I agree. No point in wiping strat for the wipe sake. So probably we will play this Strat round until new game is issued, or until devs decide to change something dramatically.
Prepared to be attacked in 3 years time :twisted:
If the devs have no gameplay change to propose, this can go on and on for months without anything changing for bad or good.
I think a big change they can make is implement "food stores" ( http://forum.melee.org/strategus-general-discussion/suggestion-create-%27food-stores%27-that-control-how-large-a-garrison-can-be/ ) . The amount of food in a fief is what determines how many troops/population a fief can have. You can transfer food from one fief to another (so villages can make castles/cities into larger garrisons).
The reason for this suggestion is so that you can effectively besiege fiefs now instead of having to physically assault them. You'd be able to starve out garrisons and force them to sally out of the castle and fight you on the open field (or try to run the blockade with much needed food).
Implement the following as a minimum, then reset
1) 1/3 rule fix (due next week)
Yes
2) Change the fief voting system (not sure how but needs to be far easier to manage and with an even more random result to force clans away from the same old claims)
Yes
3) Allow Fief owners to manage their fiefs from anywhere (frees up more players to actually do stuff)
No. Faction leaders should be able to manage fief inventories but they or the owner has to be inside the fief to do so. Being about to control the fief from anywhere means one person can own half the map with no consequences.
4) Increase the level of the free gear and give it to both attackers and defenders. No battle should ever be without equipment.
No, attackers have the choice to attack. They should not be stupid enough to attack without gear.
5) Allow destroying of equipment (not goods) on the spot for both armies and fiefs and even during reinforcement periods before battles.
Yes
6) Troop cap based on active faction members. Each player contributes 10 troops per current strat ticks to their faction up to a max of 1000 troops. So 10 ticks would add 100 tickets to your faction's cap. 100 ticks would add 1000 tickets and 1000 ticks would also add 1000 tickets. Free troops will not count towards the faction cap.
No. This will just force small factions to become alliances. Instead increase the upkeep of over 1800 troops drastically (both in fiefs and in armies).
7) Create some kind of score board
YES, though I have no idea how this could be done to give an accurate representation of a factions "score". But any scoreboard will be better than non (hopefully)
Implement the following as a minimum, then resetFief giveaways should be 100% random (to hopefully piss off people, fuck with claims, and break blocs and such trends). Free gear should stay as it is. Your troop cap idea is retarded and fucks over every faction that doesn't have 100+ members. And you're forgetting the two most important changes to make strat less shitty; keeping gear low end by making trading less insanely profitable, and adding a food system to give villages value, and force you to attack something if you already got as many troops as your current land can hold, along with this troop recruitment should imo be speeded up to two troops per hour. Should ensure for more battles, with lower quality gear (plate is fucking boring besides the insane xp), real starvation based sieging, villages not being abandoned when invaded, and slower expansion yet no cold wars.
1) 1/3 rule fix (due next week)
2) Change the fief voting system (not sure how but needs to be far easier to manage and with an even more random result to force clans away from the same old claims)
3) Allow Fief owners to manage their fiefs from anywhere (frees up more players to actually do stuff)
4) Increase the level of the free gear and give it to both attackers and defenders. No battle should ever be without equipment.
5) Allow destroying of equipment (not goods) on the spot for both armies and fiefs and even during reinforcement periods before battles.
6) Troop cap based on active faction members. Each player contributes 10 troops per current strat ticks to their faction up to a max of 1000 troops. So 10 ticks would add 100 tickets to your faction's cap. 100 ticks would add 1000 tickets and 1000 ticks would also add 1000 tickets. Free troops will not count towards the faction cap.
7) Create some kind of score board
Overall the above should
- allow fief owners to move around freely meaning more players capable of leading armies
- reduce the overall number of tickets
- encourage factions to use their tickets once they hit their cap because if they don't they are wasting ticks
- reduce the number of battles with broken/mixed/too much gear
- ensure all battles have gear
- make the start of strat more interesting
- allow strat to be reset after a fixed time with the winner declared via the scoreboard
I did have 13 items on the list but removed everything that I thought wasn't absolutely necessary to make a reset worthwhile imo.
