Idea: Military leadership, Alternative to Champions.

After hearing about the balance dilemma in regards to alternating leadership of military nodes away from the stronger classes, I came up with an idea. Rather than have players grind hours investing into a champion with very limited use, I suggest to have players fight rounds with their opponents character/loadout.

In any mmo leaders and pvper’s need to be able to recognize the abilities and playstyles of their allies and opponents. Sometimes new players will ask for help, and I’ve found in other mmos that it helps to have played their character. This form of competition ensures that military nodes are ruled by the best adaptable and knowledgeable players in combat. Promoting that they have the background to form a strategized raid composition, based on their knowledge of competition.

In a 1v1 tournament, players aim to win two rounds in a row. There’s a phase at the beginning of the second round to become familiar with your opponent's character. Players must use their opponents slotted abilities, but have time to reposition them. If reached, the 5th round is a tiebreaker round, and the character with the most wins is used by both players.

In a battle royale players spawn with a random opponent's character. Every two assists, or after a kill they swap to a surviving character load out. The final 3 contestants switch back to their characters loadout. This ensures that the strongest and most talented players become mayor. A bad draw may force well built players to overcome unforeseen circumstances. If their class is over performing they could die early and be eliminated if they don’t play well. Maybe someone will sort out a vendetta early on. Or we’ll watch the whole town stage a coup.

This idea can also work with pre-made builds.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

George_Black

Alternative idea:
Military leadership can be a contest between tanks, rogues, fighters, archers, mages and summoner wearing the strongest gear they can get their hands on.

Maybe a military node doesnt need to have a cleric leader or a bard.

George_Black

I might just make a thread for this...

ForlornFly

I like the pre-made builds with this idea as that is not as easily exploitable. Unfortunately I’m not sure how much time the devs are trying to make players invest in the elections, so it’s hard to tell if this would make the military node elections too easy, or at least to grind-light, compared to the other types.

Noaani

For me, the question comes down to whether the mayor of a military node should be the best PvP player in that node, or the best PvP player character in that node.

I am of the opinion that it should be the second of these.

JustVine

This is the main reason I hope they do some effort to balance 1v1. Without it, it sorta robs a certain segment of players the ability to claim they are the best in these nodes and win to proove it.

What do you all think about the way military node is decide has a racial bias to what method is used? E.g. Dwarves and orcs lean to 1v1 humans and elves 3v3

Acarith

Noaani wrote: »

For me, the question comes down to whether the mayor of a military node should be the best PvP player in that node, or the best PvP player character in that node.

I am of the opinion that it should be the second of these.

I too am leaning in this direction, but not in full. If the most potent player becomes mayor, than the node has a warrior that can be relied on to win and build a consistent vision for the node. In battle they'll be a name to respect, however, the top character in a 1v1 or even in a battle royal may not be that player in battle. Some melee classes for instance may over preform with a limited number of attackers, but in an open field be at a disadvantage. Meanwhile a tank, may survive the slaughter in a battle royal, to be nothing more than a sustain nuisance in a 1v1. If I'm a mage and I kill half the players before I'm focused, do I not get to be mayor?

If kills counted as votes, it would be a better playing field.

Acarith

JustVine wrote: »

This is the main reason I hope they do some effort to balance 1v1. Without it, it sorta robs a certain segment of players the ability to claim they are the best in these nodes and win to proove it.

What do you all think about the way military node is decide has a racial bias to what method is used? E.g. Dwarves and orcs lean to 1v1 humans and elves 3v3

If you're suggesting to add diversity to the competitions based on the racial style the node takes after then I think that's a good idea.

Noaani

Acarith wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

For me, the question comes down to whether the mayor of a military node should be the best PvP player in that node, or the best PvP player character in that node.

I am of the opinion that it should be the second of these.

I too am leaning in this direction, but not in full. If the most potent player becomes mayor, than the node has a warrior that can be relied on to win and build a consistent vision for the node. In battle they'll be a name to respect, however, the top character in a 1v1 or even in a battle royal may not be that player in battle. Some melee classes for instance may over preform with a limited number of attackers, but in an open field be at a disadvantage. Meanwhile a tank, may survive the slaughter in a battle royal, to be nothing more than a sustain nuisance in a 1v1. If I'm a mage and I kill half the players before I'm focused, do I not get to be mayor?

If kills counted as votes, it would be a better playing field.

