cRPG
cRPG => Suggestions Corner => Topic started by: CrazyCracka420 on August 15, 2011, 07:27:56 pm
-
I'd like to see how recruitment and making money works in strategus changed or reviewed. As it stands you could potentially never play c-rpg but just be idling a website and making recruits and money for your "faction" (or just a friend who has you sign up on a website, or some association - looking at you goons). You are slightly rewarded strategus money (it's really insignificant) for playing c-rpg. I think it would make more sense that your recruiting numbers or gold making would increase the more you are actually playing c-rpg. I don't think having 100s or 1000s of people who are willing to sign up on a website (or have multiple alternate accounts) should be rewarded over people who actually play c-rpg.
I'm not saying it should be purely based off of how much you play c-rpg in game, but the system can easily be abused and highly favors numbers of people, over numbers of active people.
-
This is an interesting point. just like how playing gives extra money, tie it into troops as well? Or perhaps make a toggle where you choose what your cRPG time gives to your Strat stuff.
-
I agree, right now its kinda like a popularity contest....
+1
Not sure the solution, but definitely agree there's a problem.
-
I'd like to see how recruitment and making money works in strategus changed or reviewed. As it stands you could potentially never play c-rpg but just be idling a website and making recruits and money for your "faction" (or just a friend who has you sign up on a website, or some association - looking at you goons). You are slightly rewarded strategus money (it's really insignificant) for playing c-rpg. I think it would make more sense that your recruiting numbers or gold making would increase the more you are actually playing c-rpg. I don't think having 100s or 1000s of people who are willing to sign up on a website (or have multiple alternate accounts) should be rewarded over people who actually play c-rpg.
I'm not saying it should be purely based off of how much you play c-rpg in game, but the system can easily be abused and highly favors numbers of people, over numbers of active people.
Ok I have to respond to this since this seems to be leveled at us.
Believe it or not, everyone in the LLJK strategus faction plays or has played crpg. Despite the perception that goons are some zerg-like hivemind in reality getting us to do anything is like herding cats. We're definitely not getting people to sign up for strategus just to funnel us troops. In fact posting on the somethingawful forums to try and goonrush a site for your own personal gain is a bannable offense. What we do have is recruitment drives for crpg where we encourage people to try out the game. This is a good thing. It brings many new players to the game. Not all of them stay, and not all of them stay with LLJK. There are goons in lots of different clans who like the game, but don't necessarily agree with LLJK philosophy.
So yes we do add a bunch of new accounts fairly often who sign up for strategus, play for a week, then disappear. We have no way of getting the troops from inactive players, so its not as overpowered as you think. 90% of LLJK troops and gold come from our veteran active players just like any other clan (we just have more of them than your standard clan).
However, that being said, I think the recruiting mechanics do need to be looked at for two simple reasons:
1) It takes forever to get enough troops to accomplish anything without a ton of people.
2) Its boring as hell.
-
i dont think his post was as directed at LLJK as you think....moreso just the nature of the current strategus dynamic benefiting larger not necessarily active groups - dont think he said LLJK is one of those. in fact he didnt mention LLJK at all! :)
-
i dont think his post was as directed at LLJK as you think....moreso just the nature of the current strategus dynamic benefiting larger not necessarily active groups - dont think he said LLJK is one of those. in fact he didnt mention LLJK at all! :)
Right here:
(or just a friend who has you sign up on a website, or some association - looking at you goons).
-
Good post, SPQR.
-
I was directing it partially at lljk (the goons comment) to use as an example, but was more talking about the system in general. You could also have alternate accounts.
But I rethought it out and I think you would need a unique warband account and unique c-rpg account to sign up for strategus. I'm not sure if the current system can be "gamed" by a bunch of randoms signing up, I think they would need warband, and c-rpg (and both would need to be unique).
Can anyone confirm/deny?
-
Pretty sure someone would need a unique Warband and crpg account to sign up for Strategus.