Fief giveaways should be 100% random (to hopefully piss off people, fuck with claims, and break blocs and such trends). Free gear should stay as it is. Your troop cap idea is retarded and fucks over every faction that doesn't have 100+ members. And you're forgetting the two most important changes to make strat less shitty; keeping gear low end by making trading less insanely profitable, and adding a food system to give villages value, and force you to attack something if you already got as many troops as your current land can hold, along with this troop recruitment should imo be speeded up to two troops per hour. Should ensure for more battles, with lower quality gear (plate is fucking boring besides the insane xp), real starvation based sieging, villages not being abandoned when invaded, and slower expansion yet no cold wars.
Fief giveaways should be 100% random (to hopefully piss off people, fuck with claims, and break blocs and such trends).Yeah sure if i not get my fiefs i will be piss off... i will attack greys and hre will be my best frieds... bull shit
For #6. Small factions are already forced into alliances to fill their rosters. This won't change that. Increasing upkeep won't make a difference either though. In fact that will hurt small factions more as a larger faction has more fiefs/players to spread troops around, whilst a small faction only has limited places to keep their troops. Finally silver to a large faction is easy to find whilst for a small faction it is more difficult making your suggestion even worse for small factions. You could double troop upkeep and the Coalition would still be rolling in cash.
2)ChangeRemove the fief voting system (not sure how but needs to be far easier to manage and with an even more random result to force clans away from the same old claims)
Please remove artificial battle time limits. Battles should end when flags are capped or tickets are dead, this "TIME IS OUT THE BATTLE IS OVER"stuff sucks.
That would give a huge advantage to attackers in most scenarios, not to mention making battles so long that no-one who even pretends to have a life could play the game anymore
Get rid of fief voting system for castles and cities. Was a lot more dynamic and fun to have a lot of neutral cities and castles difficult to take that you build up to and people freely use trading and can safely be isnide.
The old system was shit. I love people's short memories about it but it was just a steam roll by the larger clans with crap battles that were only fun for the attackers and the idiots that think a castle wall is only there to act as a diving board. Most of the battles only had half a defensive roster leading to easy spawn caps which meant free troops to the attacker. This then snowballed and meant the bigger clans who managed to take 1 Castle were automatically given the resources to take the next castle and so on.
Voting was also shit but at least the result was much better. Numerous clans were able to establish themselves both big and small and they were even able to survive. The fact that it was a hidden vote also forced the bigger clans to waste votes on securing their main claims which left even more room for smaller clans.
I for one never want to see AI rosters ever again and if that means voting then so be it. Ideally though i'm hoping someone can actually think of something better than either option we've had so far.
Looming leather armour should require less PP than looming Gothic Plate with Bevor. Also it might be worth adding in actual production. So you can't just go and buy infinite gear. Instead gear would have an S&D type situation that would require you to really look out for what you do with your armies because replacing 1500 man tin can army is going to be a massive expedition. This would also increase the use of towns as points of sale for gear.
1) 1/3 rule fix (due next week)
Yes.
2) Change the fief voting system (not sure how but needs to be far easier to manage and with an even more random result to force clans away from the same old claims)
Yes.
3) Allow Fief owners to manage their fiefs from anywhere (frees up more players to actually do stuff)
Yes, but make it so that if fief owner has more than ONE fief, he´d have to be in the fief to control it.
4) Increase the level of the free gear and give it to both attackers and defenders. No battle should ever be without equipment.
Good call, tho I would give defenders slightly better gear.
5) Allow destroying of equipment (not goods) on the spot for both armies and fiefs and even during reinforcement periods before battles.
Yes.
6) Troop cap based on active faction members. Each player contributes 10 troops per current strat ticks to their faction up to a max of 1000 troops. So 10 ticks would add 100 tickets to your faction's cap. 100 ticks would add 1000 tickets and 1000 ticks would also add 1000 tickets. Free troops will not count towards the faction cap.
I can see your point here, would actually make having vassals useful.
7) Create some kind of score board
Because we all love e-peen :D
6) Troop cap based on active faction members. Each player contributes 10 troops per current strat ticks to their faction up to a max of 1000 troops. So 10 ticks would add 100 tickets to your faction's cap. 100 ticks would add 1000 tickets and 1000 ticks would also add 1000 tickets. Free troops will not count towards the faction cap.
