NiKr wrote: » Diamaht wrote: » I feel like the gladiator approach will lead to nothing but instability. A fun story for sure but people may just not choose that option as time goes on. That's the point though. Fun stories are way better for the game than "best people to lead". Drama brings interest, interest brings people.
Diamaht wrote: » I feel like the gladiator approach will lead to nothing but instability. A fun story for sure but people may just not choose that option as time goes on.
Depraved wrote: » you can have fun stories in group battles as well ;3
Depraved wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Diamaht wrote: » I feel like the gladiator approach will lead to nothing but instability. A fun story for sure but people may just not choose that option as time goes on. That's the point though. Fun stories are way better for the game than "best people to lead". Drama brings interest, interest brings people. you can have fun stories in group battles as well ;3
NiKr wrote: » Depraved wrote: » you can have fun stories in group battles as well ;3 Groups imply that this group will be behind the mayor. I want the possibility that some random solo play can win a mayorship, if they're good enough at champion combat.
Diamaht wrote: » Why not have that as the option for lower tiers like 1 to 3, and then a larger group for theirs 4 and 5?
Diamaht wrote: » You also have to think, are the lone wolf or small guild member the best person to lead a large node?
NiKr wrote: » Diamaht wrote: » Why not have that as the option for lower tiers like 1 to 3, and then a larger group for theirs 4 and 5? Cause I want sole tyrants at the peak of power. And if military nodes are seen as "bad" due to this mechanic - they won't be at max stage either way, so it's a self-resolving problem. Literally everything in the game is more beneficial for a group and is more easily controlled by a bigger group. Why not have a single solo option?
JamesSunderland wrote: » Diamaht wrote: » You also have to think, are the lone wolf or small guild member the best person to lead a large node? I don't think the idea of the nodes are for them to be lead by "the best person", designwise. Like the Econ node will be led by the wealthiest, and the scientific by the most popular, i desire the military node to be lead by the strongest, in my opinion the worthiest to hold power.
Azherae wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » Diamaht wrote: » You also have to think, are the lone wolf or small guild member the best person to lead a large node? I don't think the idea of the nodes are for them to be lead by "the best person", designwise. Like the Econ node will be led by the wealthiest, and the scientific by the most popular, i desire the military node to be lead by the strongest, in my opinion the worthiest to hold power. My problem with this is actually on the marketing/appeal side. Even if we're going back to 'the old design', just 'designing for the benefit to go to Orgs/strength' or 'to create friction', is a relatively low bar, so I'd expect a ton of upcoming games with similar designs because you don't really have to do anything.
JamesSunderland wrote: » Azherae wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » Diamaht wrote: » You also have to think, are the lone wolf or small guild member the best person to lead a large node? I don't think the idea of the nodes are for them to be lead by "the best person", designwise. Like the Econ node will be led by the wealthiest, and the scientific by the most popular, i desire the military node to be lead by the strongest, in my opinion the worthiest to hold power. My problem with this is actually on the marketing/appeal side. Even if we're going back to 'the old design', just 'designing for the benefit to go to Orgs/strength' or 'to create friction', is a relatively low bar, so I'd expect a ton of upcoming games with similar designs because you don't really have to do anything. Do you think it's impact on the "marketing/appeal side" would be that meaningful? Because even with the possible threat of the "ton of upcoming games with similar designs" i personally don't.
Azherae wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » Azherae wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » Diamaht wrote: » You also have to think, are the lone wolf or small guild member the best person to lead a large node? I don't think the idea of the nodes are for them to be lead by "the best person", designwise. Like the Econ node will be led by the wealthiest, and the scientific by the most popular, i desire the military node to be lead by the strongest, in my opinion the worthiest to hold power. My problem with this is actually on the marketing/appeal side. Even if we're going back to 'the old design', just 'designing for the benefit to go to Orgs/strength' or 'to create friction', is a relatively low bar, so I'd expect a ton of upcoming games with similar designs because you don't really have to do anything. Do you think it's impact on the "marketing/appeal side" would be that meaningful? Because even with the possible threat of the "ton of upcoming games with similar designs" i personally don't. I can't be sure, because there's always demographic bias, but I can say that I think literally everyone I know interested in this game, if there was generally just a lot of 'rise and fall drama', would choose to play something else. It's definitely not 'Ashes is terrible', it would be top of the list compared to anything that exists now other than what we play already, but other offerings (TL, Pax Dei, AA2, etc) would have to be really bad. I think it's because playing something simple implemented well is just overall more fun for people I know, long term, than playing something complex with one or two meaningful flaws, because of just how frustration happens.
JamesSunderland wrote: » Azherae wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » Azherae wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » Diamaht wrote: » You also have to think, are the lone wolf or small guild member the best person to lead a large node? I don't think the idea of the nodes are for them to be lead by "the best person", designwise. Like the Econ node will be led by the wealthiest, and the scientific by the most popular, i desire the military node to be lead by the strongest, in my opinion the worthiest to hold power. My problem with this is actually on the marketing/appeal side. Even if we're going back to 'the old design', just 'designing for the benefit to go to Orgs/strength' or 'to create friction', is a relatively low bar, so I'd expect a ton of upcoming games with similar designs because you don't really have to do anything. Do you think it's impact on the "marketing/appeal side" would be that meaningful? Because even with the possible threat of the "ton of upcoming games with similar designs" i personally don't. I can't be sure, because there's always demographic bias, but I can say that I think literally everyone I know interested in this game, if there was generally just a lot of 'rise and fall drama', would choose to play something else. It's definitely not 'Ashes is terrible', it would be top of the list compared to anything that exists now other than what we play already, but other offerings (TL, Pax Dei, AA2, etc) would have to be really bad. I think it's because playing something simple implemented well is just overall more fun for people I know, long term, than playing something complex with one or two meaningful flaws, because of just how frustration happens. I can see the point, it really becomes a matter of priorities of what designs people will favor over others when possible design similarities appear on the offerings, i think my personal bias may blind me when evaluating such designs even if i'm well versed in the concepts and designs of the other offerings.
