There is some point in this suggestion. But No!
There are already alot of peoples who cannot become a slot in a strategus battle even when they are level 30 and been in ts 30 minutes before the rolecall. Decreasing the max mercenary amount would make even more people suffer and become angry.
You will call decline your own suggestion when winter comes, because then there will be some more Coalition players available to strat rosters.
These people are generally clanless people who struggle to get into fights because they don't know people. The answer for them is the same as it has always been....join a Strat clan. Smaller rosters won't change this however at least if there are more clans making battles then there will be more clans to consider joining.
I'd like to suggest reducing maximum rosters sizes in Strat from 51 to 41 and scaling smaller rosters accordingly. Obviously this will reduce the number of tickets kill-able in the battle times but people will easily adjust once they work out what the new optimum is (currently ~1800)fixed
Reasons
1)Easier to fill rosters in general.
2) Much easier for small clans to fill rosters and more impact from their limited number of players on the roster.
3) Harder for huge alliances/clans to keep everybody happy and therefore provides a natural but flexible cap on alliance size.
4) Less incentive for small clans to simply vassalise themselves to a bigger clan and merely fight in their battles whilst giving the bigger clan troops and gold.
5) More incentive for smaller clans to create their own battles and therefore wars.
6) More people making battles = more people capable of properly leading a strat clan = more diplomatic options and diversity in Strat = potentially more decent sized clans in the future.
Classic example: Quincy. Sorry En_Dotter but what exactly have you done in Strat since taking over the Yalen area? However who can blame you when the few players you do have can always get into whatever big battle is going on. We've already seen that there is no longer any real incentive for big clans to stomp little clans so long as they aren't being annoying, so the only thing i can think of that is stopping small clans from having their own private wars against each other is the lack of incentive to do so. Smaller rosters would at least help with this imo.
Another example: At the start of this Strat the Eastern block was very active and I remember the difficulty in keeping all the clans happy on our rosters. We used to have to make sure we always had X Kapikulu, X Guards, X Templars, X SB, X Mercs and X Deserters on our rosters. On top of that there were always a few key randomers that we liked to include plus 15-35 of our own Coalition players. If one battle we messed up and shorted a clan then they would get upset and complain. Had the max roster size been just 40 we would have had to turn round to probably 2 or 3 of the clans listed above and told them there was nothing we could do to get them in and they would have to find some other way of getting battle time for their members.
we dont have good roster and they have
I don't think it's a good idea to make the strategus rosters smaller... When I applied for the Mercenaries in a siege a while ago Haboe mentioned they had 300 applicants, and only 61 people can play... Since M&B, looking at Native and such could hold 250 people in the server with little to no problems, why not increase roster size if its possible.
The bigger roster, more chance "Nameless" or Clanless people will get accepted.
The rosters are already smaller in smaller battles, and big battles 99% get filled up anyway because easy experience.
i love how u always use the same shit "it will be good for small clans"
in 2st strat small clan come to as with 5k troops now they cant farm so many cos they are small
in 2nd strat they have "shinny" now they cant buy shit cos of awesome economy zystem
all change agains big clans just ruin strat even more and more
small clans never be so effective as big one
That was on the first senuzgda battle. It was the biggest battle this strat so far, so we had that many applicants. Now that the zing is off it, we barely get a proper 51 men roster :P
What I want is for the likes of Barabe (6.8k tickets per fief), OdE (5.2k tickets per fief), Peacebreakers (5.2k tickets per fief), Conquistador (17.3k tickets per fief), BROs (12k tickets per fief), Guards (5.7k tickets per fief) and Quincy (3.6k tickets per fief) to be able to use those tickets attacking each other without having to worry about Greys, DRZ or Coalition stepping in to protect our allies, or having to worry about putting together a huge roster.
This will never happen though so long as big clans need small clans to fill their rosters.
I'm not sure about this. On one hand 51 vs 51 battles are much better than 41 vs 41. On other 41 vs 41 is better than 41 vs 51.
