NiKr wrote: » Yep, this was my first thought when they explained the new changes to the military elections. No soloable mayorships any more. I just expect this system to be abused to all hell during A2, so we'll see what we end up with in the end.
George_Black wrote: » I like that the divine node covers the solo needs. Whoever likes roleplaying as a scholar the most, wins.
tautau wrote: » Regarding scientific nodes - elections. Bribes don't work as well as you think. Say I am a node citizen and five people are running for mayor, each offering bribes. I accept bribes from all five, whether I vote or not! Just bribing someone doesn't mean you have their vote. Regarding divine nodes - player doing most for the node (generally through quests) wins. With many quests to choose from, 24 hours in each day, and a limited number of 'enforcers' I think it would be impossible to keep a dedicated player to keep from winning, particularly if they do the quests in non-prime play times. Regarding economic nodes - buying the office of mayor. The wealthy guild could outbid everyone to become mayor, perhaps even in multiple nodes (good point). But then they spent so much money that they may not be able to repeat, and the next most wealthy group wins next time, or the time after. Isn't this exactly how the system is supposed to work? Military nodes: I'll stay away from those.
Rhythmz wrote: » They seem to have the most difficulty deciding the military node elections by far. The current iteration basically confirms that they want politics and organizational capabilities to be the process in every node. I personally prefer the previous "Champion" system because that comes down to player skill and I suspect many PVPers agree with me. I'll take it a step further and say even the Champion system is over complicating the matter. They plan on having an arena ladder,just use it.
ChaosFactor wrote: » What I find fun to take from these discussions, is that the conflict involved with each one of these methods SHOULD be healthy. If done incorrectly we can certainly land in a place that nodes are simply a gimmick and mega-guild leaders can just hard control every node on the server. HOWEVER, if there are simply methods to prevent guilds forming like "Superstars" , "Superstars II" Superstars III", etc. then guilds will inherently act as smaller entities. Obviously there will be ways of circumventing the rules established if there are any.. but the fact is that these are all forms of political conflict. Political conflict in a game is healthy. As long as the reminder of the gameplay is satisfying and worthy of getting on the game. If that is true, then people arguing over other people in power is healthy and fun conflict. I think New World is a fantastic example of this idea going completely wrong. Power struggle was CONSTANT and controlling the power meant everything. Mega guilds were never stopped, and that meant they would inevitably take over the entire server. Many servers were just "If you aren't Marauder, you're trolling.", and the entire server map would be Green. It would be this way because simply the way that Amazon Games organized the numbers, lead to the scale of conflicts being far far smaller than the size of player organization actually is. It's like in highschool, or sports in general. The huge city schools always perform the best because they're literally 10x the size, therefore 10x the likelihood that they will produce exceptional athletes. So if you're part of a small school, you just admit that you suck and move on in the D Class. Although being unfair can often promote some extent of satisfaction in power struggle, that is far far too extreme for a video game. You want to feel like you matter to the world when you log in. If guilds are properly organized to the point that being larger than 300 members isn't productive/practical, then the issues of "They're just funneling money into this dude, they're just absolutely stacking this guy in the battle royale." rather than being a pain in the ass.. will involve politics, important social interactions, and a reason to think about the world as a real living place, rather than a numbers contest. Sorry that was a lot! But sometimes my fingers just start moving and I can't stop. Hope you enjoyed.
Noaani wrote: » Rhythmz wrote: » They seem to have the most difficulty deciding the military node elections by far. The current iteration basically confirms that they want politics and organizational capabilities to be the process in every node. I personally prefer the previous "Champion" system because that comes down to player skill and I suspect many PVPers agree with me. I'll take it a step further and say even the Champion system is over complicating the matter. They plan on having an arena ladder,just use it. The problem with any arena based mechanic for this is that it removes the process from the open world. If a leader in a game like Ashes is to be decided via PvP, that PvP should absolutely be open world based and somewhat chaotic, rather than instanced off and controlled.
Rhythmz wrote: » It's going be a measure of who has the most friends,not who is the best player.
