cRPG
Strategus => Strategus General Discussion => Topic started by: engurrand on May 20, 2013, 08:21:03 am
-
Poll...
With the intent to change up the monotony of start battle tactics and allow more room to test out different strategies, i ask this question.
Should Alternate characters be allowed to join in start battles?
NO STF characters, alternates only.
THis will allow more ability to customize class types for battles... Get it?
-
This seems like it would do the opposite of adding diversity.
People would just make alts with specialized cookie-cutter strat builds so that they can be as OP as possible.
-
Bro...
shiit..
WHy so?
Gimmy a strat cookie cutter build.
oh wait.... STR crutch with great maul?
damn, better watch out for that build! it might start appearing..
all jokes aside..
Can you give any more reasoning?
Honestly, the idea of imbalance is fucking dumb. I think this game is pretty balanced, more than a lot of games...
What are these cookie cutter builds?
Couldn't possibly be 24-12 could it?
Would hate to see that build in strat.
TBH: I just want fucking archers.
-
p.s i can't stop staring at your avatar...
-
over 60% voted NO
I think the diversity is the biggest problem here, like the talking Legs said:
On sieges the attackers would have mostly 1handers, they have cover against ranged + short weapons with possibly knockdown are ideal when fighting on the walls with very little room to swing your weapon. Defenders would have tons of ranged + greatmauls to hold chokepoints.
On open field battles it would end up as cav vs cav.
Also, the only difference between main and alt characters is that only Main is allowed to join strat. I know the thought of getting tons of exp fast for whatever character you want feels very tempting, but that just might backfire really badly. Strat factions wouldn't hire your character unless if was the right class and on decent lvl, and these class requirements would really fuck up Strategus.
That's why I voted no :rolleyes:
-
I would really love to have possibility to play strategus battles with different classes from time to time. But instead of letting you join strategus battles with every alt, they should just add possibility to change your main once per month. So you would have to stick with char you chosen as main for next month, then you can change your main again. This way we won't have plain battles full of cav and siege defences full of crossbowmans, maulers and pikemans.
To be honest, I think that would be briliant addition, because right now strategus battles are starting to be level 33-36 battles. Allowing to change main from time to time will result in decreased average strategus character level, which is always good thing.
-
Defensive castle siege coming up, time to use my 30/9 2h...
Offensive castle siege coming up, time to use my 24/15 shielder..
Field battle coming up, time to use my 21/18 polearm.
Bad idea, because of extreme adaptability to different types of battles...
Which would cause people to all use similar ultra effective builds.
I would like to see being able to use the xp gained on your Strat main...
on a different character...
This way I could level more than one build a lot faster..
Sort off like a common xp pool.
Fuck reaching level 35 on 1 character.
I'd rather have 3 level 32 character...
I think you are way too restricted with the way characters work in this game..
Also, reading posts like this one is very annoying.
-
Who forced you to read it Teeth? Further more post in the thread? ,o
-
Considering "our side" of strat battles is always short on archers, and the enemy team is pretty well rounded, I still voted NO. It would be nice to get a few more archers in our battles, but if it's not your main, it's not fair to allow them into a strat battle. Like others said, there'd (apparently firefox thinks "there'd" isn't a word) be way too many cookie cutter builds, way too many massive strength crutchers for siege battles, and a lot of cavalry and archer alts for open field battles.
-
at least the community voted.
Also, i guess i just like the extreme adaptability. Why wouldn't you want to defend a castle with archers and great maulers? Soon as the catapult breaks down your wall and starts to get in all of your supreme adaptability fails.
I guess people have a hard time seeing that anything which works great usually gets over used to the point where it's failings rise to the top and it's counter develops.
For example... In a field battle... Everyone goes piker / polearm... well... Pikemen are pretty weak against archers and if it was more viable to easily get archers in a battle, say just 10, then who do you think would win 40 pikes and 10 archers vrs 50 pikes? I don't know the answer.
I know that the idea is vulnerable to exploitation and ridiculousness... I guess i just get tired of fighting the same type of battle over and over...
Cuz you can argue against adapting to a battle as much as you would like but if you fail to see that strat battles are kind of locked into certain tactics then you might just not be playing much strat. So adaptability and a little more variance, or business as usual construct of non change.
-
Nothing is stopping you from making an hybrid character if you want adaptability.
Already made an cavalry/pikeman/xbow character.
Always usefull in everystrat battle :)
-
Would love to make an all cav army :mrgreen:
Or a 30% archers, 30% xbow-1h hybrid and 40% greatmaul str my old friends in a siege defence :twisted:
-
Would love to make an all cav army :mrgreen:
I get a tear by Just by imaginating that scenario. :(
-
I get a tear by Just by imaginating that scenario. :(
Fu, you are in byzantiums! You'd slice and dice a cavarmy into pigfood with your pikers :mrgreen:
-
Seems like a cool idea, but one has to remember that there was a time when alts were allowed in Strat battles and all of the trouble/gripe associated with that.