But, your point remains that you can have lots of inactives just camping in fiefs recruiting for you...some of this is natural and is gonna happen but I agree that I don't want Strategus to become a popularity game like a high school election :)
-
You do need a unique key for a new strat account, and the devs track everyone who uses multiple keys. We had to obtain special permission for a few Fallen members to share for family members and such.
-
But anyway, I think all clans have trouble keeping players active on strategus because for 90% of the playerbase their role boils down to "sit in a fief, hit transfer every once in a while". Its dreadfully dull and I dont hold it against the people who just stop logging onto strategus cause its not interesting at all.
LLJK just copes with it better because if both LLJK and Random Clan have 25% inactive rate on strategus, if LLJK has twice as many players we'll still have enough active players to be effective.
That being said, I'm not sure the solution is to tie more strategus things into crpg. I know I for one like the strategic RISK aspect of strategus, I just wish there was more to do in it. In my opinion, having some sort of active interaction on the website to gain troops would be an improvement over the passive "wait and it'll come" system we have now. It would also encourage people to log on more.
Maybe some sort of system closer to native where recruitment doesn't happen automatically, you have to hit Recruit to get any troops.
Something like this:
Have a RECRUIT button inside fiefs. When you hit it, it charges you a fee (say, 25 gold). You then have a percent chance to receive a troop. The starting percentage chance is the same as it is now (based on the number of people in the fief) but each time you hit RECRUIT it goes down 5%.
So for instance, I'm inside Rushdigh. There is a 75% recruitment rate, I hit RECRUIT. I pay the fee (regardless if you successfully recruit or not) and have a 75% chance of getting a soldier. Now the recruitment rate will say 70/75%. I hit RECRUIT again, pay the fee, and have a 70% chance of recruiting and the rate will drop to 65/75%. Every time I hit it, the percent will go down 5% and I'll have to pay the fee. So recruiting more than a few soldiers at a time will be expensive and difficult. Then the percentage rate regenerates at say, 5% per hour. So you could log on, hit RECRUIT a few times, then wait and come back tomorrow to try again when the rates have regenerated. Maybe if your faction owns the fief the percentage regenerates faster or something.
This way, totally inactive players will not generate any troops, but players who are only partially active can still contribute. Furthermore, you'll actually have to play crpg (or work in a town) to recieve gold otherwise you wont be able to afford to recruit anyone.
Just some thoughts.
-
Hmm, I like your ideas but I dont know about making Strategus even more of a 24/7 thing, because its already hard for some clans/individuals to keep up with since its not turn based...ie - purchasing gear at 4am etc....
I was actually wondering if it should give MORE control to clan leaders, so they can have permission to move their members around, transfer from them, etc.
This of course would have to be something the leaders were given access to by the member, some check box "let my clan leaders control my stategus actions" or something....i dont know....
But that might just make things worse....I dont know if there is a really great solution for this :(
-
There is some info available about the next version of strat... my understanding is things will be quite different, and for example.. there will be no gold.
-
I find the extra gold gain you get by playing cRPG not insignificant at all. With the overpopulation in strategus nowadays town don't give much money. If I have time to play cRPG on a day I transfer a lot more at the end of the day.
Now it's indeed a popularity contest, but more advantages gained by playing cRPG would make it a grind contest.
Oh yes, nothing will ever be changed in this version except whats necesarry to keep it in a slightly playable form, wait for the new version for a better experience.
-
I thought you couldnt make an account/character without a cd key? Personally I doubt most goons are dedicated to the goon cause enough to spend $20(?) on a game just becuase theres a thread in the SA forums. I know it wasn't why i started playing crpg. And that likely applies to just about anyone, i know i cant walk up to someone and go "Hey, you should spend money on this and give me shit even if you dont like the game".
-
I thought you couldnt make an account/character without a cd key? Personally I doubt most goons are dedicated to the goon cause enough to spend $20(?) on a game just becuase theres a thread in the SA forums. I know it wasn't why i started playing crpg. And that likely applies to just about anyone, i know i cant walk up to someone and go "Hey, you should spend money on this and give me shit even if you dont like the game".
