cRPG

Strategus => Strategus General Discussion => Topic started by: chadz on November 25, 2011, 10:28:44 am

Title: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: chadz on November 25, 2011, 10:28:44 am
This is what is currently planned:

Every day at midnight, fief owners get their share:

You gain owned_population*100 as XP to cRPG,
You gain owned_population*5 as gold to cRPG

I know many will hate this, but I feel this could be enough incentive to stop the carebear alliances that drag strategus down so much. If you are too large for your own sake, then you suffer. I'm about 85% sure of really doing this (=trying it out, if it sucks I remove it again), unless someone can bring up a good point why this is a bad idea.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Cepeshi on November 25, 2011, 10:35:54 am
I do not see why fief ownage in strat should give any advantage in cRPG, isnt that enuff?  :mrgreen:

How could the solution you came up with actually prevent the carebearing? The big alliances will just swap ownership in order to milk the bonus, if they like, and the smaller guys will be screwed cause now the big fractions will want more fiefs for moar bonuses. Imho this will just help eradicate smaller factions and the huge war machines will stay untouched.


edit 1: also, do not forget the piss off factor this might launch, as yeah, if earthd is right with counting, then yeah, 50k exp and some gold for practically doing nothing is retarded, on the contrary fief owners should have more troubles keeping them, than advantages, so the only really good management guys will be able to stick to big number of fiefs.

edit 2: The idea of split between whole faction on strat is quite nice, even tho the bonus would be so small it would be the same if there was none.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Tennenoth on November 25, 2011, 10:36:55 am
Quite like it, as a clan leader i'm quite inclined since this'll push me towards level 33 slowly enough!  :rolleyes:

I would personally not quite do it as the person who owns the fief but more a split between the faction or similar? This would increase the want for fiefs but the more people in the faction, the less of a share that they actually get.

I assume by carebear alliances you mean the ones where there are several clans under one name as opposed to alliances between differently named factions (such as Fallen Brigade, HRE being allied but no under one faction name).
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Earthdforce on November 25, 2011, 10:37:23 am
So like.. 50000 xp for a fief? I'm not sure if I like that.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Vibe on November 25, 2011, 10:53:18 am
Do NOT like. This gives too much advantage to people who people who play Strat over people who don't like/play Strat. Not everyone who is playing cRPG is playing Strat.

Why not make fief ownership bonuses about Strat only? For example, make them give # of goods to fief owner every midnight?

Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: chadz on November 25, 2011, 10:59:57 am
Because that won't have the desired effect. It wouldn't matter what workhorse has the fief.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Dehitay on November 25, 2011, 11:03:51 am
LOLZ! He actually used the term "carebear alliances".

I like the idea, but damn will this start causing some internal strife in some clans. I'll sure as hell be taking a larger claim to territory in Fallen if this kicks in. What about a wartime production bonus. It's not rare for a country going to war to increase production significantly. Why not apply these principles to Strategus?

Win or lose, for each battle you're in where both sides have over a certain number of troops (let's say 20), each member of the faction has a +1% chance of both recruiting and crafting in any fief they're in and +2% if it's a faction owned fief maxing out at 100% for the next 24 hours. So if a faction gets into 5 decent sized battles in one day, then they can have a +10% crafting/recruiting chance in their fiefs which could help offset overpopulation. And for every battle where both sides have over 1000 troops, the faction members get double production (they produce 2 goods or recruit 2 troops per hour instead of 1) for the next 24 hours. That particular bonus could worth both by stacking or extending for another 24 hours if multiple 1000+ troop battles happen within a single day. I think that would increase battles significantly. And the double production would probly encourage large scale wars which are really the funnest.

Another powerful incentive would to give speed bonuses to more battle active factions. They're more experienced in war, so therefore they could logically be better organized and move faster. Maybe just a simple log fuction. So where small_army is the number of troops of the smallest army involved in a faction battle:
speed bonus percentage = log(small_army)
So for the next 24 hours, faction members get that speed bonus percentage that stacks up based on all the other battles that happened in the last 24 hours for the faction.

EDIT: Just realized this significantly benefits huge clans so if the ideas are actually used, the bonuses should somehow be divided by the number of members in the faction
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Digglez on November 25, 2011, 11:06:40 am
and how exactly is rewarding fief ownership supposed to deter huge carebear alliances?  thats a pretty dumb idea honestly.


(1)  Increase strategus benefits (gold, heirlooms, exp, etc) for putting in hours of play in cRPG, to reward active members of community and not multiaccounters and AFKs

(2)  Add in corruption of fief (lowered crafting, recruiting, taxes/visting fee % lost) based on distance from capital city...ya know..like civilization had since 1990s
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Vibe on November 25, 2011, 11:10:09 am
Are carebear alliances or big clans or both the problem? Because I doubt this would fix the problem.

Big clans will have lets say about 10+ fiefs and 50+ members, which means 1 fief / 5 people. Small clans are not able to hold as many fiefs, lets say they will be able to hold 2 fiefs with 10 members... so pretty much the same case?
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Dehitay on November 25, 2011, 11:12:06 am
Are carebear alliances or big clans or both the problem? Because I doubt this would fix the problem.
From what I gather, the problem is that he wants more war rather than passive behavior. Which is why I gave suggestions to reward violent behavior.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Segd on November 25, 2011, 11:15:43 am
30k XP + 1.5k gold? Love you! But I hate this purple "Lady ... entered the battlefield" Makes me feel I am a gay  :cry:
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Erasmas on November 25, 2011, 11:27:59 am
I think that chadz is actually misjudging who owns the fiefs. It is a responsible job to hold the fief, it cannot be done by the "workhorse", it has to be someone really active and devoted.

For  that reason +1 to the idea, it rewards guys who spend more time in Strat at the expense of cRPG. I guess it is contrary to the intended rationale, but ... well, the idea is good.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Cepeshi on November 25, 2011, 11:38:29 am
For  that reason +1 to the idea, it rewards guys who spend more time in Strat at the expense of cRPG. I guess it is contrary to the intended rationale, but ... well, the idea is good.

But, why should you get advantage in cRPG by playing strat? That is just plain stupid if you ask me. It should really be the other way around, if something (moar time in cRPG, more strat goodness)...this way the people who care about strat are not losing anything, but also the people who dont are not being disadvantaged.