Would be great if it was modifiable and you could set preferable roster size in strat info settings. In this case big clans would have big battles(probably it would be better even to increase max to 60 or 70), while small clans wouldn't be spawnraped because of not-full roster.
Anyway it would require some work to balance this and prevent exploits like setting roster size 30 for city with 20k troops inside. And of course it is much more difficult than fixing 1/3 rule, which is still here, so there isn't much sense in discussing it.
I dont see any problems if quincy will attack Peacebreakers and 1st one make roster from greys and co and the second 1 ask coa help with roster
in prime time its always atleast 70 mercs for hire + 20 randomers who not show up in ts
And yet Quincy (and others) have shown no signs of wanting to attack Peacebreakers (or anybody else) and I'm guessing that part of the reason for this is that doing so is just too much effort for a reward that they can easily get from fighting on other people's rosters.for proper attack u need atleast 2-3 people (for small clans its a half of active guys who for sure already fief owner) who will lose 3 days in a way, three days in the fighting, and like 5-6 day for back way to home with shitloads of crates, during all dat time their village will be unguarded :P too many worries for a couple of fights
for proper attack u need at least 2-3 people (for small clans its a half of active guys who for sure already fief owner) who will lose 3 days in a way, three days in the fighting, and like 5-6 day for back way to home with shitloads of crates, during all dat time their village will be unguarded :P too many worries for a couple of fights
Are you aware that Quincy began as a purely trade-based faction, and got all their fiefs through peaceful negotiations, and have absolutely no interest in making war? Nor have they ever had any intention of making any war regardless of how much land and how many faction members they have at any one time. It isn't due to game mechanics that Quincy don't attack, it's cos they've never wanted to. Perhaps they wanted to prove they could grow like this without fighting, i'm certainly impressed.
Also there may be an argument for reducing roster sizes if the player base decreases drastically (you did list some interesting reasons also), but in the meantime there are far bigger fish to fry- like the 1/3 rule needs to go/be revised, i think the community has been very clear about that for a long time and we've still seen no change to it.
Really anti reducing numbers. Being able to get a slot in big battles is important because THEY ARE FUN. Why should this be restricted to a smaller and smaller group?
As for incentivizing battles: Fucking silly. How about, instead of making the whole battle process inconvenient, we make initiating battles rewarding outside of the battles themselves, on the Strat map? If you just want to get people to fight battles, then eliminate the Strategus map. Apparently, Strat's not fun enough to justify it's existence outside of the whole battle thing.
As for massive stacks, yes they do hinder battles but it is not the stacks themselves that need addressing. Changing the 1/3 rule has already been suggested and accepted as a way to negate their influence however we should also look to combat the reason they build in the first place and that reason is mostly fear. Fear that your enemies have more troops than you do and that by attacking you will leave yourself open to a counter attack. The fact that any attack on any faction on the map is likely to drag you into the full 2-block wars that are occurring makes it even worse. Conquistador have over 60k tickets in their 3 fiefs but who can they attack for a fun war? They have everything they need but if they attack Kapikulu/CotgS/Balde/OdE (all similar sized clans) then they will be considered to have sided with the Apostates. If they attack Peacebreakers/Barabe they will be considered to have sided with the UIF. And so instead they sit and do nothing.
Tomas, we are not idiots and we truly understand that your intention of making roster smaller have potential to increase number of sides of conflict (+1), but here is very serious concern that sole and unintended effect will be no space for players with low lewel or less talented. Have you thought about that aspect of this case? That would be a total failure. No, thank you. Too much risk. In other words, fu and -1 :wink:
I want more people to miss out because if we can tip it far enough we will cause vocal, competent and established strat players to miss out who might actually go away and do something about it by creating their own battles instead of just being able to idly sit back and let other clan do it for them.
Wait, you want smaller rosters, for the over stacking EU side of the map? Cause other clans will do wars if they can't get on rosters? Wait wait wait, that is NOT how crpg operates. If people, more and more and more are turned away from fights, you will get LESS fights and more inactivity.