Strategus wipe - new features - vote for your continent!

[SPQR]

I can't really think of a better way of deciding in what percentage the map should be split.

Also, mirroring the map (which won't happen for now due to technical reasons) does not solve this problem, because the percentage would still have to make sense. Because otherwise one region would be way emptier than the other, and that's unfair for those who happen to be in the region that's packed. That might even force people to go to the other side, just because it's less populated, which renders the whole idea of splitting the map useless.

tl;dr: find me a better way to decide in what percentage to split strategus. But something that can be calculated, not just some gut feeling.

I don't think it can be overstated just how over-crowded strategus is.

Consider how many clans had land at the beginning of the last strategus (30-40 clans) vs. how many had land at the end (maybe 15). The fact of the matter is large clans need almost an entire native faction's territory to have enough recruiting space for their players. Small clans will be forced out the same way they were before unless the map is expanded and clan-less players will still be forced out of every region.

If mirroring the entire map would make too much space, then chop off a proportional amount of the mirrored map so it fits the playerbase, but the strategus map absolutely needs to be expanded at least some.

[Panoply]

I think many of us would like to keep things in Calradia, and not Calradia and a quarter of some weird mirrored Calradia. That said, the map is overcrowded.

You could solve the recruitment problem by lessening the effect that more players in a fief has on recruit chances and gold/hour. More players can sit in a fief and recruit at reasonable rates, so each clan needs less fiefs.

It would be nice in general if more people could be fief owner. I'm not sure how practical it is to add more villages or make more "mini-fiefs".

[Keshian]

Why not a mirrored map? EU west in Calradia, NA east in Aidarlac  or visa verse?

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


You could even mirror names, so every town is unique 

That is a beautiful way of handling it.  It actually looks like a continent then instead of a cutout.  Really would enjoy trying that.  And if you felt courageous for high profits you could bring caravans from opoosite sides of the map crossing into bad ping area for maximum profits.  But that mirror image would eb so ideal, probably the best startegus idea so far for making it more fun for everybody.

[VVarlord]

Cant something be done about the precentage of people in a clan towards the percentage of recruiting in a village?

The less people in the faction on strat the better the percentage of recruitment vs the more members in a clan and the percentage drops.

[Snickers]

I can't really think of a better way of deciding in what percentage the map should be split.

Also, mirroring the map (which won't happen for now due to technical reasons) does not solve this problem, because the percentage would still have to make sense. Because otherwise one region would be way emptier than the other, and that's unfair for those who happen to be in the region that's packed. That might even force people to go to the other side, just because it's less populated, which renders the whole idea of splitting the map useless.

tl;dr: find me a better way to decide in what percentage to split strategus. But something that can be calculated, not just some gut feeling.

If you split the map 50/50 I doubt that one gonna be emptier than the other because, there are so many clans in NA that don't have any fiefs, so surely all the land would be taken and there are sufficient amounts of enemy for everybody.

I say NA gets 35% and EU gets 40% and 25% being neutral and you can change the server base.

I'm here trying to find a solution which is fair,  and being as unbiased as possible. In all my post i'm not pushing NA to have any advantage, just trying to make it fair.

[Keshian]

Actually, if it's strictly all Sarranid and Khergit fiefs foing to NA, then you get 36% of towns. That should be plenty, because no matter what you keep saying, NA is not 50% of the player base. chadz has posted the data before, you're just raging because you got what your fair share instead of what you wanted.

If you take out the leaders who control the cd keys of their members and the mutiple cd keys, yes NA is equal, we are just less likely to do this or allow others to do this with our cd key when we are inactive.

Its also why I think the poll will be inaccurate - EU leaders of clans just log into all their cd keys and their inactive memebrs cd keys forum accounts and vote, whereas NA actually votes 1 for 1 with the people actually active and playing.

[VVarlord]

I say NA gets 35% and EU gets 40% and 25% being neutral and you can change the server base.

This also could work maybe?