It is all about time management, the people play strat cause they want to, if they do it on expense of crpg time, it is their choice. And tbh i think except few very very dedicated people the guys manage strat while at work or while they cannot play regular crpg, not instead. (Also dont forget quite some time you can spend as dead guy on battle :P)

Why not to make an inactive army lose troops over time, not for upkeep, but for boredom? You know, the soldiers want to fight, and when there is nothing happening, they get bored and go work as fletchers or something  :mrgreen: There could be timer like few days, and if you did not had any battle within the faction in that time, you would have a chance to lose some percentage of troops every 8 hours or so. This would force people making battles somewhat, also would prevent hoarding large armies for long time.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Zaharist on November 25, 2011, 11:49:38 am
I love the idea of fief ownership bonuses.
Managing fief atm is hard task, that requires time. Bonuses will encourage ppl to take care about faction's fiefs.

But it won't ever make factions start fighting not loving
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Dalhi on November 25, 2011, 11:50:30 am

But it won't ever make factions start fighting not loving

True, I love you  :D
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Teeth on November 25, 2011, 11:54:16 am
I see that such a thing might be needed, but don't like it at all.

I would like to see more Strategus bonuses for playing cRPG.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Bjarky on November 25, 2011, 12:09:05 pm
this won't change carebear mentality like OP wants too, therefore it's just a nice buff for owners, nothing more...
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Camaris on November 25, 2011, 12:15:37 pm
this won't change carebear mentality like OP wants too, therefore it's just a nice buff for owners, nothing more...

but it will draw more attention to strategus
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Odion on November 25, 2011, 12:15:58 pm
why not make it that their repair cost is 10-30% less or the rate they repair gear in crpg is reduced

+ they receive 50-80% more exp when playing crpg
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Bjarky on November 25, 2011, 12:19:18 pm
but it will draw more attention to strategus
fief owners already have their attention on it, for a good reason.
also the intended incentive from OP for this won't work as planned.
i'd rather see this scrapped and see the devs use the time on fixing the gamebreaking problems with the current strat instead  :wink:
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: kinngrimm on November 25, 2011, 12:20:11 pm
i don't think the "carebears" get nerfed by this. But as i see myself a lot time investing into strat, less playing crpg, yes this would be nice.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Cepeshi on November 25, 2011, 12:22:47 pm
i don't think the "carebears" get nerfed by this. But as i see myself a lot time investing into strat, less playing crpg, yes this would be nice.

shush u nolifer, like you needed more time to play  :mrgreen: if this gets implemented, i demand we take turns in fief ownership every week or so, so all of us can enjoy fruits of the whole clan effort  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Fluffy_Muffin on November 25, 2011, 12:25:23 pm
and how exactly is rewarding fief ownership supposed to deter huge carebear alliances?  thats a pretty dumb idea honestly.


(1)  Increase strategus benefits (gold, heirlooms, exp, etc) for putting in hours of play in cRPG, to reward active members of community and not multiaccounters and AFKs

(2)  Add in corruption of fief (lowered crafting, recruiting, taxes/visting fee % lost) based on distance from capital city...ya know..like civilization had since 1990s

Edit: actualy now that i think of it, how would this corruption stop alliances, it would just screw the large factions
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: 22nd_King_Plazek on November 25, 2011, 12:43:06 pm
I like it, not because of the reasons given by chadz and the supposed purpose but because I thought something like this should be done when upkeep came out. So lords can actually dress lordly and such like.

Although unfortunately upkeep has been made a lot less restricting since then :(
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: oprah_winfrey on November 25, 2011, 01:00:14 pm
How will this stop carebear alliances? I understand that there will be a bigger incentive to own fiefs thus clans want to take more instead of divying up territories, but I think it will just increase alliances since land owners want to keep their fiefs even more and will make allies in order to prevent war and continue farming xp and gold.

Also, if you were to do this, it seems to go against the xp nerf (gen bonuses) that was done months ago to reduce looms/easy xp/make things easier for new players. this makes things harder for the newer players since they will either not be in a faction or if they are will not be in a position to be a fief owner in the faction.If you were to implement this, I think that the gen bonus needs to go back to 100 or at the very least remove the cap if you keep it at 30 per.

As an aside, buffing gen bonuses will lower loom points/heirlooms in general, which have been skyrocketing lately. thay being said I am not sure if you are for or against loompoints selling for 500k+
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Xant on November 25, 2011, 01:07:33 pm
this won't change carebear mentality like OP wants too, therefore it's just a nice buff for owners, nothing more...

This. All it does is give a couple leader-figures in the clan some bonus XP and gold. While some clan leaders might be greedy for more fiefs because of that, I dunno.. "Let's break off our alliance with X and risk losing our current possessions so that I can get more XP!"... naww.

But as to the suggestion itself, I don't see why not, as long as it's not a huge massive gigantic XP and gold bonus.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: chadz on November 25, 2011, 01:08:47 pm
We'll see. Right now, giving up a fief is rather symbolic. It might be different when it really hurts to do so.

Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Cepeshi on November 25, 2011, 01:11:02 pm
We'll see. Right now, giving up a fief is rather symbolic. It might be different when it really hurts to do so.

So make it hurt one time, at the time of giving away, lets say the guy who gives fief away has to pay few thousand strat gold, changing all the nametags and numbering inside of village cost some gold, aswell as getting rid of rats and so. (hence huge factions wont be affected that much, as they have caravans going and), but also it would make no difference on regular crpg :)

And yeah, i know you can trade money, but still giving away like 25k in order to pass village or 50k in order to pass city/castle could hurt the faction as a whole (feel free to come up with bigger numbers, really have no idea how much gold would be somewhat feelable to lose). Those money would be lost, not going to anyone else or anything, they would just disappear in the depths of database.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: chadz on November 25, 2011, 01:12:49 pm
with "giving up a fief" I don't mean transferring. I mean haggling about claims, for example.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Xant on November 25, 2011, 01:14:54 pm
We'll see. Right now, giving up a fief is rather symbolic. It might be different when it really hurts to do so.
Maybe make the hurt somehow strat related, though? cRPG XP won't have that much of an effect on Strategus relations, I would think. If it has a bigger influence on your ability to wage war/make money in Strat (and going to an allied fief wouldn't be nearly as effective or whatever) then it would be better for what you want, maybe?
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Cepeshi on November 25, 2011, 01:16:07 pm
with "giving up a fief" I don't mean transferring. I mean haggling about claims, for example.