The reason a FFA would work is because rather than actually being every player for themselves, guilds and alliances will work towards getting a designated player to win. This system also has the advantage of allowing some subterfuge, and of getting more players involved (it gives players without any desire to be the mayor a reason to participate, to help their preferred candidate win).

I agree that any system that relies on 1v1 combat is a bad system, but a FFA system would not rely on 1v1.

Asgerr

Single combat is and will never be balanced, as per the devs own admittance.

Having single elimination tournaments for 1vs1 is a terrible idea, and some classes will always beat certain others.

My idea is instead have a battle royale, but with no champion customization. Just all the same blank characters. Same life points, same mana pool etc. Only choice is in the weapons. And let the skills dictate the rest.
That type of meritocratic militar brutality would much better represent the best player in the node. Rather than the one who got luckier in drops from bosses in dungeons and raids.

Noaani

Asgerr wrote: »

Single combat is and will never be balanced, as per the devs own admittance.

Having single elimination tournaments for 1vs1 is a terrible idea, and some classes will always beat certain others.

My idea is instead have a battle royale, but with no champion customization. Just all the same blank characters. Same life points, same mana pool etc. Only choice is in the weapons. And let the skills dictate the rest.
That type of meritocratic militar brutality would much better represent the best player in the node. Rather than the one who got luckier in drops from bosses in dungeons and raids.

The downside of this is that it means you are taking who is mayor of a military node out of the characters perspective.

If I happen to be amazing at PvP, I could have an alt account, have a single low level character, become a citizen of a military node, and only log in once a month in order to participate in the tournament.

Asgerr

Noaani wrote: »

Asgerr wrote: »

Single combat is and will never be balanced, as per the devs own admittance.

Having single elimination tournaments for 1vs1 is a terrible idea, and some classes will always beat certain others.

My idea is instead have a battle royale, but with no champion customization. Just all the same blank characters. Same life points, same mana pool etc. Only choice is in the weapons. And let the skills dictate the rest.
That type of meritocratic militar brutality would much better represent the best player in the node. Rather than the one who got luckier in drops from bosses in dungeons and raids.

The downside of this is that it means you are taking who is mayor of a military node out of the characters perspective.

If I happen to be amazing at PvP, I could have an alt account, have a single low level character, become a citizen of a military node, and only log in once a month in order to participate in the tournament.

True, although ultimately there is nothing wrong with that either. So long as you set the right taxes and are ready for the consequences of your actions as mayor (in the event you win), then go for it.

While character and RP and reputation would be cool to keep in mind, it's also not a mandatory requirement.

There will always be months where some random who isn't the best PvPer in the area will win by happenstance. Should he have any less chances to win, because he wasn't already in the top 50 PvPers on server?

Noaani

Asgerr wrote: »

True, although ultimately there is nothing wrong with that either.

There is plenty wrong with that.

Honestly, if I set the taxes to max, don't build any buildings, don't repair anything after a monster coin event, don't set any mayoral quests and don't deal with node defense spending in the event of a siege, if I came back and won the competition a second time, very few people would hang around in that node.

The other three nodes all have a means by which they can subvert a players attempt to be mayor. They can negotiate with guilds to secure votes for scientific nodes, they can attack caravans that are supplying an economic node mayor with the funds they need to buy their position, and they can attack, harry and harass a player trying to complete the quests for a religious node.

Your suggestion leaves no such avenue for a military node, with the only thing people can do being to best the mayor in 1v1 combat in a style that is only applicable to that mayoral competition, and not present or relevant in the rest of the game.

I am surprised I even need to go in to detail as to why this is a bad idea.

Asgerr

@Noaani

You're assuming that these issues are out of the realm of possibility with someone who would invest the time to gear up their champion.

I could spend months gearing the guy up and win the mayorship, and then proceed to set taxes to max and not build anything and not log out for a full month, get rich and then disappear.

Having the playing field be level and dependent on skill... on a martial node... I don't see the issue with that.

Also, let me be clear again. I do not advocate for 1vs1 matches. Only battle royale free for all style.

Noaani

Asgerr wrote: »

You're assuming that these issues are out of the realm of possibility with someone who would invest the time to gear up their champion.

If someone is gearing up their champion, it is likely they will need to either start again each month, or have to continue to gear up each month.

This puts the military node in the same place as the other nodes in that people have the ability to interrupt the preparation of the person they want to remove from office.