First Rule of Fighting the Swarm: do not underestimate the swarm
it may be $20 from Steam at this very moment, but I'm sure they have other outlets to get valid keys. I highly doubt they pay more than $5 at the very most per cd-key
-
The problem is not who play on site or in game, the problem is what ever faction have the most members will pwn other small faction.
There is no limit or upkeep for big factions, there is no limit in fief owning except number of members.
chadz could find a way to make big faction to pay more than small one.
I guess new strat will be more complex as you will need food to upkeep troops, meaning line of supply, meaning harder upkeep when you are far from food production.
-
There was a system to stop giant groups from steamrolling planned, but Growl successfully fought it off, right before the Templar were steamrolled by a giant group.
Also, don't force people to play c-RPG to play strategus. Thats just silly. Strategus is the point, cRPG is just something to do when you are bored (and a training simulator, I suppose).
-
god no, then we will be forced by clan leaders to constantly play crpg to grind troops for strategus
-
Make alts give strat gold would help. The one major thing that puts a lot of people off playing alts and therefore extending crpg general play. Kinda annoying.
-
I don't know if this was what Growl fought off but why not just make Strategus like Mount and Blade single player and limit the number of troops people can lead?
Say 100 troops for a normal player
500 for a fief owner
5000 for a castle owner
20000 for a town owner
That would mean clans actually need a good sized active core to move enough troops around to start tackling villages, castles and towns. It would also add a point to taking castles and slow down the rate at which villages are initially taken allowing more clans to get a foothold in Strategus when the next reset comes.
-
I don't know if this was what Growl fought off but why not just make Strategus like Mount and Blade single player and limit the number of troops people can lead?
Say 100 troops for a normal player
500 for a fief owner
5000 for a castle owner
20000 for a town owner
That would mean clans actually need a good sized active core to move enough troops around to start tackling villages, castles and towns. It would also add a point to taking castles and slow down the rate at which villages are initially taken allowing more clans to get a foothold in Strategus when the next reset comes.
If the most one one player could ever have is 100 troops then it would be impossible probably to ever take a fief unless you buy the best gear money can buy for every slot and every ticket. For this to work they need a way to combine the troops into a single force so that is possible to still capture places. It would just require organisation instead of dumping all your troops on your clan leader or w/e.
-
If the most one one player could ever have is 100 troops then it would be impossible probably to ever take a fief unless you buy the best gear money can buy for every slot and every ticket. For this to work they need a way to combine the troops into a single force so that is possible to still capture places. It would just require organisation instead of dumping all your troops on your clan leader or w/e.
You are probably right and my numbers are a bit out. But I just included them to help illustrate the idea and am happy for them to be reworked. Personally I think this would allow all the numbers in the game to be reworked as I really think 5000 tickets for a castle is a little extreme, especially for the castles that barely have enough room for a couple of hundred people in them. I don't really have the time or Strat knowledge to judge the proper balance of numbers however.
As for organisation over dumping troops - isn't this a good thing? The pro's I can think of so far are;
- Pressure would no longer be dumped on just a few people within a clan, it would be spread out.
- Instead of most people having virtually nothing to do except log in every few days to transfer gold and troops, everybody gets to join in.
- People not in clans can work as solo mercenaries, earning cash to turn their mercenary band it to a higly equipped killing machine (will require a few other tweaks to gameplay along with those that you mentioned about joining armies together for battles - see below)
- The current system of unlimited numbers of troops within the game, means steam rolling is not only possible, but inevitable. This would no longer be true.
- Get the balance right and small clans at the start of the game get a much better chance at taking a village.
- Alliances become more transparent on Strategus. E.g. an allied faction members can contribute troops to the strat battle as well as their faction members joining in the actual battle.
Finally, the mechanism i'd suggest for battles would be as follows.
- Every character on strat remains a seperate entity at all times.
- When a battle is initiated by 1 character attacking another character or attacking a village/castle/town the initial characters (or fief owner) become the Battle Commanders.