Ah, now i see, stupid me. So, how about you just add some bonus for total owned fiefs? Like, every owned fief within faction increase production in all others by 1 percent or so, therefore owning 25fiefs could help a lot, and maybe, just maybe the greedy huge alliances will want their bonuses, so they would have to cap more and more and more?

But do not know what this could affect, if it should be recruitment, or maybe some increased chance of doublecraft, or maybe lowering upkeep inside of the fiefs...something like that, not gamebreaking, but nice to have feature.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Tot. on November 25, 2011, 01:29:05 pm
So in case of population 300 it's 1500 gold and 30.000 xp per night. That's next to nothing.


Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Cepeshi on November 25, 2011, 01:29:47 pm
So in case of population 300 it's 1500 gold and 30.000 xp per night. That's next to nothing.

It adds up mate. For a week you got 210k exp (that is like 3hours on x1 for gen 1, and that for doing NOTHING)
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Tot. on November 25, 2011, 01:33:03 pm
- I lose more than that running for the bus.

                                        - Micky, The Snatch
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: kinngrimm on November 25, 2011, 01:52:03 pm
well if you would get more xp because of it and also it would be like crafting skill are depending on xp gain, like gaining a smithing skill point each  (lvl31 xp / 3) then leveling faster would get you over time faster then others a better strategus crafting ability. Then again it wouldn't matter for max level players would it.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Antip on November 25, 2011, 01:59:00 pm
30k xp per day = very little
300k xp minimum
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Vibe on November 25, 2011, 02:02:28 pm
Well, I have an idea.

INFLUENCE

Simply said, the more fiefs your faction control, the higher influence you have. This is just an idea, so don't take any of the formulas/numbers as final.

First off, three types of influence:

Village influence
The more village influence your faction has, the more goods you can craft per day in all your fiefs.
1 village = 100 influence value
Since we don't want to give advantage to big sized clans this way, the total village influence is divided by the number of faction members.
For example: we have 5 villages which gives us 500 influence value and 40 members in our faction, thus we have a total village influence of 12.5.
This would, as a result, increase the chance to make a village good by 12.5%. If you already have a 100% chance, this means that you would have 12.5% chance to make another village good.

Castle influence
The more castle influence your faction has, the more troops you can recruit per day in all your castles.
As for calculation, use the same example as the village one.

Town influence
The more town influence your faction has, the bigger the trade distance bonus in all your towns (or perhaps even surrounding villages).
As for calculation, use the same example as the village one.

Possible problems that would need to be handled:
- faction leaving/joining/hopping to decrease size/improve total influence
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: chadz on November 25, 2011, 02:08:37 pm
It's not possible to tie anything to faction size.

If you tie a bonus to having many fiefs, alliances will accumulate in big factions.
If you tie a malus to having many fiefs, people will split up in smaller factions.
If you try and balance it out somehow, you have the same as now.

That's the reason the capital system from the first strat version had to go.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Chasey on November 25, 2011, 02:10:09 pm
30k exp a night, thats  30 mins (and even less for people with high gens)  on x1 on the battle/siege server a day. Cant see that making much of a difference.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Xant on November 25, 2011, 02:25:55 pm
30k xp per day = very little
300k xp minimum

Yeah, so by having 4 fiefs you get 1.2 million xp per day, 8.4 million xp per week.. so you can retire twice per week without playing?
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Antip on November 25, 2011, 02:29:48 pm
Yeah, so by having 4 fiefs you get 1.2 million xp per day, 8.4 million xp per week.. so you can retire twice per week without playing?

Come and capture the 4 fiefs
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Vibe on November 25, 2011, 02:30:24 pm
300k xp x 7 = 2.1 mil xp per week of not playing? lol
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Antip on November 25, 2011, 02:41:24 pm
30k xp x 365 = 10 950 000 xp per year of not playing

300k minimum
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Xant on November 25, 2011, 02:56:53 pm
Good thing you're not on the Strategus dev team.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Cosmos_Shielder on November 25, 2011, 03:03:54 pm
Why not dividing this bonus by the number of people in the faction.
So small faction owning a lot of fief will get more rewarded than big faction owning one fief.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Elmokki on November 25, 2011, 03:10:06 pm
Fief ownership needs to be very beneficial. If not in anything else, then in strategus gold. Seriously, taxing a few thousand people and traders should be worth considerably compared to what a single player can do to make money.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Vibe on November 25, 2011, 03:19:06 pm
Why not dividing this bonus by the number of people in the faction.
So small faction owning a lot of fief will get more rewarded than big faction owning one fief.

This gave me an idea. If you insist on making this bonus cRPG related.

Every fief you own gives you a certain amount of gold/xp that is then divided by the number of people in your faction and given to each member.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Kalp on November 25, 2011, 03:24:24 pm
Quote
Every fief you own gives you a certain amount of gold/xp that is then divided by the number of people in your faction and given to each member.
If any member is lazy on Strategus or cRPG or both then he should not deserve a bonus...
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Vibe on November 25, 2011, 03:27:10 pm
Then give faction leaders the option to uncheck who gets paid/xp-ed.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: 22nd_King_Plazek on November 25, 2011, 03:34:58 pm
I dont get why so many think this is such a big deal.

Communists.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: chadz on November 25, 2011, 03:52:51 pm
This gave me an idea. If you insist on making this bonus cRPG related.

Every fief you own gives you a certain amount of gold/xp that is then divided by the number of people in your faction and given to each member.

I still don't think you get why this is getting introduced. The point is that the bonus is awarded to one person. Just one. So people want it for themselves. Not a group. Just one person. The fun thing is that it's not shareable. So if you have a big faction with few fiefs, this might cause internal trouble. Probably not right away. But sooner or later, people will ask why they can't get a fief for themselves. Why the clan leader gets 100k xp for free every day, and the 2nd one doesn't. If you really need this big alliance with 8 factions. If you wouldn't gain a larger advantage if you just kill the weaker factions and have an alliance with 4. Because then you could give half of your members a fief, and more of your clan would profit. Or you could stack it on yourself and have a char that basically retires by itself.

