cRPG

Strategus => Strategus General Discussion => Topic started by: CrazyCracka420 on October 01, 2012, 06:22:56 pm

Title: Suggestion to address large alliances
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on October 01, 2012, 06:22:56 pm
I think a good way to address large alliances would be to have some way to formally recognize (from the developer side) who is working together.  To do this, you would need to have factions set their diplomacy stance towards another faction.  I suggest 4 (but you could have more) stances.

War
Neutral
Mercenary
Ally

You would need to be a merc or ally to sign up for someone's battle (or in the faction that was part of the battle).  This would give you an idea of who is at least allied (maybe throw the mercs in as well). 

What I was thinking you could do with this information, is have some sort of penalties for having huge alliances.  Maybe tax inefficiency like in single player, or S&D penalty or something along those lines? 

I think along with this idea to "punish" large alliances, you should have something associated with owning a fief that would make it worthwhile for people to fight over.  Being able to control what a fief can produce (and price and tax) are all good things, but for two large factions, that's not going to be incentive enough for them to fight over borders.  I think something like increased troop or gold production might make more incentive for large factions to fight over fiefs.

This is a very rough draft idea, so please take it with a grain of salt, critique, and add your ideas to make it better.
Title: Re: Suggestion to address large alliances
Post by: Elmokki on October 01, 2012, 06:50:48 pm
One realistic and working way to make big factions inefficient is to force them to have a capital and make stuff farther away from capital more inefficient to rule in every way. No idea how in strat tho.

The thing just is that all it does is encourage splitting your people to multiple small factions that behave as one.
Title: Re: Suggestion to address large alliances
Post by: Hobb on October 01, 2012, 06:52:40 pm
Oh the irony :/

http://forum.meleegaming.com/diplomacy/na-diplomacy-announcement-from-the-knights-hospitaller/
Title: Re: Suggestion to address large alliances
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on October 01, 2012, 07:06:04 pm
It's not ironic at all...there's currently no system in place that encourages people to fight over borders, and there's nothing in place to discourage larger alliances. 

In Warband there at 6 factions.  At any given time one of the factions could be at war with one or two factions, allied with one, NAP with another, and neutral with the others. 

When one faction becomes too large, then the other factions nearby usually go to war with them to curb their power. 

Maybe they should implement the 6 factions into strategus and you have to decide who you fight for?  There could be internal power struggles over leadership of the faction.  This has also been suggested (by Knute I think I can't remember).  The point is that just because people are allied, doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

It becomes a bad thing if an alliance grows so big (as UIF did in strat 3) that they do not have any reason to fight any more.  It would have been nice if they started fighting each other over borders when they realized they had no real external threats.  They could have used RP and hopefully not gotten butt hurt if one of their allies decided to fight over territory.

It's just a game at the end of the day.
Title: Re: Suggestion to address large alliances
Post by: Tears of Destiny on October 01, 2012, 07:09:09 pm
I'm starting to become confused on why some members of the NA community are starting to consider two single factions allying with each other a "large alliance." I would think that would require at least three.  :|


Regardless, I would prefer there to not be a system that publicly declares who is allied with who as that hardly seems needed nor realistic.
Title: Re: Suggestion to address large alliances
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on October 01, 2012, 07:13:49 pm
Quote from: Tears of Destiny on October 01, 2012, 07:09:09 pm
I'm starting to become confused on why some members of the NA community are starting to consider two single factions allying with each other a "large alliance." I would think that would require at least three.  :|


Regardless, I would prefer there to not be a system that publicly declares who is allied with who as that hardly seems needed nor realistic.



Yeah I don't think it would need (or should be) public.  It would just be a stance you set and cannot be viewed by anyone else.  By doing something like this, it would allow the developers to have variables in place to punish large factions/alliances, and give the smaller guys a chance.  But you would need some incentive for people to fight over territory as well, more than they currently have.  Otherwise there's nothing stopping 4 large factions from taking over all the territory and just peacefully co-existing forever.

Title: Re: Suggestion to address large alliances
Post by: Tears of Destiny on October 01, 2012, 07:21:25 pm
If only the developers could view it then I would be very interested in seeing such a system.
Title: Re: Suggestion to address large alliances
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on October 01, 2012, 07:24:05 pm
Hell another system would be that if a fief hadn't been attacked in x amount of days, an AI bandit faction would have "y" percent to attack it. 

There's been lots of suggestions for punishing carebear factions and alliances, and at the same time, encouraging them to fight over fiefs.  This is just one suggestion that came to me recently.  In a green dream.
Title: Re: Suggestion to address large alliances
Post by: Turboflex on October 01, 2012, 07:37:56 pm
Yep, ability to fight for someone needs to be registered by system, either by merc or ally, and then tied to the size of the factions registered (divided by activity and participation), added to the faction size and with # of holdigns factored in (obviously lotsa holdings = more) which will calculate corruption.