- Anybody within range and anybody who gets within range within 24 hours can then click the battle and apply to join on which ever side they choose (stating their requested fee).
- The Battle Commanders also get to see the total value of their potential ally's equipment. This is because in order to accept someone as an ally in a battle you must be able to put a deposit down for the same value as all their equipment.
- Once accepted the Battle Commander gains all the tickets of their ally as well as access to their equipment. At this point the ally can no longer buy equipment, but the Battle commander can.
- It is now up to the Battle Commander to decide who they actually hire for the fight, pay their fees and fill any gaps in equipment before the fight starts.
- Once the fight is over, the winning commander gets their equipment deposit back minus the cost of any equipment lost by their ally.
That should work
-
+1 Tomas, i really like that idea. So much i think you should create your own thread about it :o
The things about battle commanders and allies might be a little too messy though, maybe simply have it that when you engage in battle, you have your limits removed so you can get reinforced. Would be easier.
It does change the game quite alot if implemented. Right now, you can as a clan sustain as many troops as you can upkeep, which is an excruciating high number of troops. With a lower max amount of troops, you can't sit in fiefs and wait and gather forces forever - You won't gain anything after a relatively brief while.
It would thereby make war more profitable, and so give more action in strategus. It would enforce more members to play actively in strategus (you can do it now, its just more effective to have a few people managing it).
Awesome stuff.
-
Yeah +1 Tomas.
I remember a thread where this idea was point out (i guess it was in old forum), only way for reinforcement was to engage in the battle with your troops+gold (if it's a defeat all grouped char will be thrown in random place), and there was a proposal about the fact you could engage with cRPG gears (for the commander only), and as you said that could give real mercenaries band (randommer will have a real interest in gold and troops, not only to sold them).
But the main idea was that, troops limit by character, to have a big army you must group with other chars near you.
-
I've been thinking about this some more and have come up with a slight variation on what I suggested before.
1) All characters are initially limited to 100 troops.
2) Fief owners then get a bonus to the number of troops they can hold. Fief Population caps will need to be changed aswell though so here's some suggested numbers
Village - Pop: 500 - Troop Bonus: 100
Castle - Pop: 2000 - Troop Bonus: 500
Town - Pop: 10000 - Troop Bonus: 500
These numbers are picked to try and make Castles the most valuable for troops numbers (since they are rubbish for recruiting and working compared to villages and towns repectively), whilst also ensuring that if someone ever manages to take a town, they don't then get a huge troop advantage. They are certainly open to change though, since i'm not taking army upkeep costs, or faction gold production potentials, into account when writing this.
3) Troops cannot be stationed within fiefs, however the troops of any faction member within one of their own faction's fiefs will be added to the defending army (unless they retreat).
4) Characters from 3rd parties can choose to join whichever side of any battle they want, so long as they are within range. The mechanism I described 3 posts ago would be used in this situation for Battle management.
Now for the variation
5) Each clan gets to determine its own internal hierachy by placing every member of the faction under somebody elses command. You can pick whatever setup you want from placing everybody directly under the faction leader, to a higly complicated pyramid system with lots of ranks. Its entirely up to each faction how it is done.
6) Each faction member then gets to decide what percentage of their followers' troops troops they want to command themselves. Default settings should useable, with tick boxes to override the defaults for individuals. These troops then get taken away from the followers' max troop allowances, and added to the commanders allowance. If the troops already exist then they will be removed from one army and added to the other after a period of time according to the distance between the 2 characters.