Doing some communist thing here is exactly the wrong approach. I don't give cRPG bonus because I feel that's the correct way to do it. I want to give a cRPG bonus because people are more attached to their cRPG char than what they have with their strategus char. When was the last time you gave away strat-goods to a clan member without any kind of refunding. And when was the last time you gave away an heirloom without any kind of refunding. Now you know why I want to make the reward based on cRPG.

This is just one step, maybe it suffices, maybe not. It might just be the start.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Dezilagel on November 25, 2011, 03:55:31 pm
I like.

Make sure it's significant, and this will surely cause some sweet, sweet drama.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Paul on November 25, 2011, 03:55:59 pm
I have no problem with fighting for King Plazek and his absolutistic fief benefits as long as I get my cabbage soup.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Overdriven on November 25, 2011, 03:57:59 pm
Does anyone really care about crpg xp/gold that much to go to war over it? I know I don't  :| Kinda takes away from the fun of levelling through playing in my opinion.

Honestly I doubt this is going to change a damn thing. Most clans have pretty clear leadership structures, so it will be bloody obvious who get's the fiefs and who doesn't and people won't question it. This is more likely to hurt smaller clans who have much more open leadership and even then, only at a stretch. But regardless, carebare alliances are going to stay and people aren't going to start in fighting over this.

But I see chadz says this is possibly only the first of more changes, so we shall have to see...
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Dalhi on November 25, 2011, 04:12:31 pm
And when was the last time you gave away an heirloom without any kind of refunding.

Not so long time ago I gave to one of my clan mates 1,6 mln gold. Also I "donated" bank with one masterwork item (that one hurts  :cry:) and it was never reverted. Comparing it to this symbolic bonus it is really meaningless, and I strongly doubt that someone will care about it so much that it'll lead to conflicts between allies, or even within your own faction. There is to much to loose.
To be honest I'd let all our members to sell 20% goods produced by them to sell it for cRPG gold, that would insist on those bastards to pay more attention of their deeds in strategus. But I'm not a faction leader so it won't going to happen  :mrgreen:
I'm looking forward to see more of this kind of changes, I'm curious how it will work out.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Tristan on November 25, 2011, 04:14:41 pm
It'll only cause the complete destruction of the small clans and only larger meta alliances have a chance.
That will result in more blok war less small fights, not imo what we want.

Why?

Because of the massive discrepancy in power of the current strat between the factions.
Currently larger alliances have, if not a good reason, then some lesser ones for rpg purposes to keep friendly with smaller clans allowing them fiefs.
With this implemented those clans who have the ability to take land for themselves will do so. In effect, drz will now not stop in the desert but take all of EU because they can and they get a bonus.

Hre/Fallen might be able to stop some of it, but they again aren't interested in supporting smaller claims. Why? Because you can have it for yourselves.

But but but...

I am giving a lord a bonus so they will fight...

really? you think so? Nope...

You will only hand out a bonus to the largest clans, removing med/smaller clans, give the large clans a bonus doing so while they internally retain a way to figure out who should receive the bonus.

All in all

Bye bye small clans, nice playing strat with you.
Welcome to a game between powerblocks.

I must say... I don't like the idea at all.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: chadz on November 25, 2011, 04:17:20 pm
If the only thing that keeps factions from conquering the entire country or large parts of it is the goodwill of those factions, then that's a problem with the game balance itself, and needs to be adressed seperately.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: 22nd_King_Plazek on November 25, 2011, 04:18:04 pm
DRZ can take over the whole EU map half  :lol:

No disrespect to DRZ they are a great clan but seriously. You need to put your tin foil hat on quick Aemaelius!
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Teeth on November 25, 2011, 04:49:59 pm
I am convinced. Implement this! Would be epic if someone gets so pissed about not receiving a fief that he starts a rebellion, you know, singeplayer style.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Turboflex on November 25, 2011, 05:10:43 pm
Small clans are still a factor...Even for a large clan, having small clan allies who are able to bring 5-10 more fighters to battle on your side, and being organized logistically to be able fund battles on their own still matters in a war. That is not insignificant contribution, and you have to treat them properly with gold, fiefs or whatever in exchange for this help.

Personally I don't see the problem with chadz' logic that this sort of thing will sew some chaos internally in clans. This will incite the human factors of greed and jealously and will undermine relationships in some cases. This sort of thing (greed for land titles) caused A LOT of conflict in European history, no reason it can't work in strategus.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Vibe on November 25, 2011, 05:11:10 pm
I'm still not convinced. This won't only break alliances, but bigger clans too. There's just not enough space, atleast in EU, for this to work.
What's stopping bigger factions from taking over the whole world? Well perhaps dozens of other big factions.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Keshian on November 25, 2011, 05:11:24 pm
Really good idea.  Could use more of a bonus.  50K xp and 500 gold for a village ownership, hell I make that in half an hour of playing cRPG if not less.  So not soemthing worth fighting over.  Maybe 1000xp per 1 pop and 10 gold per 1 pop, so more like 500K xp and 5000 gold, which frankly I can still make playing for 4 hours cRPG that day, but is enough of a bonus that people willa ctually get greedy about owning fiefs. 

The lower amount doesn't mean anything to me and I don't care who owns a fief, but the higher amount, hell yes I will fight someone over it.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Harpag on November 25, 2011, 06:25:43 pm
I'm not sure what exactly you want to achieve, but if you want to popularize Stratagus among the cRPG players (great idea), symbolic changes are not a remedy, especially during the Skyrim plague...
I'm not completely sure how others see it, but I have a right to speak on behalf of the Grey Order. The main reason for playing strategus is ability to play together as a clan. For trying to play together on the siege servers, we were nearly lynched. The truth is that people are attached to their characters in cRPG, so you must give them something. They must have good reason to play Strategus, different than strong ties of friendship between members of the clan and the pleasure from playing together with friends, especially because the number of battles is small, and additionally clashes are small, short and poor.
In my opinion Stratagus requires a large pre-Christmas promotion  :) I suggest a really big bonus XP / gold + minor changes proposed here.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: PhantomZero on November 25, 2011, 06:30:40 pm
Really good idea.  Could use more of a bonus.  50K xp and 500 gold for a village ownership, hell I make that in half an hour of playing cRPG if not less.  So not soemthing worth fighting over.  Maybe 1000xp per 1 pop and 10 gold per 1 pop, so more like 500K xp and 5000 gold, which frankly I can still make playing for 4 hours cRPG that day, but is enough of a bonus that people willa ctually get greedy about owning fiefs. 