You still still be able to hire outside mercs onto rosters, but for larger factions this would produce a corruption spike so it would be inefficient, more efficient to just keep supporters registered than trying to do it last minute. The larger the faction, the slower corruption dissipates.
Title: Re: Suggestion to address large alliances
Post by: Tears of Destiny on October 01, 2012, 09:20:58 pm
I'm concerned though that for strategus you could make a whole bunch of microfactions though to get around that "size" penalty.
Title: Re: Suggestion to address large alliances
Post by: Turboflex on October 01, 2012, 09:57:22 pm
Quote from: Tears of Destiny on October 01, 2012, 09:20:58 pm
I'm concerned though that for strategus you could make a whole bunch of microfactions though to get around that "size" penalty.

The small factions aren't immune to corruption, they just normally wouldn't accrue much of it unless they were being backed by someone else (in which case they deserve it, since they are basically part of a power block).

Corruption would be tied to resources burned in battle (gear value, troops) and shared through all allies and mercs. So if a large faction broke into 10 micro factions, and went to war, with the microfactions on frontlines being supplied armies by the allied microfactions, all together they'd still be accruing the same corruption as they would in the same faction banner.



Title: Re: Suggestion to address large alliances
Post by: Malaclypse on October 01, 2012, 10:32:24 pm
Quote from: CrazyCracka420 on October 01, 2012, 07:06:04 pm
Maybe they should implement the 6 factions into strategus and you have to decide who you fight for?  There could be internal power struggles over leadership of the faction.  This has also been suggested (by Knute I think I can't remember).  The point is that just because people are allied, doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

I do kind of like the idea of the default factions existing as an angry AI who randomly declares war on a whim with other factions. The 6 faction system from single player could actually have some merit; interesting idea which bears more thought anyhow.

Quote from: Tears of Destiny on October 01, 2012, 07:09:09 pm
I'm starting to become confused on why some members of the NA community are starting to consider two single factions allying with each other a "large alliance." I would think that would require at least three.  :|

Well, these are very large factions; KUTT and Hospitaller have a fairly high amount of active players, and the assumption many make is that the vassals of Hospitallers (and perhaps those of KUTT) are part of this alliance. Even if that's not the case, you've still got these two very huge factions declaring fairly soon after the start of the round that they are going to be allies with all which that entails.

It would be like  TkoV and FCC instantly doing the same, which is ultimately akin to what is going to have to happen if there are to be any real challengers to this first alliance. According to the cRPG ladder they'd still be behind in numbers, though this isn't factoring in inactives, alternates with the banner, and vassals on both sides of the divide.

We (CHAOS) decided to ally with our pals The Pale Horsemen (FIDLGB) right out of the gate, but we're both fairly small clans in comparison, and probably don't meet the numbers of even one of these two groups when we combine our playerbase (we wind up with around 50 combined on the ladder, with some of those not taking part in Strat).

Title: Re: Suggestion to address large alliances
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on October 01, 2012, 10:43:03 pm
the CRPG ladder is very terrible for determining how active people are in strat.  We have quite a few alt's in the ladder, as well as inactives.

I would post how many people are signed up for us in Strategus, but I think that would be a very bad idea :P  I'll just say it's certainly nowhere near 114.
Title: Re: Suggestion to address large alliances
Post by: Braeden on October 01, 2012, 10:48:08 pm
Its 44.  Kutt is actually slightly larger at 46 signed up in strat.
Title: Re: Suggestion to address large alliances
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on October 01, 2012, 10:53:17 pm
Quote from: Braeden on October 01, 2012, 10:48:08 pm
Its 44.  Kutt is actually slightly larger at 46 signed up in strat.

How are you able to get that information?
Title: Re: Suggestion to address large alliances
Post by: PhantomZero on October 01, 2012, 10:54:15 pm
Quote from: CrazyCracka420 on October 01, 2012, 10:43:03 pm
the CRPG ladder is very terrible for determining how active people are in strat.  We have quite a few alt's in the ladder, as well as inactives.

I would post how many people are signed up for us in Strategus, but I think that would be a very bad idea :P  I'll just say it's certainly nowhere near 114.

You have 44 members in Strategus faction of your 114 registered in the cRPG clan ladder.

Wow Braeden, way to beat me and steal all my jokes.
Title: Re: Suggestion to address large alliances
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on October 01, 2012, 10:57:04 pm
Nevermind...http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesupcoming#!?page=strategusinfofaction

Thanks
Title: Re: Suggestion to address large alliances
Post by: Braeden on October 01, 2012, 11:06:46 pm
Here is members per fief, for whatever interest that holds:

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Suggestion to address large alliances
Post by: Tears of Destiny on October 01, 2012, 11:21:46 pm
Hmm, thank you all for the clarifications.