Here's some examples as I realise I'm not the best at explaining :wink:
Example 1 (a simple version)
- Captain1 - 5 other followers
Faction Leader <
- Captain2 - 5 other followers
- The faction Leader and both Captains all use a figure of 20% as their default with no exceptions
- This leads to the following troops allowances
Captain1 & 2's followers - 80 troops each (100 - 20 to their captain)
Captains1 & 2 - 160 troops each (100 + 100 in total from followers - 40 to the leader)
Leader - 180 troops (100 + 40 from each Captain)
Total troops - 1300 from 13 people
Example 2 (a more complicated example)
- Captain - 5 other characters
Faction Leader <
- 6 other characters
- Captain 1 decides he wants 100% of his followers' troops
- The Faction Leader decides he wants 50% of his follwers' troops and 0% of the Captain's troops
- This results in the following troop numbers
Captain's Followers - 0 troops each (100 - 100 to the Captain)
Captain - 600 troops (100 + 500 in total from followers - 0 to the leader)
Leader's other followers - 50 troops each (100 - 50 to the leader)
Faction Leader - 400 troops (100 + 300 troops in total from followers + 0 troops from Captain)
Total Troops - 1300 from 13 people
EDIT: If negative percentages are also useable then faction leaders will be able to pass troops back down the line to specific individuals. This will increase each factions freedom over their setup even further.
7) If a faction member is inactive for 10 days then any troops they have given to their commander will be transferred back to them and the character will be frozen until they return. During this time their troops will not be added to the defending garrison of any town they are in, and they will also not be able to earn gold.
As you can see from the examples, this system allows almost complete flexibility when deciding how many troops each person gets without changing the overall number of troops within a faction. This means we get a faction troop cap, without preventing factions from pooling resources and creating 1 massive army. It also forces more tactical decisions when attacking, by making leaders decide how many troops to leave behind and who to leave them with. Finally, it seriously simplifies the reinforcing system as instead of having to march within range and then transfer the troops, your commander just ups the percentage he wants you to send him and they march off on their own arriving after the appropriate amount of time. Obviously troop transfers will still be possible and sometimes preferable as with the suggested method troops will be un-useable whilst in transit. Also, if both the commander and follower are defeated whilst the troops are in transit, the troops should desert and be lost. Attrition when transferring troops over long distances could also be used in this system.
-
I'm going to point out the obvious problem real fast so you can do some reconfiguring to your formula to correct it. Castles have populations of 4500. Towns have populations of 20000. Getting approximately 100 troops per clanmate means about 45 clanmates in march to even contemplate assaulting a castle and 200 for a town.
-
I'm going to point out the obvious problem real fast so you can do some reconfiguring to your formula to correct it. Castles have populations of 4500. Towns have populations of 20000. Getting approximately 100 troops per clanmate means about 45 clanmates in march to even contemplate assaulting a castle and 200 for a town.
If every player could command 500 troops under them at once it would be only 40 clan members to equal a towns tickets, combined with the bonus' for owning villages and castles and being able to have an ally clans members join your 'army' with troops of thier own to contribute then it would be possible for smaller clans to participate in strategus too, if not in owning fiefs, in being mercenaries to lend a higher troop count to thier ally as well as actually fighting the battles.
-
I'm going to point out the obvious problem real fast so you can do some reconfiguring to your formula to correct it. Castles have populations of 4500. Towns have populations of 20000. Getting approximately 100 troops per clanmate means about 45 clanmates in march to even contemplate assaulting a castle and 200 for a town.
I suggested alternative populations under part 2 that roughly halve the size of castles and towns. 100 clan mates to take a town is still a lot I know, but given the size of some of the alliances we are seeing in Strat at the moment, I don't think it is too much. Also, if you already own some castles and a few villages you can significantly decrease that number. For instance, 2 castles and 5 villages is the equivalent of 15 clanmates.
-
With this system, a random player could be hired as a merc by faction, adding is max number of troops to the faction max number troops.
It's interesting, that gives a role to random and a real mercenaries role to mercs companies.
Really interesting...
-
Also, if set up right, we could have Vassal Factions adding a proportion of their army capacity to that of their Master. It would be up to the 2 factions ivolved to decide if they want a Vassal that will stand on their own and march individually in War. Or they could be a more peaceful Vassal that asks for their masters protection and in return boosts their masters armies. Why anybody would want to be a peaceful faction in Strat is beyond me :? but as more content is added to Strat they might have a place