The lower amount doesn't mean anything to me and I don't care who owns a fief, but the higher amount, hell yes I will fight someone over it.

That will be the benefit to owning towns and castles over the villages. It's worth fighting over to give more of your members stuffs.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Dehitay on November 25, 2011, 06:48:36 pm
I still don't think you get why this is getting introduced. The point is that the bonus is awarded to one person. Just one. So people want it for themselves. Not a group. Just one person. The fun thing is that it's not shareable. So if you have a big faction with few fiefs, this might cause internal trouble. Probably not right away. But sooner or later, people will ask why they can't get a fief for themselves. Why the clan leader gets 100k xp for free every day, and the 2nd one doesn't. If you really need this big alliance with 8 factions. If you wouldn't gain a larger advantage if you just kill the weaker factions and have an alliance with 4. Because then you could give half of your members a fief, and more of your clan would profit. Or you could stack it on yourself and have a char that basically retires by itself.

Doing some communist thing here is exactly the wrong approach. I don't give cRPG bonus because I feel that's the correct way to do it. I want to give a cRPG bonus because people are more attached to their cRPG char than what they have with their strategus char. When was the last time you gave away strat-goods to a clan member without any kind of refunding. And when was the last time you gave away an heirloom without any kind of refunding. Now you know why I want to make the reward based on cRPG.

This is just one step, maybe it suffices, maybe not. It might just be the start.
I don't think this is going to work out exactly the way you're expecting. Indeed, this will cause a small amount of internal strife in clans over who gets fief ownership, but this practically garunteed to be solved politically rather than violently. It will however increase the amount of crpg gold to spend on buying troops and strat gold from players, so I think it's kind of a boost to strat as well. As far as cross faction conflict, I think this is actually just as likely to solidify peace as it is to break it. Now that you have a certain number of fiefs, you're going to want to solidify the number of fiefs and therefore bonuses you have. The logical way to do this is to start a giant ass alliance to deter any battles and try not to piss anybody off strong enough to take you on. So the clans who approach this from a more logical perspective (current carebear alliances) will actually try even harder to prevent battles, while the clans already interested in the fun of war (FCC-type) will be the ones who are actually motivated to fight by this.

If you want to see the amount of battles increasing, just reward violent behavior. The carebear alliances can sit back all they want, but if war-mongers get good production boosts, they can just steamroll through peaceful factions.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Gristle on November 25, 2011, 07:56:06 pm
As a very biased fief owner who desperately needs cRPG gold, I support this.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Cepeshi on November 25, 2011, 07:59:56 pm
How bout fief ownage gives percentual chance every day to increase crafting skill of one item of the owner?
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: mandible/splinteryourjaw on November 25, 2011, 08:08:39 pm
I still don't think you get why this is getting introduced. The point is that the bonus is awarded to one person. Just one. So people want it for themselves. Not a group. Just one person. The fun thing is that it's not shareable. So if you have a big faction with few fiefs, this might cause internal trouble. Probably not right away. But sooner or later, people will ask why they can't get a fief for themselves. Why the clan leader gets 100k xp for free every day, and the 2nd one doesn't. If you really need this big alliance with 8 factions. If you wouldn't gain a larger advantage if you just kill the weaker factions and have an alliance with 4. Because then you could give half of your members a fief, and more of your clan would profit. Or you could stack it on yourself and have a char that basically retires by itself.

Doing some communist thing here is exactly the wrong approach. I don't give cRPG bonus because I feel that's the correct way to do it. I want to give a cRPG bonus because people are more attached to their cRPG char than what they have with their strategus char. When was the last time you gave away strat-goods to a clan member without any kind of refunding. And when was the last time you gave away an heirloom without any kind of refunding. Now you know why I want to make the reward based on cRPG.

This is just one step, maybe it suffices, maybe not. It might just be the start.

I'm not sure it would be effective because the command structure has been in place for so long.  Its almost like you have a clan of 50 yet only 3 people actually playing; the others are simply go'fers.  Bandits, independent merchants, and those that chase them are the only ones that really seem active.  This may destroy the larger clans structure, causing more smaller clans; but, I doubt it.

How about a more complicated system where actions are forced.  How about keeping your formula but every night, by independent roll of the dice, something either good or bad happens to the village.  This occurance then will require an action to help advert the total destruction of the landowner.  For example:

1.  one roll causes plague to sweep the land, population decreases by 50% and to save the fief the owner must import 500 kittens from zagush (this being a DRZ fief and zagush HRE.)
2. one roll population and production have exceeded demand by so much the fief is dying from its own prosperity.  To avert the catastrophe the owner must acquire new land to help disperse the population and contain the squalor.  The dice roll could even name the fief the owner would need to conquer.  If the owner does not conquer the fief in the allotted time he loses everything and I mean everything and the fief becomes destitute and independent.
3.  one roll production is decreased to almost nothing, due to a surplus of inventory, and the owner must take control of another territory to help disperse his inventory and bring new inventory to his fief.
4.  one roll  village uprising somehow the village has acquired weapons and looks to become independent.  This could be further complicated by another players roll requiring him to supply the villagers with the arms necessary to break free...if either party fails to perform the task they end up destitute and the village becomes AI owned again

These are not well thought out and written as fast as I could type, but it would seem something could be done with the code to force battles or lords to become destitute.  I would love to see random AI armies roaming the map with a roll of the dice sending them to war with any fief.

More than anything we need to move faster, so we can raid, and I know the equipment fix is difficult to implement, but it really is killing a lot of people's desire to fight.  When you win you should be able to take that person's inventory not lose yours.  I also think winners not getting the gold of the loser is a good idea.  As strat doesn't have banks, anything not in equipment or goods should be retained after a battle.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Tristan on November 25, 2011, 08:25:35 pm
Regard drz as an example. In all honesty it comes down to a few valid large clans that can then evenly distribute the bonus among them.

The small to mid sized clans still have no say and with a bonus to fief owners they will be even more keen to infighting.

What is needed is a way for decentralization to be advantageous.

As long as the average joe is nothing but a trade good producing puppet, symbolic changes is gonna do nothing but boost the ego of fief owners.

The suggest will at best change nothing, at worst be the death of independent smaller clans.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Lennu on November 25, 2011, 08:31:27 pm
I really don't support this free exp bonus for fief owners.