I can see your point here, would actually make having vassals useful.
but that would royally screw over small or solo player factions :cry:
Why does everyone seem to think it should be as as easy for small factions as it is for large ones? This will never be the case, and nor should it be. Small factions should have a chance but a small faction shouldn't be able to compete directly with a large faction on their own (unless they are very talented and face others who are utterly incompetent).
true but we shouldn't give small factions 0 chance just to nerf large ones. troops per players etc just means biggest faction wins however something does need to be done to limit this 30-50k troops in a castle nonsense :D removing the 1/3 rule should help
Why does everyone seem to think it should be as as easy for small factions as it is for large ones? This will never be the case, and nor should it be. Small factions should have a chance but a small faction shouldn't be able to compete directly with a large faction on their own (unless they are very talented and face others who are utterly incompetent).
The issue is to do with the overly defensive metagame not the overall balance between large and small. activity should be rewarded more than numbers but it will always be true that the more people you have the stronger you are.
About the faction troops cap:
Wouldnt it be better to involve fiefs in this - I mean:
Faction A owns 3 villages
Faction B owns one village
Faction C owns one village
Faction D owns one village
FActions B,C,D together make a pact to take down faction A - together they have the same faction troop cap as Faction A so the war would be even in numbers.
Every fief - adds to faction troop cap
*Villages adds to faction troops cap
*Castles adds more
*Towns add most
Ofc, every clan should have an initial troop cap even without fiefs
This would add:
1. Possibility to take down larger factions even if they have huge amounts of ticket grinders - take away their fiefs and they cant grind as much
2. Villages - more reason to defend them
3. Makes it profitable to attack fiefs, not just gaining a stronghold and trade, but actually making the clan bigger in number of tickets over time.
4. No more troopstacking since when u reach the limit you need to either expand or sit on your ass while others expand around you and get bigger
5. More counter attacks and a more flexible war situation - if you loose feifs you then need to gain new ones to be able to keep your troops cap
This couldnt ofc set in as soon as you loose a fief, there would need to be a delay of some time, and if you gain another fief or if you got the fief you just lost back there is now worries of loosing troops. If you dont howerer, your troops will "starve" if you have to many.
Even if you forced smaller clans, nothing would stop them from allying or collaborating as one anyway.
See my post about a new item "food" that would control how large of a garrison a fief can have. You can transfer food from one fief to another (to make a larger garrison at castles/cities). No reason to have artificial troop caps...have a product (food) control the garrison sizes. You'd then be able to besiege a castle/city and starve them out.
but that would royally screw over small or solo player factions :cry:
(click to show/hide)
Score = ( Total_Faction_Renown + PP_gained_from_owned_fiefs ) / ( Strat_ticks_used_by players + tickets_received_from_outside_of_the_faction )
May need to tweak renown to be a similar sized number as PP but that would give a comparative score for all factions regardless of size. Not perfect but its at least a starting point.
Fiefs already add tickets through their populations. They also give discounts to equipment and goods through taxes, the potential to make money off other players through taxes and the control to loom what you want. Do need for extra tickets as well imo.
Instead gear would have an S&D type situation that would require you to really look out for what you do with your armies because replacing 1500 man tin can army is going to be a massive expedition. This would also increase the use of towns as points of sale for gear.
Add on top shitty loot zystem... :| And this will lead to even greater fiefs turtling :P cuz no one will not willing loose rare gear under walls :?
strat need to be more arcade
lose fief? fuck dat shit i will take another one tomorrow
for now losing fief after 1 year turtling = GTXe gimme restart!
Voting was also shit but at least the result was much better. Numerous clans were able to establish themselves both big and small and they were even able to survive. The fact that it was a hidden vote also forced the bigger clans to waste votes on securing their main claims which left even more room for smaller clans.