Diamaht wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » Azherae wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » Azherae wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » Diamaht wrote: » You also have to think, are the lone wolf or small guild member the best person to lead a large node? I don't think the idea of the nodes are for them to be lead by "the best person", designwise. Like the Econ node will be led by the wealthiest, and the scientific by the most popular, i desire the military node to be lead by the strongest, in my opinion the worthiest to hold power. My problem with this is actually on the marketing/appeal side. Even if we're going back to 'the old design', just 'designing for the benefit to go to Orgs/strength' or 'to create friction', is a relatively low bar, so I'd expect a ton of upcoming games with similar designs because you don't really have to do anything. Do you think it's impact on the "marketing/appeal side" would be that meaningful? Because even with the possible threat of the "ton of upcoming games with similar designs" i personally don't. I can't be sure, because there's always demographic bias, but I can say that I think literally everyone I know interested in this game, if there was generally just a lot of 'rise and fall drama', would choose to play something else. It's definitely not 'Ashes is terrible', it would be top of the list compared to anything that exists now other than what we play already, but other offerings (TL, Pax Dei, AA2, etc) would have to be really bad. I think it's because playing something simple implemented well is just overall more fun for people I know, long term, than playing something complex with one or two meaningful flaws, because of just how frustration happens. I can see the point, it really becomes a matter of priorities of what designs people will favor over others when possible design similarities appear on the offerings, i think my personal bias may blind me when evaluating such designs even if i'm well versed in the concepts and designs of the other offerings. Given the fact that the "solo king" idea could wind up not working, I wouldn't market it too heavily unless it's a hill they are fine dying on.
JamesSunderland wrote: » Diamaht wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » Azherae wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » Azherae wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » Diamaht wrote: » You also have to think, are the lone wolf or small guild member the best person to lead a large node? I don't think the idea of the nodes are for them to be lead by "the best person", designwise. Like the Econ node will be led by the wealthiest, and the scientific by the most popular, i desire the military node to be lead by the strongest, in my opinion the worthiest to hold power. My problem with this is actually on the marketing/appeal side. Even if we're going back to 'the old design', just 'designing for the benefit to go to Orgs/strength' or 'to create friction', is a relatively low bar, so I'd expect a ton of upcoming games with similar designs because you don't really have to do anything. Do you think it's impact on the "marketing/appeal side" would be that meaningful? Because even with the possible threat of the "ton of upcoming games with similar designs" i personally don't. I can't be sure, because there's always demographic bias, but I can say that I think literally everyone I know interested in this game, if there was generally just a lot of 'rise and fall drama', would choose to play something else. It's definitely not 'Ashes is terrible', it would be top of the list compared to anything that exists now other than what we play already, but other offerings (TL, Pax Dei, AA2, etc) would have to be really bad. I think it's because playing something simple implemented well is just overall more fun for people I know, long term, than playing something complex with one or two meaningful flaws, because of just how frustration happens. I can see the point, it really becomes a matter of priorities of what designs people will favor over others when possible design similarities appear on the offerings, i think my personal bias may blind me when evaluating such designs even if i'm well versed in the concepts and designs of the other offerings. Given the fact that the "solo king" idea could wind up not working, I wouldn't market it too heavily unless it's a hill they are fine dying on. You see, the other idea could also wind up not working, and even so i still don't think marketing it or not would be "a hill to die on".
Nerror wrote: » What with Steven saying we won't get any other election method than voting at the start of alpha 2, it got me thinking about if I even care if they ever implement the other types. It's a bit of a mixed bag for me, tbh. The Economic node one, where the mayor is determined by the highest blind bidder is the least interesting to me. And the biggest downside is how it incentivizes RMT. The Military node's trial by combat might be fun, but it really comes down to how well they implement it obviously. It's probably the one with the least downsides of the three non-voting methods I think, if they nail the implementation. The Divine node's PvE favor based system is something I on the surface would be more likely to be successful at with my playstyle and time I can spend on it, but it also sounds exhausting and grindy if you want to be mayor more than one month in a row. The constant grind might kill the enjoyment for me, and there won't be much time to actually spend on being a good mayor, and dealing with all the politics. All three methods suffer from the same thing, which is that the election methods require little to no political and leadership skills. Odds are we'll get people who are good at doing one of those three things, but suck at doing the actual job of being a mayor. Obviously, we'll test it and see how it goes, but my current feeling is that I would be ok if Intrepid end up completely dropping the non-voting election methods. Thoughts?
Noaani wrote: » Thus, the player with the best support network to gear up their Champion was always going to win.
NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Thus, the player with the best support network to gear up their Champion was always going to win. We had no clue what you'd need to do to gear them up though. If Intrepid truly pursued a soloable mayorship - they could make that gearing a soloable activity. Hell, I'd definitely expect it to be that way.
NiKr wrote: » Depraved wrote: » you can have fun stories in group battles as well ;3 Groups imply that this group will be behind the mayor. I want the possibility that some random solo player can win a mayorship, if they're good enough at champion combat.
