Military: Trial By Combat?

Yes there’s absolutely no question it would be epic. Of course there will be balance issues and a constant state of flux where certain classes will be “meta” and others won’t but that is the very nature of an MMO and a player who can master the most of the game will emerge victorious more often than not. It’s like a live action chess match. Absolutely epic.

It also has the “underdog” theme which people love. Rather than the “biggest streamer wins” theme which I think most true gamers despise.

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Keep in mind, as we have discussed in the past, the design of this game is based on the assumption that guilds consist of a leader, and anywhere from a few dozen to a few thousand sycophants.

This is exactly why having champion duels as a method of election would be more interesting than simply "GLs always win". Obviously there'd always be the possibility of "everyone registers to just lose against their selected member", but same would apply in the current changed system, so I'd rather go for simply a more interesting system than what we got.

I mean, sure, it would be more interesting, but it would go against the general design of the game as a whole.

I think it was about two and a half years ago when I first mentioned that this seems to be the way the game is being designed. People didnt think kuch of it at the time, and many still dont. However, every time we get new information, this notion is just built upon more and more. IMO the assumption should be that every aspect of the game we don't have information on that the end result will be more along the lines of guild leaders win, everyone else suffers.

That is what Ashes *actually* is.

Noaani wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Keep in mind, as we have discussed in the past, the design of this game is based on the assumption that guilds consist of a leader, and anywhere from a few dozen to a few thousand sycophants.

This is exactly why having champion duels as a method of election would be more interesting than simply "GLs always win". Obviously there'd always be the possibility of "everyone registers to just lose against their selected member", but same would apply in the current changed system, so I'd rather go for simply a more interesting system than what we got.

I mean, sure, it would be more interesting, but it would go against the general design of the game as a whole.

I think it was about two and a half years ago when I first mentioned that this seems to be the way the game is being designed. People didnt think kuch of it at the time, and many still dont. However, every time we get new information, this notion is just built upon more and more. IMO the assumption should be that every aspect of the game we don't have information on that the end result will be more along the lines of guild leaders win, everyone else suffers.

That is what Ashes *actually* is.

This is precisely why there should be a node for the “little guy.” A gladiator style “the strongest leads” system. This will produce a type of leader that is unique to this specific node - which I feel is the entire point of the node system

To me it just doesn’t make sense to have another popularity contest for the military mayor that is already covered in the technology node format. The best way to choose a military leader is actual PvP prowess that correlates to understanding of PvP mechanics and combat, not just someone who can muster the largest Zerg of players. Imo just the simple fact that a “nobody” could become a “somebody” because of their individual skill and garner the respect of a whole node is just incredibly epic, and fits the military ideal to a T.

Depraved

Rebutko wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Keep in mind, as we have discussed in the past, the design of this game is based on the assumption that guilds consist of a leader, and anywhere from a few dozen to a few thousand sycophants.

This is exactly why having champion duels as a method of election would be more interesting than simply "GLs always win". Obviously there'd always be the possibility of "everyone registers to just lose against their selected member", but same would apply in the current changed system, so I'd rather go for simply a more interesting system than what we got.

I mean, sure, it would be more interesting, but it would go against the general design of the game as a whole.

I think it was about two and a half years ago when I first mentioned that this seems to be the way the game is being designed. People didnt think kuch of it at the time, and many still dont. However, every time we get new information, this notion is just built upon more and more. IMO the assumption should be that every aspect of the game we don't have information on that the end result will be more along the lines of guild leaders win, everyone else suffers.

That is what Ashes *actually* is.

This is precisely why there should be a node for the “little guy.” A gladiator style “the strongest leads” system. This will produce a type of leader that is unique to this specific node - which I feel is the entire point of the node system

To me it just doesn’t make sense to have another popularity contest for the military mayor that is already covered in the technology node format. The best way to choose a military leader is actual PvP prowess that correlates to understanding of PvP mechanics and combat, not just someone who can muster the largest Zerg of players. Imo just the simple fact that a “nobody” could become a “somebody” because of their individual skill and garner the respect of a whole node is just incredibly epic, and fits the military ideal to a T.

all mayors are a popularity contest.

also, do you really think you will be a mayor winning 1vs1 against a guild feeding wins to one person, even if its a small guild?

Maybe guilds should only be allowed to put up 1 champion? There’s always a fix to ensure the integrity of the format.

Also, I would think win trading would be looked at as cheating and punished like it is in every other game I can think of.

Depraved

Rebutko wrote: »

Maybe guilds should only be allowed to put up 1 champion? There’s always a fix to ensure the integrity of the format.

Also, I would think win trading would be looked at as cheating and punished like it is in every other game I can think of.

why guilds should only be allowed 1 champion per guild? what happenes with players who want to compete and they are in the same guild? why u want to ruin their game cuz ur a solo player?

also, they could simply leave the guild, participate in the tournament and then rejoin the guild /facepalm

Just offering a solution for an exploit you mentioned (win trading I.e. cheating). It has nothing to do with me being a solo player.

