (Tank/Fighter) becomes the pound-for-pound best 1v1 class in the game? Doesn't that monopolize what class will be Mayor of all/nearly all of the Military Nodes?

Maybe it should be this way, though.... If a single class/class combo stands out above the rest, perhaps it should simply be expected that a PvP guild leader / Military Node Mayor should be expected to be the strongest Knight?

Dygz

If it's rock/paper/scissors, there should not be only one class that is best for 1v1.
There should not even be only one Primary Archetype that is best for 1v1.

Ventharien wrote: »

@Dygz Don't you think if the Champions are based on the Archtypes, and the system is 1v1, they run into the exact same problem they were trying to get away from?

I think I mentioned that we might need to register the matches in advance.
That way if someone will be sending Eun-Ju, their Ren'Kai Guardian Champion, people know they should probably be sending a Tank/x Champion.

Or I suppose it could be that the Mayor cannot use a Champion in the final battle so that everyone else sends a Champion they think can defeat the current Mayor. And the final battle is Mayor vs reigning Champion.
(Well, I guess player v AI, the player has the advantage so maybe the Mayor's Champion has to be the same Primary Archetype as the Mayor.)

This way, not only will players be able to talk about how Eun-Ju defeated Mayor Simurgh, but also when players see Eun-Ju is guarding a Caravan, it will rally the players and add to the lore and future discussions of historical events.

Nerror

I would be ok with a humanoid champion, but a beast would work as well. I don't really care about what they look like, tbh.

I think all champions should have the same base stats and potentially exactly the same build as any other champion, with melee, ranged and magic abilities. The difference should come from players tweaking those abilities and build to best match their preferred playstyle.

I don't even want gear to be a factor, but I realize Intrepid might see it differently. My preference is that the outcome is 100% dependent on player skill and whatever build they choose.

RocketFarmer

Pet vs Pet for mayor. Hunger games style.

Pretty sure it’s PVP involving player characters.

Military Nodes: When Node vs Node PVP is simply not enough.

Azherae

Nerror wrote: »

I would be ok with a humanoid champion, but a beast would work as well. I don't really care about what they look like, tbh.

I think all champions should have the same base stats and potentially exactly the same build as any other champion, with melee, ranged and magic abilities. The difference should come from players tweaking those abilities and build to best match their preferred playstyle.

I don't even want gear to be a factor, but I realize Intrepid might see it differently. My preference is that the outcome is 100% dependent on player skill and whatever build they choose.

The question is whether or not the intention was to test the player's might or the player's 'military prowess'. I would figure that if they just wanted a test of might, there wouldn't be any need for the 'Champion' except to make sure that people could participate without being present for a long battle.

I guess I just never assumed that their intention was to have you test your own skill. Lots of people who are good at tactics may not have the physical skill to execute them, but you still want those people as your military leaders.

Plus, isn't the idea Dygz noted just additionally cool? A player will already have the ability to have their exploits in combat known through so many other systems, adding "Eun-Ju the Ren'Kai Guardian" just fleshes out the world more.

Nerror

Azherae wrote: »

I guess I just never assumed that their intention was to have you test your own skill. Lots of people who are good at tactics may not have the physical skill to execute them, but you still want those people as your military leaders.

I think their original idea was to have an arena-style tournament with the actual player characters, to decide the mayor title. However, because some classes hard counter other classes, they changed it to a champion system, presumably to make things more even. So yeah, it was their intent to test 1v1 PvP skill from the beginning.

Testing tactical skills, and for that matter strategic skills, requires something else. I doubt they would implement it, but it would have to be some sort of RTS-like minigame perhaps, as well as some XCOM style turnbased combat maybe. Combine those two with the 1v1 duel in a sort of triathlon. I don't think we'll ever see something like that, but I can see it work if they want the mayor to be one of the best at everything PvP.

Noaani

Tyranthraxus wrote: »

Well, but what if something like Knight (Tank/Fighter) becomes the pound-for-pound best 1v1 class in the game? Doesn't that monopolize what class will be Mayor of all/nearly all of the Military Nodes?

Yes, but so what?

If there is an outright best 1v1 PvP class, and you want to be mayor of a military node, then be that class.

However, since the system is being designed in a way where every class has it's counter, and is a counter to other classes, this is something that should never come up.

RocketFarmer

I like the idea of a battle royale where there are multiple levels at play.

Even militaristic orders require alliances and deals. The Roman Triumvirate comes to mind there.

Less about 1v1 balance issues and more about strategy, tactics and intrigue.

Are contestants bringing their own gear or will they be provided with tournament issued gear?

Last player standing is the mayor.

Add a betting system to it and I think it’s a winner. But will there be spectators? What about live streaming these.

Another wrinkle is to apply old style tournament rules where the field was large and it was arranged into teams like a battle. If you are a militaristic order, leading armies is more important than individual prowess. In those tournaments you could capture nobles and receive ransoms (risk/reward at play should you bring your own gear). Would make it a wider community event. Ransoms might include money but more frequently involved arms, armor and mounts.

Perhaps the sitting mayor can decide among 1v1, 3v3, 5v5, battle royale or tournament for the challenge. It would therefore require leaders and challengers with an incentive to be more versatile which may result in a more prosperous node, team work and a stronger community.

maouw

The other thing to keep in mind is that the military advisor/general doesn't necessarily need to be Lord of the node - and might even work better as a guild-leader of one of the node's patron guilds.

This sets up potential for puppet leaders, for juicy political drama.

Child Item