Sounds like someone can't get top player.

PS. No one cares about your politics. 'MERICA

Emperor should just be chosen at random that way I don't have to play as much and have equal chance... Equal rights amirite?!
'murka #1 less play time = more quality time

As a small group player with little interest in the overall campaign I agree that tying Emperor to AP gains is a broken model.

It is possible in the current system to never do a single thing for the progress of your alliance and be rewarded with emperor. I think this is not the norm and that most folks, even small groups like ours that focus more on the fights than the campaign, contribute a lot to a given campaign, often in unseen ways. The number of stale mates our 2-4 man group has broken, number of keeps saved, is staggering and very under appreciated by the overall campaign leaders and their raids.

The question becomes what do you replace it with? If you tie it to objectives then it makes PvP nothing but a zerging blob running around trading objectives. Vote system becomes a popularity contest and dominated by the large guilds. RNG... no thanks. Unfortunately, I can think of no better option other than how it is setup now.

I think it would be best to change the 'former emperor' skill line to a different Alliance War tree that uses a different currency. For example you could do something like the undaunted, but instead of dungeon achievements, it is number of objectives taken/defended, or a set of Alliance War achievements. Bonus points for being online when your alliance is crowned emperor. Over time it would let everyone get these skills and remove the angst over how it is achieved. Anyone already with skills in that tree would be grandfathered in, so as to not diminish their past effort.

That just leaves the title and active emperor skill tree which I think most of us do not really care that much about, so leaving it with the current system would be fine.

Overall a campaign where large raids and small groups are coordinating together makes for much more interesting game play and can overcome most any population advantage the other side my have. The current emperor system in my opinion pits us against each other and hinders this kind of coordination.

Armitas wrote: »

I think I would rather see the emperor title go and be replaced with commander. So that there are 3 emperors (now called commanders) for each side regardless of success. These commanders would be given tactical privileges as well as passives. Tactical privileges would include dropping respawn camps (with CD, duration, and cast time), reinforcing a keep, distribution of resources, campaign announcements etc. The commander would be given a group of set pieces that he can use or place strategically.

Regarding how the commander is chosen I envision something like Tera where the commander is manually chosen by his worth. Though I think that that there should be a default election system that would elect a commander automatically by performance should no one cast a vote. (along with the ability to refuse election) It would provide a check and balance between voting and ability.

It would be a system that made emperors (commanders) a position of leadership rather than convenience of passives.

I like this idea as well, I just think it should reward the most useful instead of the most oil used..

I believe the pizza will be dipped in ranch!