Another Strategus Suggestion: 6 factions only

[CrazyCracka420]

I think it's a pretty good idea, would have to be tweaked and refined.  Something has to be done to mix it up.  If not 6 factions, maybe 10 or 12.  I especially like the idea of having a "clans" within the faction.  So a c-rpg clan (any current "faction" for strategus) would basically be like a "lord" in single player who can be neutral or belong to a faction.  There should be a way to vote for marshall and king of the faction and both should come with benefits.  Basically whoever the "leader" of your c-rpg clan, would be like a lord for one of the 6 factions and everyone in that clan would be like the people you recruit under your command.  If one of the clans is voted "king" of the faction, then the clan's leader would be the king. 

If you were a neutral faction you couldn't start up a new faction, but you should be able to control territory still.  You could basically be a neutral mercenary faction, and if you wanted to keep your land you'd probably want to make friends with a faction.  Would also be cool if there was official "relations" between the factions like single player, but individuals would still be able to provoke war.  There should also be a log of events for your faction, and if you didn't like one of the clans of the faction starting a war, all the "lords" (leaders of the individual clans in the faction) would be able to vote to keep or kick the aggressive clan out of the faction.

Lots of potential, but like I say would need a lot of input and revisions to make it work.  I think it's better than the current setup.   

[Slamz]

I think both team-based and clan-based models have merit.

EVE: clan based.
POTBS / Battleground Europe / Planetside / DAOC / Warhammer: team based.

Team based has been the more popular model for developers but it's hard to ignore the fact that arguably the most successful PvP game of all time is EVE, and it's clan based.  And EVE has some serious flaws, so I think it's telling that it has prospered for so long.  I think part of it is that "clan loyalty" trumps "team loyalty".  Long after the players of the team based games have stopped caring, the players of EVE still have clan loyalty and will sometimes come back just to fight for their clan again.

I'm in a small clan in Strategus.  We have maybe 12 active players and we own one fief, which we gained and hope to hold with the help of allies (they show up for our battles; we show up for theirs).  I feel this gives me more personal interest in Strategus than if I was simply in some broad faction.


What I think team-based setups do is help bring in solo players and very small groups.  Since you are automatically in a team, you can contribute without directly needing to join a clan (or really be social at all).  And there is merit to that.  But I don't think it builds the long term personal connections that a clan based game can deliver.  Clan based games force you to build social connections to survive and while that may turn away a lot of solo players, the players who DO build those connections tend to stick around.

Again, EVE is the shining example of this.  Not to derail the conversation, but EVE ship combat is crap any way you slice it.  The mechanics are just too simple and boring.  But the game has been growing year after year because, I think, of the social connections it forces people to make.  Once you're "in", you don't want to get out, and if you do get out, there's always someone you know still in that's tempting you to come back.

I think too many developers look to the short term benefits of team based gameplay and overlook the long term benefits of clan based gameplay.

[FRANK_THE_TANK]

Its been done to death I think the fact that groups form on the forum an in the game and then clan it up in strat is a million times better than predefined groups.