All this does not make sense, if the patch in december 2013 will remove a 1/3 rule(click to show/hide)
All this does not make sense, if the patch in december 2013 will remove a 1/3 rule
It would be risky to hold more than 5k in the fief, and the small clans will only benefit if they can attack with 1800 a fief with a garrison in 20k and manage to cap all flags
I think it will be work well but a bit too late for like a year i think :o
Removing the 1/3 rule will make it easier to attack - not make it more worthwhile attacking
And if ONE clan can grind more tickets than it can possibly loose during a day - in one castle or town its ridicoulos.multiplier for loses in battles, sadly it did not work properly :(
Set a troopfaction cap dependant on the amount of fiefs owned by that very faction and there would be much more flexibility in the game - it seems to me strats dont vary much from previous strats - this would change that - coalition, mercs, greys, DRZ, Wolves, Kapis could actually loose if implemented - now they cant loose by pure force or strategy -they can only loose if the members become inactiveIts all about # of members, more members more chances to find one or two among them, with brains and free time for run faction, strat mechanical will not change the fact that on the mapat end will stand one of these factions.
kk we have 2 factions with 20k cap and 5 fief in each
so how ur system force them attack each other? its doesn't
There are a little more variables than that still in strat vovka :)
do u have map of strat right after voting? i dont remember "numerous" small clans on map my member is too short ^^
ahh made me lol more than it should :D (member is another word for penis if you didnt know)now u all know my secret :( my pp is short (
Yeah voting system really curtailed small factions because people voted mass sections for each faction with any isolated fief being quickly taken by force. At least with neutral fiefs the buildup to troops and gear to attack made it difficult for large factions to establish themselves for a while making small clans more viable. Especially with a time limit on strat thats a highly effective way to make it more dynamic for small clans.
Look, crpg community can accumulate 10000000000 troops per day can run 500 caravans and get money, they have atleast 6 hours of prime time every day for run battles....
but? they dont give a fuck
And now u suggest cap all dat players who do the shit, grind tick's on servers, grind troops, run caravans for upkeep
for? cos all others dont give a fuck and don't want do the same.
- delete 1/3 rule
- less managment (as example free transfer strat tick's or selling on market cuz alot of players have 1000000000 ticks but its to hard for them give a fuck about dat :P))
-night timeprime time for whole faction for attack and defend actions
- multiplyer for big battles
- forget about "oh it will be so cute for small clans" cuz it wold't never, small faction - dead faction unless they are not useful for big one.
the basic idea that I'm trying to say: make strat easier for the lazy and stupid plebs, but not harder for hard working and successful factions ))
it only goes for armies of 1800+ so 1100 still wont be enough to attack anything. let alone the fact that anything but a village requires waves of attacks
If there's a risk of getting spawn capped by an 1800 man army then 1800ish will be the max people will want to keep in spawn-cap-able fiefs. 1100 is more than 1/3 of 1800. Therefore 1100 will be more than enough to attack the majority of fiefs on the map.
Add to this
- the already established trend of bigger clans to not care about any but their core fiefs (Apostates, CA, GO, DRZ and Coalition have all abandoned villages to hold Castles/Towns)
- the reduced number of overall tickets and limit on turtle power due to the cap (At a guess the Coalition would be capped at around 50k which would mean 3k tickets for each of our current fiefs instead of the ~14k per fief we have now)
- the fact that 3k would fall in 2 easy waves, meaning we'd probably consolidate into just 5ish core fiefs which would free up 11 of our Castles/Towns for others to fight over.
If there's a risk of getting spawn capped by an 1800 man army then 1800ish will be the max people will want to keep in spawn-cap-able fiefs. 1100 is more than 1/3 of 1800. Therefore 1100 will be more than enough to attack the majority of fiefs on the map.
Add to this
- the already established trend of bigger clans to not care about any but their core fiefs (Apostates, CA, GO, DRZ and Coalition have all abandoned villages to hold Castles/Towns)
- the reduced number of overall tickets and limit on turtle power due to the cap (At a guess the Coalition would be capped at around 50k which would mean 3k tickets for each of our current fiefs instead of the ~14k per fief we have now)
- the fact that 3k would fall in 2 easy waves, meaning we'd probably consolidate into just 5ish core fiefs which would free up 11 of our Castles/Towns for others to fight over.
The only advantage is not wasting troops for the attacker in places with stupid garrisons
And which village is it where attackers have a forcefield around some of their flags? Or are there more than 1? Cos that kinda takes the piss.
Ayyike. Don't know if there are others that have the same problem.
Some fiefs need to have their maps changed to something a little more fair or just be straight up removed. All of the "untakeable" castles or cities only help to create gold and stagnation.