How about giving the fief owner small bonus to crafting/recruiting instead of exp?

Or, this exp bonus could be turned into another "gen bonus" so = 3% more exp in crpg (or maybe less). This way you would have to work for your exp insted of getting it for free. And maybe by being a fief owner in strat would be the only way to exceed max gen bonus you can have atm.
Ofc, this way those that have already capped their gen bonuses might end up getting the fiefs because they'll get the best bonuses out of it.


Do we need any bonunses for fief owners at all? Isn't that purple text enough? That text is like mental penis enlargement already.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Dehitay on November 25, 2011, 09:15:08 pm
Or, this exp bonus could be turned into another "gen bonus" so = 3% more exp in crpg (or maybe less). This way you would have to work for your exp insted of getting it for free. And maybe by being a fief owner in strat would be the only way to exceed max gen bonus you can have atm.
This is definitely better than the flat rate bonus! It could also be coded to affect gold if that incentive is also to be used
+1
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Bjarky on November 25, 2011, 09:35:11 pm
I rather see random ai armies showing up, giving clans a hard time to defend random fiefs or armies, this can get other clans to take use of this advantage and join in and help destoying the unlucky faction/s.
It will definitely suck ass for the unlucky victim/s, but it could cause some serious drama, possibly great battles and add some more variation to strat :twisted:
Not to forget, what grand RP threads we could make of this  8-)
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Nessaj on November 25, 2011, 09:52:39 pm
Look at all the non-landowners opposing this great and honest change. This is class warfare and we will not have it.

 8-)
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Cosmos_Shielder on November 25, 2011, 09:58:16 pm
I rather see random ai armies showing up, giving clans a hard time to defend random fiefs or armies, this can get other clans to take use of this advantage and join in and help destoying the unlucky faction/s.
It will definitely suck ass for the unlucky victim/s, but it could cause some serious drama, possibly great battles and add some more variation to strat :twisted:
Not to forget, what grand RP threads we could make of this  8-)
+1
Something like every sunday wave of Ai are trying to get back those villages . We could call that Peasant rebellion , bandits attack, Stranger comming from out of Calradia to pillage villages.
 That would give some hard time to clan who only camp on their alliances .
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Braeden on November 25, 2011, 10:04:04 pm
Look at all the non-landowners opposing this great and honest change. This is class warfare and we will not have it.

 8-)

Creating discontent among the non-landowners is kinda the entire point.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Matey on November 25, 2011, 10:24:06 pm
the bonus does seem pretty mild. 10min at x5 is better than owning a fief for a day. all in all... i like the idea as it rewards those who commit more time to strat... and hopefully this makes it easier to get more people involved in strat, as well as encouraging clans to expand if they can, or to take land from clans who have more than they can hold... just up the bonus a bit so its more noticeable.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Gristle on November 26, 2011, 12:16:29 am
Indeed. We, the 1%, would prefer an even bigger bonus.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Jarlek on November 26, 2011, 12:17:18 am
Indeed. We, the 1%, would prefer an even bigger bonus.
Something along 10k gold and 100k xp a day will suffice.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Matey on November 26, 2011, 02:15:54 am
or you could really piss people off and make it so that fief owners take xp and gold from all other crpg players in order to get hugely wealthy and high level. or is that too realistic?  :mrgreen:

seriously though. at least 100k xp... i dont much care about the gold.. 2500-5000 is plenty... but xp should be more like 200-500k xp a day if you want people to care much.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: MaHuD on November 26, 2011, 02:16:29 am
What if it's divided between the members of the clan/guilds/factions?
If it just goes to the owner than it's only going to provoke people inside a faction..
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Braeden on November 26, 2011, 02:17:17 am
the bonus does seem pretty mild. 10min at x5 is better than owning a fief for a day. all in all... i like the idea as it rewards those who commit more time to strat... and hopefully this makes it easier to get more people involved in strat, as well as encouraging clans to expand if they can, or to take land from clans who have more than they can hold... just up the bonus a bit so its more noticeable.

The bonus becomes a lot larger if you stack it, or include cities and castles.  For example, putting 4 villages, 2 castles and a town together could net you 5700 population, which would grant 570k xp daily and 28.5k gold.  That is pretty significant.

What if it's divided between the members of the clan/guilds/factions?
If it just goes to the owner than it's only going to provoke people inside a faction..

That's the nail on the head.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Keshian on November 26, 2011, 03:10:18 am
The bonus becomes a lot larger if you stack it, or include cities and castles.  For example, putting 4 villages, 2 castles and a town together could net you 5700 population, which would grant 570k xp daily and 28.5k gold.  That is pretty significant.


Not really.  You forget fiefs get depopulated when you take them and castle and city populations take forever to get back up to where theyw ere (think months).
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Dehitay on November 26, 2011, 04:10:26 am
The bonus becomes a lot larger if you stack it, or include cities and castles.  For example, putting 4 villages, 2 castles and a town together could net you 5700 population, which would grant 570k xp daily and 28.5k gold.  That is pretty significant.
Not really.  You forget fiefs get depopulated when you take them and castle and city populations take forever to get back up to where theyw ere (think months).
I prefer to think that you're both wrong. I'm not sure about towns, but castles come with 2500 population and villages come with 500. I'm not sure how you got 5700, but just the villages and castles would already be 7000. Or maybe the total is actually 9500 and you just did the 60% auto-repopulation cap we've seen from villages. But either way, you can convert a fief's army into population, so that 60% cut and slow auto-repopulation aren't going to be an issue if this goes through.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Segd on November 26, 2011, 10:17:44 am
1 village = 300 ppl max. Castle theoretically should have 1500.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: HarunYahya on November 26, 2011, 11:14:39 am
I like the idea.Rewarding responsible officers with cRPG gold/exp is a good idea.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Idzo on November 26, 2011, 05:45:38 pm
Free
P
A
N
O
S
!
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Gheritarish le Loki on November 26, 2011, 06:12:41 pm
Yeah great reward, indeed everybody has a chance to have such a reward.
I mean you can do anything you want, but small clan and clanless ppl will never see this, even worst, big clan will crush smaller clan to have this bonus.

Give more individual possibility, personnal rewards, option for one man to change his way.
As someone said, ppl like more their cRPG char than their Strategus Char, why? simple they have more option, they have something to reach, they have something to do.