If someone is able to do this and still win the competition, that is no different to someone still being able to do all the religious node quests in order to purposefully mismanage that node.

The thing with a FFA style fight as well is that your class becomes irrelevant - as you are now talking about guild/alliance vs guild/alliance in a setting where guilds and alliances are set up specifically for PvP. If Intrepid opt for a FFA style tournament, there is no point in developing champions.

Asgerr

Noaani wrote: »

The thing with a FFA style fight as well is that your class becomes irrelevant - as you are now talking about guild/alliance vs guild/alliance in a setting where guilds and alliances are set up specifically for PvP. If Intrepid opt for a FFA style tournament, there is no point in developing champions.

Class becoming irrelevant is probably for the best. As we know, Intrepid aren't entirely balancing classes. If classes are indeed a thing in the FFA battle, then odds are, every month only a certain class will win as it is superior to the rest. And needing to play a (for example) Soulbow only if you want to get that mayorship defeats the purpose of having this kind of election system. Might as well just make it a coin toss between all citizen Soulbows of that node.

Noaani

Asgerr wrote: »

If classes are indeed a thing in the FFA battle, then odds are, every month only a certain class will win as it is superior to the rest.

If it is an FFA tournament, the winner will be what ever character the winning group decide it will be.

An FFA tournament won't be every player for themselves, it will be every guild/alliance for who ever it is they decided they want to be mayor. This is why class will be irrelevant in a FFA competition - your class doesn't matter if you have 50 people fighting for you.

Acarith

The wiki says last man standing with an nontransferable mayor ship. If it's an FFA and the guy everyone's rooting for dies it would seem to mean their out of the competition. Implying that if their on a squishy character they may not make it to the end regardless of support. An FFA by these rules would be kinda lame since towards the end of the fight the tanks would look to finish off squishy targets rather than fight each other. Then they'd rub each other slowly into submission.

Dygz

Asgerr wrote: »

Single combat is and will never be balanced, as per the devs own admittance.

Having single elimination tournaments for 1vs1 is a terrible idea, and some classes will always beat certain others.

My idea is instead have a battle royale, but with no champion customization. Just all the same blank characters. Same life points, same mana pool etc. Only choice is in the weapons. And let the skills dictate the rest.
That type of meritocratic militar brutality would much better represent the best player in the node. Rather than the one who got luckier in drops from bosses in dungeons and raids.

Yeah. I'm guessing Champions will have to be some kind of neutral "Class"... and we will still supply them with gear and progress them via quests.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

Asgerr wrote: »

Single combat is and will never be balanced, as per the devs own admittance.

Having single elimination tournaments for 1vs1 is a terrible idea, and some classes will always beat certain others.

My idea is instead have a battle royale, but with no champion customization. Just all the same blank characters. Same life points, same mana pool etc. Only choice is in the weapons. And let the skills dictate the rest.
That type of meritocratic militar brutality would much better represent the best player in the node. Rather than the one who got luckier in drops from bosses in dungeons and raids.

Yeah. I'm guessing Champions will have to be some kind of neutral "Class"... and we will still supply them with gear and progress them via quests.

Which is why it is a stupid system.

It is a fight using an irrelevant system, to determine who is best at using that system and that system only.

The whole thing should be using the regular combat system, with the regular class structure, and regular gear progression.

Asgerr

Noaani wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Asgerr wrote: »

Single combat is and will never be balanced, as per the devs own admittance.

Having single elimination tournaments for 1vs1 is a terrible idea, and some classes will always beat certain others.

My idea is instead have a battle royale, but with no champion customization. Just all the same blank characters. Same life points, same mana pool etc. Only choice is in the weapons. And let the skills dictate the rest.
That type of meritocratic militar brutality would much better represent the best player in the node. Rather than the one who got luckier in drops from bosses in dungeons and raids.

Yeah. I'm guessing Champions will have to be some kind of neutral "Class"... and we will still supply them with gear and progress them via quests.

Which is why it is a stupid system.

It is a fight using an irrelevant system, to determine who is best at using that system and that system only.

The whole thing should be using the regular combat system, with the regular class structure, and regular gear progression.

Again, the issue with that is that let's say everyone has their best possible gear: specific classes will always win. So winning this election would come down to who picked the right archetype and augment class, rather than actual skill in PvP

Child Item