If you take out the leaders who control the cd keys of their members and the mutiple cd keys, yes NA is equal, we are just less likely to do this or allow others to do this with our cd key when we are inactive.

Whiney bitch is back.

[Cicero]

well, a way to convert border fiefs to your timezone could be a possibility. it's also something I thought about before, so I'm not punishing the "stronger continent"

what about just punishing people that will travel between two regions.Like make them teleported if EU player gonna move in NA region

[[ptx]]

NA clannies sure think highly of themselves

It is easy to make wars, when you don't have to expect an opposition made up of an intricate web of alliances, with players numbering in the hundreds, whenever you feel like making a move

Also, EU guys being clanless, without an interest in strat? Seriously? I tried recruiting players for a little something, something not so long ago, practically every non-new player, even those without any tag, was already in a clan.

Also, Keshian, u mad?
keep posting that shit, i don't understand how you come up with it

[VVarlord]

Also, Keshian, u mad?

Furious. Excuses coming out for losing.

[The_Devious_Duc_Volpe]

My only comment is this: chadz, im glad to see you taking an interest in the game again. (or at least showing how much you care for you love child on the forums) For a while I was scared that this game would slowly dwindle and die...and that prospect made me extremely depressed.

[The_Angle]

Because Shogunate and company thought they could simply wipe us all off the map since we are so awful at the game.

(click to show/hide)

Didn't quite happen

LLJK Paranoia, uh oh spaghettio.

[kukufarikki]

LLJK Paranoia, uh oh spaghettio.

you will lose again

[Rikthor]

LLJK Paranoia, uh oh spaghettio.

This wasn't paranoia, this was their stated intention in a recording we made of their secret TS meetings with clans that they wanted to give the land to like Sea Raiders, etc. Sorry. Try to keep this on topic though.

I personally like the idea of a Eu/Neutral/Na split where fiefs, etc. taken in the neutral zone get set to the clan's default timezone. No clue how tough that is to code but if the mirrored map idea is out, that would be my vote.

[Keshian]

I can't really think of a better way of deciding in what percentage the map should be split.

Also, mirroring the map (which won't happen for now due to technical reasons) does not solve this problem, because the percentage would still have to make sense. Because otherwise one region would be way emptier than the other, and that's unfair for those who happen to be in the region that's packed. That might even force people to go to the other side, just because it's less populated, which renders the whole idea of splitting the map useless.

tl;dr: find me a better way to decide in what percentage to split strategus. But something that can be calculated, not just some gut feeling.

Strategus 2.0 was 3x more crowded than 1.0 and only growing more populated.  Makign twicea s much spacea nd it would still be very crowded allowing for plenty of fights, but when you keep it his small it actually reduces the activity because only 1/5th the clans can have access to owning a fief allowing them a capacity to fight near equal parity with fiefed clans and eventually 1-2 alliances own most of the fiefs instead of a constant vying back and forth between many small clans across many fiefs more simialr to the first half of Strategus 1.0. 

If you looked at the activity level and not just population you would note that NA community more active.  My clan had 90+ battles in Startegus 2.0 and only 50 active members, whereas there were several EU clans that had 2x to 3x our numbers that might have fought 15-20 battles at most and most of those were against neutral fiefs because other than leaders logging into their members cd keys, they were mostly inactive players (just look at the account sharing thread, account sharing is rampant in EU).

So maybe look at how often NA members logged into Strategus v. EU players and not just the numbers. Basically measure how many hours NA community members were logged into Strategus v. EU (you can tell by looking at what their favored settings were set to).


P.S.  Also, if doing a split make the West NA, this last version all the NA players were on the Eastern,middle, nothern, and Southern areas.  If you dont change it up , all the EU clans thata re boring will just go back to their "ancestral" and highly predictable claims instead of actually fighting.  Whereas NA will fight regardless, those EU clans might actually fight when they dont have set lands to claim anymore and its more of a first-come first-serve basis.