Actually those were fixed in the last patch, which we found out when we capped flags on lost legion who were attacking it. Not sure if Dhirigh Aban, which had the same issue, was fixed in the last patch too.
Not sure if Dhirigh Aban, which had the same issue, was fixed in the last patch too.Forcefield was there last time I checked, could some Wolves confirm this since you attacked it quite resently?
And which village is it where attackers have a forcefield around some of their flags? Or are there more than 1? Cos that kinda takes the piss.
Where will people put the extra troops on ? On themselves with crazy upkeep ? :wink:
It will be just a "urgency" method when besieged but the first waves of attacks will be on fiefs with crazy amounts of troops in :)
Not to add that lowering the garrison to avoid the possibility of "flag cap" (which is extremely low in castles/towns) calls for a Lord that is active 24/24 7/7.
Without the 1/3 above 1800+ troops, some sieges may well fall by flag capping if the lords arent there to avoid item bombing, it will call for more reasonable management of the land.
And most factions doesnt "releases" fiefs pre-emptively, for fear of losing them. They all wait for some invaders to take the cautious decision to let small factions take over here and there, where they couldnt manage fiefs efficiently. Then when the big ones falls back, they all get crushed mercilessly (losing villages is as easy as taking them back).
Not sure what you meant with decrease of overall tickets, you meant the fact that less people actively play cRPG, so less troops being recruited? That may be true, but still :
I don't know what you are trying to get at here?
Best possible way to get people to stop turtling up is a time limit on strat combined with rewards for achieving things. I'd say 5 month round followed by 1 month break. The rewards could be things like 1 loom point for every 10million renown a faction accumulates or 1 loom point for every 1000 troops they kill or 1 loom for every X number of fiefs a faction owns when strat ends... But ultimately there needs to be a time limit so people will know that if they mess up and get wiped out then they will know when it'll reset and they can either come back then or try something different for the remainder of the current round then regroup for the next one. That combined with cRPG related incentives will get people to actually do shit in strat instead of lounging about stockpiling troops. I do think that capping how many troops can be put in a fief isn't a bad idea either or at least allowing 1500+ troops to attack any fief/player regardless of how many troops they have thus negating the advantage of having a horde of troops.
Forcefield was there last time I checked, could some Wolves confirm this since you attacked it quite resently?
The problem with the idea of rewarding gameplay in strategus with goodies, is that it would give a big incentive to cheating and metagaming.
Not to add that most of the rewards you will think of will also most likely re-create a bipolar world where people will group up to have the biggest renown meter or something. And god knows everyone hated the UIF - anti-UIF shit fake diplomacy and grinding fest. Well, maybe Hetman and Rogue likes it, the two masters of the world :P (sorry Vovka!)
I also disagree about the "time limit" thingy. I love the way this round seems to last forever, it means you have the time to get wiped 7 times, and get back up a 8th. The history of that round is the best of all strat round in terms of world/region/local events. If it had a better balance and gameplay, and if it didnt need any big patches (breaking balance) it could BASICALLY go on forever. That would become real history, where people remember what you have done before and can interact in the same world, not in a different new one.
I don't think a reward system based off of total kills or even renown (however that calculates) is likely to be abused in the way you think. Say 5 actives get together and recruit 120 troops a day and launch a 1200 man attack every 10 days and do 1:1 in each fight. all the kills/renown are divided by 5 and they would likely get quite a bit. On the other hand... a clan with 100 members of which only 60 are recruiting troops at all and of which only 10 are actively doing stuff and they are so worried about keeping their lands and such that they play defensively so they only end up sending out 1200 troops every 10 days... now you have all the renown and kills of those 1200 troops per 10 days being divided by 100... no one gets shit. Even if the bigger faction uses its troops up at a better rate than 1200 every 10 days they would still be dividing everything by 100 and wouldnt be able to outperform the 5 man group... the best they could do is match the 5man group. the only advantage the 100 man clan would have is the ability to hold more territory and amass more wealth and gear their troops better. but if the 5 man group really has its shit together they could probably get a decent fief and make enough money to gear their troops well and hold out for a long time. or just go hang out in a friendly factions lands and take up contracts or something.
If there were cRPG incentives to strat youd get more people playing it actively and i really think you would see a lot more small active groups just seeking profit through mercing and such.