Three effective ways to "fix" Strategus - NOW WITH SPOILERS(!!!)

[Bjord]

If you tell me a good way how to prevent that kind of exploit, feel free to post a suggestion in the appropiate forum. We're thinking about the matter ourselves, because we consider it serious as well.

EDIT: Spoilered into segments for selective readers.

(click to show/hide)

First and foremost:

Prioritization

1. People with high reliability and performance, either high reliability first or a mixture of the two
2. Level
3. EU/NA

This is the preferred order. This way, you will always have people who are reliable in battles, whom you can count on not to screw with the outcome of the battle either intentionally or unintentionally - not people who are looking for a quick way to level up(metagaming). Either way, it will server as a boon to people who try to actually contribute. If you ever want to play on AI side again, make sure you fix your reliability.

IMO, Reliability should also go down if you have extremely bad k/d ratios. It should not only be determined by how many times you showed up.


Secondly:

Rules of Engagement
(This is more of a moral suggestion, but the next suggestion is a practical suggestion to how to fix the current metagame situation with Strategus)

If you are affiliated with the attackers in anyway, you should by principle not sign up for the opposing side. Goes without saying. But since that principle, or sense of honour if you will, does not exist with some groups of people in Strategus, it should be enforced by code.


Thirdly:

Alliance and other forms of treaties


As per rules of warfare, every single faction should announce their different policies with other factions. If you are allied with a faction, you are to announce it on Strategus through an option on the site, simple to code I'm sure. This will make you a faction affiliate and therefore by above point, ineligible for participation against AI sieges where an ally is leading the attack. In real scenario, fighting against an ally is not only worst offense of oath breaking but also asking to be anally violated by every other country who regards honour as a principle and a law.

So to dumb it down:

Faction members can no longer sign up for AI sieges if their allies are leading the attack.

Trade agreements mean a faction cannot attack the other faction's members unless the trade agreement is dissolved.

Non-aggression pacts mean faction members can in no way engage in hostile activity against the other faction.

This is to be enforced by code, and the treaties are handled by players.

(click to show/hide)

Don't get me wrong, I'm for political intrigue like spying, funding puppet factions to attack your enemies, disrupting trade routes by funding bandits etc. But now this will all be handled on a different political level. Big factions will have to use real politics inside Strategus instead of metagaming(which is a bad thing, look it up).

They can of course choose not to use any treaty with anyone and therefore "fake" neutrality, but don't worry about that. Here's my solution for such a scenario:

Strategus is to be moderated from now on. If a faction commits a hostile act on another one without announcing either a declaration of war or dissolving a trade agreement or whatever other agreement, admins come in and investigate. If the faction is deemed to be metagaming(again, very shitty thing that ruins games), repercussions incur. This repercussion and its severity is left to admins to decide.

(click to show/hide)

Key sentence for this thread: FUCK METAGAMING

In broad strokes, this is what metagaming means:

Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.

To me, it means to look for easy ways to beat your opponent, to take the fastest route to a destination. It is a form of cheating, but it is  in a nice little grey zone of coziness. You can accuse someone of metagaming, but they won't have to worry(or care) because they are not breaking any rules, they are simply being bad sportsmen.

Bad sportsmanship is a negative thing. It makes people not want to engage in any competition with you because you use underhanded methods. It makes people lose faith in rules, because people always find their way around.

So I say, cut the head off the snake and enforce a no-metagaming rule in Strategus. Make everything crystal clear, and let the players decide who wins or loses - not the one who can think of the most methods to boost their chances of success.

[Bjord]

How to make people read and give feedback attempt #1:

Used spoilers.

[PhantomZero]

No, you have an incorrect definition of what metagaming is and if the admins can't even be bothered to investigate or do anything about hacking attempts and exploitation of bugs (other than resetting the entire game), then how in the hell can you expect them to investigate every single time a faction attacks another faction.

This has been proposed before and rejected, primarily because it will reduce the intrigue and the "social" aspects of the game. Also because you have included no reason to use such devices. In every way declaring your alliances hurts you mainly by restricting your options. Unless of course such agreements could be made and broken instantly.

In real scenario, there are no countries whom regard honour as a principle and a law.

The only moderation by admins should be scenarios where players attempt to fill up the AI roster and do not show up or hinder the defense. Since against players it would be your own fault for allowing them into the battle.

If you want to have something within strategus to declare which clans are friendlly/hostile/neutral then I am all for it since it saves me from having to tell people whom to attack every day. But it should not have any effect on game mechanics or be visible to anyone outside of the clan.

Also, your "prioritization" is already in effect. Reliability is how often you show up after you have signed up, performance is your K/D compared to the rest of the team with 5 being the average.