Gotta agree with Daruvian. You want adapability/versatility, you make a build that focuses on it. 18/21, 15/24, 15/21, and for higher levels 18/24, 21/21, 15/27 all come to mind.
-
all make alt to defend a castle, let make them 36-3 mauler or 18-21 archer or 21-18 archer build and pewpew make half roster archer rest mauler gg. worst idea ever
-
I dont know but I think that engurrand talks about teamstrategy more than being able to get your character to use multiple weaponclasses.
If you choose to build an army of your liking with gear fur a purpose, anyone should be able to build a counter army with the appropriate gear. Also, having a flexible army would cost alot more - since you would need more of every gear. What I mean here is that if u would like the oppurtunity to have an all cav army u would need to buy cav gear for all your troops, but if your army then needs to adapt to be able to counter an incoming army of pikers, u would also need a shitload of inf/arch gear with you. This would make it rather easy and cheap to buy for instance a pikerarmy - but if caught by a a arch/inf army it would be fucked. So, risks would be taken, gains could be made and making the ultimate flexible army able to handle all situations would cost about 4-5 times as much as now. This perhaps would mean that there would be more diversity of quality in the armies, low tier gear for some classes since u cant really have the best army every time because of the cost.
An all cavalry army wouldnt be that efficient against a piker army or on a mountain map against archers. This would, at least as I see it, apply to any overland battles or sieges in villages. So you buy the gear for the army you want or need rather than buying the gear that would fit the type of characters that usually applies to the battles.
When it comes to sieges, well Im not sure an archer/mauler defence army wouldnt have weaknesses u can exploit as an attacker also depending on the terrain and location of the siege. Im not sure though - havent experienced it myself first hand.
To use the element of surprise and to have the option to do diverse strategies seems to be close to none as it is now- that is if compared to what it could be if this would be implemented.
-
Well, I think (and hope)I can speak for the wolves in this and say that yes, the wolves members wants to win stratbattles as a team - even if it means doing some wicked, evil strategy that included using rondel daggers dressed in a monks robe when defending a castle I think almost all of them would agree on this.
And if the clan Im applying for in a battle wants their soldiers to charge a cavalry army with short swords, well they made the army, the trade to get the gold, ran around and bought the gear, spent many hours planning, spending alot of time. So, yes I think that they should be entitled to do that, I my mind it would be strange to say the other way around really. They make the battle possible, us mercing in it didnt do anything but apply.
-
Why not have the possibility to make one character for every class, and when u sign up for a battle the Clan that chooses mercs can see all your characters (lvl, build perhaps even hours played) and just choose one of them to join the fight.
-
Poll...
With the intent to change up the monotony of start battle tactics and allow more room to test out different strategies, i ask this question.
Should Alternate characters be allowed to join in start battles?
NO STF characters, alternates only.
THis will allow more ability to customize class types for battles... Get it?
This would give edge for bigger clans = they would have more players with more alts (which is meant to use only in certain type of strategus battles)
-
If every crpg-player has one character for each class, the amount of people applying would be the same as it is now - why would that change? Only the possibilities to have different strategies would change, for every applicant the clan can choose from the different characters...Lemikz Archer, Lemikz cav, Lemikz polarm and so on. These would be your builds, your characters and people would still want to be more in the big battles/sieges and less in the 100 unarmed battles
-
If every crpg-player has one character for each class, the amount of people applying would be the same as it is now - why would that change? Only the possibilities to have different strategies would change, for every applicant the clan can choose from the different characters...Lemikz Archer, Lemikz cav, Lemikz polarm and so on. These would be your builds, your characters and people would still want to be more in the big battles/sieges and less in the 100 unarmed battles
Thats what I meant.
Big clans has more those specified alts. They would have more cav alts, more strenght whores in sieges etc. Small clans would be automatically less flexible and effective than bigger ones
-
But there are of course others that will apply for the battles aswell, outside the clan - like it allways is. Those guys would also have different characters that you can choose from. So the amount of guys applying wouldnt change, u would still have the same number of guys in battle - just that u can choose which of their characters u want in the battle.
Also, if u hate playing an archer - you dont have to level up that character if u dont want to - then that character would never get chosen. And Bagge on the other hand would never need to lvl up any other character than his archer, since anyone denying him in his roster, whatever battle would be, would seriously need a brainscan :)
This way, u can in some way decide which character u want to play, but you perhaps will have a bigger chance of getting in the battle if u have more charactertypes than one.
-
Fu, you are in byzantiums! You'd slice and dice a cavarmy into pigfood with your pikers :mrgreen:
I guess that's true :mrgreen:
-
I get a tear by Just by imaginating that scenario. :(
Its happened before, on NA. I think frank_the_tank hired only cav and throwers for a big fight against Kutt. We had all Champion Mamluk horses and full plate armor. That first charge was...glorious.