The mode could possibly be team based as long as it has some semblance of skill involved and not who can muster the larger Zerg of support players.

Having said that I do think 1v1 would be the most epic scenario possible. Of course there would have to be rules just like in every other mode. I’m sure the PvE mode doesn’t allow guild members to follow the solo player around with constant buffs because that would be considered an exploit.

Regardless I think we are getting a bit off track here. My basic point is that leadership is already covered with technology, economic is covered , PvE solo is covered, and PvP solo (or “skill based” if you will - could be a small team) should also be given a leg to stand on. Combining leadship with military when it’s already covered in technology and PvE getting a “solo” or “skill” option (if you will) while military doesn’t just doesn’t make sense to me.

If the general consensus is that nodes should all represent leadership ability why isn’t the PvE node based on who can lead the best raid against a PvE encounter? No - it’s a solo skill based option which is fantastic. That same respect should be shown to the PvP side.

Rhythmz

They are planning on having an arena ladder. They should just use it. Whichever bracket is the most competitive has the highest rated team choose the mayor. If they want it to be a battleground,that's more complicated but I guess that's fine. The current plan is the worst one so far,it's basically just a convoluted popularity contest. That actually applies to the other nodes already to varying degrees and that's a big concern of mine. It's increasingly looking like the people running the governments will be spending more time in discord than playing the game.

Noaani wrote: »

That is what Ashes *actually* is.

That is what I expected from the start because that's what L2 is. It's all guilds all the way down. I just hoped Steven would vary it up a bit, but I guess he doesn't wanna. Either way I'm not too bothered by it cause I would've always gone for the divine node.

Depraved wrote: »

also, do you really think you will be a mayor winning 1vs1 against a guild feeding wins to one person, even if its a small guild?

This only applies to a point-based system. I woulda preferred a huge tournament bracket of 1v1s, until only one winner emerges.

Even if literally all other spots are taken by the same guild and you're the only one going against them, if your skill is higher than all of theirs - you'll be the mayor.

I did a rough write up of this system probably a year or more back, when we last discussed military elections. This wouldn't take long and it would be the best spectacle for the entire server (especially if it's a metro election).

The main time investment would be the boosting of your champion and your training in its combat, but that's the same as other elections where you'd be spending time making connections or money or quests. It's just that this method would be the most solo-friendly and have the most "warlord tyrant" kind of result, which imo would spice up the game.

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

That is what Ashes *actually* is.

That is what I expected from the start because that's what L2 is. It's all guilds all the way down. I just hoped Steven would vary it up a bit, but I guess he doesn't wanna. Either way I'm not too bothered by it cause I would've always gone for the divine node.

Not just doesn't want to, is doubling down on it.

Expect the divine node to also require you to have a lot of people behind you to be successful.

Noaani wrote: »

Expect the divine node to also require you to have a lot of people behind you to be successful.

Oh, I know. As I've said in the other threads, military elections were supposedly the last soloable method. Now it's gone. I expect divine nodes to have group/guild quests for elections, on top of those guilds just acc-sharing their candidates, so that they're online pretty much 24/7 doing quests.

morphwastaken

NiKr wrote: »

This is exactly why having champion duels as a method of election would be more interesting than simply "GLs always win". Obviously there'd always be the possibility of "everyone registers to just lose against their selected member", but same would apply in the current changed system, so I'd rather go for simply a more interesting system than what we got.

I disagree. In context of an MMO 10v10 makes more sense than 1v1. Yes, there were epic 1v1 fights for Hero status in L2. But i would say that with all the kiting, feeding and unbalanced fights 1v1 presented - 10v10 would be much more fun on average.
I struggle to think of something that makes less sense than an MMO as a medium for showing off personal skill.

Raven016

1 vs 1 election type would be hard to implement because classes will be created with RPS in mind.
If a player would win, others would say he was lucky his natural opponent was eliminated by somebody else.
Or players would complain that the game is not balanced well for 1x1 military elections.
So I understand from this wiki fragment. Or do I miss some other detail?

1v1 matchups will have a rock-paper-scissors dynamic, where one class will be superior to another.[2]

There will be match ups in 1v1s where one class will be superior to another; and that application should be a rock-paper-scissors dynamic. We want there to be counter-play between the different classes... Instead it's going to be a group focused balance, where as long as you have the diversity of classes present, that's going to be an equal level playing field. It's going to be very dependent on skill and strategy.[2] – Steven Sharif

morphwastaken wrote: »

I disagree. In context of an MMO 10v10 makes more sense than 1v1. Yes, there were epic 1v1 fights for Hero status in L2. But i would say that with all the kiting, feeding and unbalanced fights 1v1 presented - 10v10 would be much more fun on average.

L2's olympiad was all about boosting your character and winning against weaker matchups in cross-class fights and weaker character within your own class fights. AoC planned to have champions that would replace that imbalance.

morphwastaken wrote: »

I struggle to think of something that makes less sense than an MMO as a medium for showing off personal skill.