Rhythmz wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Rhythmz wrote: » They seem to have the most difficulty deciding the military node elections by far. The current iteration basically confirms that they want politics and organizational capabilities to be the process in every node. I personally prefer the previous "Champion" system because that comes down to player skill and I suspect many PVPers agree with me. I'll take it a step further and say even the Champion system is over complicating the matter. They plan on having an arena ladder,just use it. The problem with any arena based mechanic for this is that it removes the process from the open world. If a leader in a game like Ashes is to be decided via PvP, that PvP should absolutely be open world based and somewhat chaotic, rather than instanced off and controlled. Open world pvp is basically their current plan as I understand it. It's going be a measure of who has the most friends,not who is the best player. They may as well just make it a ranked-choice vote like the scientific node because open world PVP is just a shittier election between zergs. An actual 1vs1 or 2vs2,3vs3 would determine who the best players are. Instead of it being instanced like most arenas I'd like to see the games at the top of the ladder take place within the node with spectators who can't interfere.
Noaani wrote: » Rhythmz wrote: » It's going be a measure of who has the most friends,not who is the best player. This is what Ashes is as a game. Put simply, if you do not have hundreds of people willing to do what ever it is you want them to do, you won't get anywhere in Ashes. This isn't a fault, nor a feature - this is the very essence of the game. I'm not defending this as a good thing (in fact, I have been warning people for a few years now that this is what the game is), I'm simply pointing out that this is the actual intent of the whole game.
Rhythmz wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Rhythmz wrote: » It's going be a measure of who has the most friends,not who is the best player. This is what Ashes is as a game. Put simply, if you do not have hundreds of people willing to do what ever it is you want them to do, you won't get anywhere in Ashes. This isn't a fault, nor a feature - this is the very essence of the game. I'm not defending this as a good thing (in fact, I have been warning people for a few years now that this is what the game is), I'm simply pointing out that this is the actual intent of the whole game. I think you're right. Which is why I suspect very good players won't stick with the game for long. The best raiders probably aren't going to put up with Bobby Mczerg and his guild of shitters every raid night just to maybe down a boss that will be entirely mediocre by definition because it has to be designed around Bobby and his friends. They'll just go play a better game. The best PVPers aren't going to respect a game in which Bobby and his guild will be ruling over them even though they'd destroy Bobby or anybody in his guild with half their gear off in a 1vs1. Steven is designing a game that people like him will excel at. He has organizational skills but he's not a very good player. It's kind of ironic that supporters and critics of the game alike both think its going to be super hard-core. The actual hard-core won't waste their time with this game.
Depraved wrote: » Rhythmz wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Rhythmz wrote: » It's going be a measure of who has the most friends,not who is the best player. This is what Ashes is as a game. Put simply, if you do not have hundreds of people willing to do what ever it is you want them to do, you won't get anywhere in Ashes. This isn't a fault, nor a feature - this is the very essence of the game. I'm not defending this as a good thing (in fact, I have been warning people for a few years now that this is what the game is), I'm simply pointing out that this is the actual intent of the whole game. I think you're right. Which is why I suspect very good players won't stick with the game for long. The best raiders probably aren't going to put up with Bobby Mczerg and his guild of shitters every raid night just to maybe down a boss that will be entirely mediocre by definition because it has to be designed around Bobby and his friends. They'll just go play a better game. The best PVPers aren't going to respect a game in which Bobby and his guild will be ruling over them even though they'd destroy Bobby or anybody in his guild with half their gear off in a 1vs1. Steven is designing a game that people like him will excel at. He has organizational skills but he's not a very good player. It's kind of ironic that supporters and critics of the game alike both think its going to be super hard-core. The actual hard-core won't waste their time with this game. very good player slmao who are better players, the guy who can beat u in a 1v1 or the guys who can beat your party 8 vs 8? i lot of people think they are good because they can win 1v1. what they dont realize is that they might be fighting bad players, they might have an unfair class or build advantage, they have more potions, etc. then they dismiss group pvp because there is an unfair advantage in numbers (when they also take advantage of many unfair things in 1v1). a guild with good players will beat a guild with bad players even if the bad players outnumber them. been there done that