There were plenty of good ideas for strat in suggestion forum, i guess everything has been dropped.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Lepintoi on November 26, 2011, 06:37:21 pm
You should be able to enslave the people in the village you just captured, for a couple of days. They are forced to craft goods that go in your inventory before they are released or teleported.
Also you should be able to capture people and hold them for ransom, with a maximum of 5 days or something like that.

(I don't know if these things ever existed or have been suggested before)
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Kafein on November 26, 2011, 11:13:03 pm
I'm about 85% sure of really doing this

So

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
 is visitors can't see pics , please register or login


?


This one goes too far. Nearly a private joke.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: kinngrimm on November 26, 2011, 11:31:24 pm
You should be able to enslave the people in the village you just captured, for a couple of days. They are forced to craft goods that go in your inventory before they are released or teleported.
Also you should be able to capture people and hold them for ransom, with a maximum of 5 days or something like that.

(I don't know if these things ever existed or have been suggested before)
i like the holding randsom idear =)

bandits win: "ohoho look at him a big figure of a clan showing his head in theses dark woods, lets pay him a visit"
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Tomas on November 27, 2011, 12:01:27 am
I don't think this idea will make much difference however if you really want to be controversial then it could be extended into something that really will change Strat.

Lets see how many people I can provoke with this idea :D

1)  It costs 500000 cRPG experience per day to play Strat.  So 250 minutes of x2 grind.

2)  People can opt out of Strat properly which means they are not on the Strat map, but they can still fight in Strat Battles.  People should be able to opt in again as well, but only after a week has passed.  This can be used to cover holidays etc. 

3)  If a fief owner opts out then everything in the fief gets transferred to that person and the character gets frozen.  Meanwhile the fief reverts to neutral and has its gold/population reset.  Anybody inactive for 7 days should automatically be opted out of Strat

4)  Making money in Strat, makes you XP in cRPG.  I'd say that for every 1 gold you make on Strat you should get 1000 XP.  So sell 10 goods for 50 gold each and you have made back your Strat fee.  This allows traders to make xp playing Strat.  Craft for 4 days and you will have 100 goods, travel for 1 day and you will get 50 gold goods price.   Do this and you will have gained 2500000 XP (5000000 income - 2500000 strat fees) over the 5 days.  Trading therfore pays well :)

5)  Of course raiding can also pay as it only takes 2 days to attack someone, steal their goods and then sell them yourself.  Do that and you have gained 4000000 XP :D

6)  Owning fiefs also pays - 20 XP per 1 population.  So a Village will only generate 100000 XP and mean you still need to trade/raid.  Of course, you will still get XP from making money from visiting fees and trade taxes so you will get a little extra XP.  A Castle generates 500000 XP which pays of your playing fee entirely allowing you to concentrate on the more strategic side of Strat.  Owning a Town nets you 1000000 XP and therefore pays out 500000 XP per day making them highly desirable. 

7)  For every 100 XP you earn in Strat, you also get 1 gold just to sweaten the deal and allow people playing Strat to carry slightly better equipment in cRPG.  Own a Town and you're getting an extra 10000 gold per day towards upkeep :D  Alternatively you can spread it around your clan a bit to keep them applying for your roster

8)  Since this will remove grinding from the game, troop upkeep and equipment costs would need to be reduced.  Troop recruitment would probably also need increasing.

9)  You cannot store troops inside fiefs (the pop includes the garrison.  This is so that owning multiple fiefs yourself makes you weaker as if two are attacked you can only reinforce 1 yourself.

Overall, the above changes would reduce the playing population of the Strat browser massively and would remove the mostly inactive gold/troop grind entirely from the game.  Instead the only people on the Strat map will be those willing to invest a bit of time into it in order to gain the benfits.  Trading, raiding and owning Towns are the big earners as they are what take the most time.   Owning Villages and Castles are a means to allow you to eventually take a town or secure your clans trade routes.   

EDIT: get the equipment prices and equipment crating set up right and people will also be able to make XP doing this if they want to
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Voso on November 27, 2011, 07:32:51 am
Please don't choose to do it by gold.

If you do, this will cause the prices of heirlooms on the marketplace to go up and cause fief owners to have control of the market due to their increased gold gain.


Experience doesn't seem too great either as it will cause all fief owners to be a higher level, which both aids in them defending their fief in strat and regular playing in cRPG. This will also become a disadvantage for all non-strat players/fief owners.

I suppose experience is the better of the two though, considering how much experience it takes to level up and how it only affects fief owners whereas increased gold gain could also aid in the purchase of strategus troops through the forums/whatever.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Sphinxer on November 27, 2011, 07:48:13 am
I'm for anything that can improve Strategus toward the end of the 3 biggest clans sticking together... that's just retarded and it's killing Strategus, just like it killed many other mmorpg. It's now a trading game with "some" battles ,instead of a battle game with some trading.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: FRANK_THE_TANK on November 27, 2011, 07:50:50 am
n = terrabad idea
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Dehitay on November 27, 2011, 08:46:01 am
I'm for anything that can improve Strategus toward the end of the 3 biggest clans sticking together... that's just retarded and it's killing Strategus, just like it killed many other mmorpg. It's now a trading game with "some" battles ,instead of a battle game with some trading.
I'm highly skeptical if this will actually encourage clan vs clan fighting as much as it will in-clan fighting over who gets the fiefs a faction owns. I think giving benefits for battles would be more beneficial to keeping Strategus interesting.

