Node Mayors and wars.

We have not received permission from Strevi to share the quoted post.

Questing could be made easier by a guild and a single character could be accshared among the guild. Obviously that's against the rules, but unless Intrepid pay close attention to that - it won't be found out.

Democratic elections will just need the majority of votes to be abused. That could be done by a guild or through bribery.

Military nodes can be rigged by a guild.

Eco nodes will be bought by guilds, because they'll always have more money than random casuals and they'll always be more willing to pool that money to win an election.

I doubt that there'll be a ton of truly shitty mayors out there, but there'd definitely be fewer of them if they knew that they could be overthrown if they kept making dumb decisions.

We have not received permission from Depraved to share the quoted post.

Being in a guild doesn't cost me anything (outside of a potential tax). Living in a node not only defines what I farm, where I explore and where I live, but also requires a ton of money to upkeep and then would require even more money to move (because the prices in other nodes would already be way bigger than the one I got when settling the first time).

Those are not the same situations. But even not counting that, yes, I've had situations where I "changed the GL" by just talking to most members of the guild and them agreeing with me that the GL is trash now. We left the guild and immediately made another one with the same members. That's functionally the same thing as changing a mayor due to a majority vote, except it doesn't require you to move places.

We have not received permission from Depraved to share the quoted post.

Time investment of rebuilding a guild is nowhere near the same to the investment of changing your location, building up new relationships with the locals, building up the node itself (cause high lvl ones would most likely be at their capacity) and most likely fighting other nodes in the process.

We have not received permission from Depraved to share the quoted post.

And how many people, do you think, would not just leave the game if days of their time was wasted due to a single person's decisions, while those people could literally do nothing about it?

In forced pvp the victim can fight back. In declared wars or sieges the victims can fight back. But in a shitty mayor situation the victims can only sit on their asses and wait for the inevitable end of their node. How is that good design?

I'm not saying that it should be some super easy way to just topple the mayor or that it should be the same method for all nodes. I'm just saying there should be a way to combat potential abuses of the system or a sudden shift for the worse in mayor's decisions.

• Military nodes could have a personal challenge, so anyone thinking they're worthy or strong enough would have the chance to overtake the mayor (which is in line with the "the strongest one rules the node" design).
  
• Scientific nodes would just have a reelection, which could obviously still be abuseable, but at this point it'd be on the initiators of the reelection to maximize their chances of removing the current mayor. They'd at least have a chance to do that, instead of waiting for a month.
  
• Economic node would have a higher bid requirement (the size could be determined by the lvl of the node). This would still allow guilds to hold the power if their original bid for the mayor was ginormous, but it would also allow the citizens to pool the money outside of the node and try to overthrow the guild (would also play into subterfuge quite nicely).
  
• Divine nodes could have a chain of difficult quests the require a ton of citizens to complete and the chain could only be initiated by the runner-up in the previous election cycle.

All of these, except for military, would require the majority of citizens to agree on the reelection. All would be quite difficult to organize perfectly and probably even harder to execute correctly. And as for the military node - the strongest should rule, so, if there's a stronger person in the node than the one who got elected, the mayor should change accordingly.

We have not received permission from tautau to share the quoted post.

If the mayor can't influence their node within several weeks of their appointment - yeah, my point is moot. But then we'd kinda have another issue. Who'd wanna become a mayor if they can't even influence their node.