And yet people seemed to have loved WoW arena and L2 Oly back in the day. People just like 1v1 fights cause they're more personal.

Raven016 wrote: »

Or do I miss some other detail?

You missed that mayor election were supposed to have champion stand-ins instead of your own character. So they'd have their own balancing separate from the main game (at least that's how I assumed it would go, cause we didn't really get all that much info for the system).

NiKr wrote: »

morphwastaken wrote: »

I disagree. In context of an MMO 10v10 makes more sense than 1v1. Yes, there were epic 1v1 fights for Hero status in L2. But i would say that with all the kiting, feeding and unbalanced fights 1v1 presented - 10v10 would be much more fun on average.

L2's olympiad was all about boosting your character and winning against weaker matchups in cross-class fights and weaker character within your own class fights. AoC planned to have champions that would replace that imbalance.

The champion system really was stupid though.

It would have played out more like Pokémon than PvP. You would spend your time going around collecting different upgrades for your champion, and the player with the best equipped would be the one to win.

Since we all know those upgrades would be group or raid based, it was always going to be a case of the winner being the person with the most resources behind them.

Raven016

NiKr wrote: »

morphwastaken wrote: »

I disagree. In context of an MMO 10v10 makes more sense than 1v1. Yes, there were epic 1v1 fights for Hero status in L2. But i would say that with all the kiting, feeding and unbalanced fights 1v1 presented - 10v10 would be much more fun on average.

L2's olympiad was all about boosting your character and winning against weaker matchups in cross-class fights and weaker character within your own class fights. AoC planned to have champions that would replace that imbalance.

morphwastaken wrote: »

I struggle to think of something that makes less sense than an MMO as a medium for showing off personal skill.

And yet people seemed to have loved WoW arena and L2 Oly back in the day. People just like 1v1 fights cause they're more personal.

Raven016 wrote: »

Or do I miss some other detail?

You missed that mayor election were supposed to have champion stand-ins instead of your own character. So they'd have their own balancing separate from the main game (at least that's how I assumed it would go, cause we didn't really get all that much info for the system).

They probably had internal discussions and found it too similar to the other nodes and also being an additional effort to implement. Finally I see a feature dropped to make Alpha 2 come sooner.

Noaani wrote: »

It would have played out more like Pokémon than PvP. You would spend your time going around collecting different upgrades for your champion, and the player with the best equipped would be the one to win.

I'd assume/hope that there'd be an upper limit on that progress. Even L2 implemented a "your gear's OE stage only counts up to +6", cause they realized that people just OE boosted the fuck out of themselves and dominated all fights.

Noaani wrote: »

Since we all know those upgrades would be group or raid based, it was always going to be a case of the winner being the person with the most resources behind them.

This, once again, would depend on if there was an upper limit on progress. People with groups might've gotten their champion fully leveled/geared within a week and could then do other stuff, while solo players would have to grind their ass off for longer.

Seems more than fair to me and pretty much how other mechanics in the game seem to work rn.

Either way, the group's influence would be passive, rather than active. I guess the only passive election left is economic, cause there the only interaction with your group is them giving you money. Divine remains to be seen, cause we don't know how it'll be designed.

morphwastaken

NiKr wrote: »

morphwastaken wrote: »

I disagree. In context of an MMO 10v10 makes more sense than 1v1. Yes, there were epic 1v1 fights for Hero status in L2. But i would say that with all the kiting, feeding and unbalanced fights 1v1 presented - 10v10 would be much more fun on average.

L2's olympiad was all about boosting your character and winning against weaker matchups in cross-class fights and weaker character within your own class fights. AoC planned to have champions that would replace that imbalance.

There is more to it than just 1v1 balance. At least for me personally 10v10 would've been better - i for sure had more fun in open world PVP, and most of good memories i have of L2 are from group content. Yes, 1v1 can be fun and memorable, but i think party content is just better in an MMO like this.

Champion system is actually bad though. It's not the best idea to design systems that discredit your character progression in an RPG in any way. It's ok as an occasional side thing. It's not good as such core mechanic. I experienced similar thing in another RPG, and developers are now working on slowly removing that from the game. All they wanted was a few bosses that were more skill based and less of a gear check. Now they are replacing them with normal bosses. And it's not that purely skill based fights are bad, they just don't really fit well in an RPG, they create a disconnect - developing your character is a huge part of the game.

morphwastaken wrote: »

developing your character is a huge part of the game.

But everyone has their own way of doing that, don't they. One player might just level to max and say "I'm done playing, cause I've won". Another player would do the same in artisanry w/o ever touching a mob. Another would only fight bosses. And yet another would just RP in town for as long as they want.

All of those are viable ways of progressing and all of those influence other people's experiences (or have potential to). So why not have another way to progress your character - as a military mayor. I'm sure there'll be at least a few solo players who know how to "win the market" and would be able to become economic mayors simply by playing the game in that way, so why not have the same for pvp players?

I'd prefer much more variety in the game than simply "friends do everything for you".