But I've already said that and am just using it as an excuse to ask you while still staying on topic. Who are the 3 biggest clans? I know it has to be between Fallen, Grey Order, LLJK, and Druzhina, but I'm not sure which losers have the smallest membership count of those four.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Maximus101 on November 27, 2011, 09:43:40 am
I am very sorry but I REALLY don't like this. The fief owners are the richest people in crpg anyways because they have been playing for a lon tine to get there in the clan. I am 2nd gen and only have a tempered 2hander and the clan leaders have almost everything +3. Maybe split it between the whole clan, therefore making fighting for fiefs worthwhile for everyone or maybe, or just for everyone that fought taking it. But the idea of giving the most richest, experienced players more riches and experience...
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Zaharist on November 27, 2011, 09:59:24 am
Maximus,
1) 30k exp and 1,5k gold per day is nothing
2) fief owners are not the richest ppl in crpg that's for sure
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Lordark on November 27, 2011, 10:07:11 am
Make it penalty from distance of capitol like Fallen dude said so successful clans wont just be able to steam roll the map!
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Segd on November 27, 2011, 10:38:33 am
Make it penalty from distance of capitol like Fallen dude said so successful clans wont just be able to steam roll the map!
then were will be an alliance of small Druzhinas clans(Shariz tsardom, Durquba Khalifat etc.)
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Matey on November 27, 2011, 11:05:58 am
i say the golds fine, but more xp. its so minor as to be irrelevant otherwise. as for it giving a huge edge to fief owners, not really. 50k xp a day is 50min at 1x, or 10min at 5x (assuming gen 1). thats not a big deal.

also, its not the longest playing members who get fiefs.. at least not in FCC... our fiefs go to active people who are interested in more active role in strat.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Sphinxer on November 27, 2011, 07:25:32 pm
Well Matey, it's not because the good guys *cough* does it the right way that the bad guys will ;)

I doubt it will change anything in EU and I don't expect to see any wars between the carebears for 50k a day (50mins of play at x1 like Matey said) per fief. They probably rather sit back, enjoy doing f*ck all than fighting, farm troops and gold, pick on small clans (not much of a challenge), do all the trades they want without being disturbed by the few clans who could really stop/slow them, and be OP.

I think in this strat, it really sucks to be on the EU side.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Lordark on November 27, 2011, 08:30:05 pm
then were will be an alliance of small Druzhinas clans(Shariz tsardom, Durquba Khalifat etc.)

Yes of course they can do that but it will make it harder still on those clans so that the smaller guys have better chance. 

Its not a final solution but it is a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: mandible/splinteryourjaw on November 28, 2011, 03:00:20 am
Well Matey, it's not because the good guys *cough* does it the right way that the bad guys will ;)

I doubt it will change anything in EU and I don't expect to see any wars between the carebears for 50k a day (50mins of play at x1 like Matey said) per fief. They probably rather sit back, enjoy doing f*ck all than fighting, farm troops and gold, pick on small clans (not much of a challenge), do all the trades they want without being disturbed by the few clans who could really stop/slow them, and be OP.

I think in this strat, it really sucks to be on the EU side.

I still think the only solution to this is to do something similar to what I wrote in my first post.........

AI armies/bandits roaming the countryside and a roll of the dice forcing certain actions.  Trying to micro manage it with small changes, hoping something will happen, seems to time intensive.  Let the computer make things happen!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

A roll of the dice for fiefholders and aggressive, free-roaming AI units!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Lordark on November 28, 2011, 07:47:17 am
Plz fox strat owner ships and fix people being ABLE to attack your own faction to avoid people defending thier own villages and delaying strat battle which Is a banable offence.

http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,21308.0/topicseen.html (http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,21308.0/topicseen.html)
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Graf_Hodenschaf on November 28, 2011, 08:46:09 am
Hmm, i suggest chadz should start a test phase for lets say 2 month? Im sure most of the strategus players will see what happens or we will see how it works. We also can continue writing our suggestions here.

So, the boss of the fief will get gold and xp, if he is at generation xxx, he can retire xx times and heirloom items. Could it be possible that this will flood the market and make a calradian financial crisis??  :wink: ( seriously, this is a important point to think about !! )
I personally doubt that this will change much of the gameplay ( ok, maybe some inclan-revolutions  :twisted: )
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: mandible/splinteryourjaw on November 28, 2011, 04:33:08 pm
You can -1 me all you want, but unless you take the 100% human element out of this small game it will become stagnant i.e. people sitting on their claims forever and making friends with everybody around  them to insure they don't get usurped.  If we had 125 clans instead of a few we could see more fighting, but with this small a base it is too easy to just sit and farm. 

The AI has no friends!!!  and an aggressive AI will at least make people fight.  A roll of dice will also make people fight.  Currently, landowners have no fear of extincting smaller clans.  Once the small clans are defeated, the larger clans will just sit on these fiefs, whether they are allowed to leech xp and gold or not. 

I swear this is like children racing into a school house to get the seat in the back of the class, but once that early/first race is over everybody accepts the results and sits down in the same spot everyday for the rest of the year.  How do you fix it???? Rearrange the classroom!!!!!!!!!!!

Once the three big clans extinct everybody what happens????????nothing they sit and farm!!!

There are clans that routinely transport 100k-150k worth of goods across the map; totally unmolested, never entering enemy territory.  Rogue AI bandits could stop this.  The current bandits are having alot of fun, but they have to resupply after each fight and seldom have the ability to attack larger groups. 
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Ylca on November 28, 2011, 05:02:57 pm
Seems this would increase the value of a fief to the point that people were terrified to lose them, strenghtening any alliance anymore. I think your thought process is that these alliances will want the bonus for their members, but what will really happen is that it will become a 1% sort of deal where the in-crowd of a clan gets the fiefs (generally like they do now) and just reap the rewards, spending most of their troops on defense so no one looses their cool bonus. As an added benefit i can see these owners giving out an extra loom point every once in a while (since they'll be getting looms like crazy) to keep the general clan membership quiet, while significantly increasing the number of looms in base CRPG.

Interesting idea, but i feel it will have none of the effects you intend, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Sivlan on November 28, 2011, 07:47:13 pm
i love that idea getting gold and xp for fiefs will make lazy clans more active in strat and also make people want to play it. for now strat is just add on which doesnt give much advantages. i always loved of something like SP campaign in multiplayer, and connecting strat and crpg is a step in a good way
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: FRANK_THE_TANK on January 12, 2012, 03:27:58 am
What ever happened to this?
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Gristle on January 12, 2012, 09:50:31 am
It was an interesting idea that would benefit players. Can't have that!

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Casimir on January 12, 2012, 07:30:56 pm
Introduce it already. i need free gold and xp ffs
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Bjarky on January 12, 2012, 07:45:11 pm
yes hurry, i need it before our burgermeister is back from holiday  :P
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Beauchamp on January 17, 2012, 03:28:51 pm
i'm usually superconfident in chadz's ideas, but in this case: "how exactly is it going to stop carebear alliances?"
Title: Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
Post by: Lordark on January 17, 2012, 08:11:56 pm
Clans with most unemployed wins  :rolleyes:

Im trying to get NA to lighten up and trade a bit with themselves but no luck so far EU is the way 2 go.