Strategus, the poll

[HarunYahya]

Crazy idea. You can't transfer stuff. AT ALL! No gold, troop, equipment or Trade Goods (ok, maybe trade goods) transfer. BUT! You can still reinforce people who are gonna fight (no time slots, all the time you want up until the battle starts), you can also "Follow" (should be improved from what it is now) and maybe some other stuff. Basically everyone is their own Warband, everyone doing their own stuff independently or in a groups where they are actually together.

Crazy idea, I know.

This is a tremendeous idea !
But its not playable.
Everyone err well most of the people have a social life here if you do that only 5-10 guys will be able to play strat.
That would sound good if it was an interactive game but its too much time spending for a browser based game which has a 2d map and few commands to do.

chadz

I love the idea of strategus.. But perhaps it's just too slow?

What if it was greatly sped up, so that there were more, and faster battles? What's wrong with having 6 epic scale battles in one evening?

I'm thinking that it would be cool if you could move really fast around. Of course it would reward the "always there" members more than those who check in once a day, but even so, does it really matter?

If it was sped up, 1 player could gather an army alone in an active week and a attack a village the week after.

I think SPEED vs PLAYERBASE is a keyword. Perhaps one more server should be dedicated to strat.. Dunno

Just a solution for something of an easy fix. Resets would also happen more often..

Edit: And speed in a beta-phase wouldn't hurt either I think. Potential exploits and problems etc would be discovered quicker.

Edit2: And thanks for the loompoint!!

This , i totally agree !
Having peasant vs peasant village battles for a month = no fun.
Attacking a city with this production rates will take a year probably...

[Xant]

What is this, a serious post from Paul? Could it be he is off the booze for once?!

[Slamz]

Archers are too effective in Strategus because of the low amount of armour, horses and quality shields arounds. Also it is a lot cheaper to field an archer instead of a halfway decently armed/armored infantry man.

Oh in Strategus I agree.  Archers are the name of the game there because of cost.

We were discussing archers in c-rpg, specifically in regards to the devs not needing to waste time "balancing" them when they are balanced quite nicely right now -- better than ever, really.  Before this change, I never saw archers top the charts.  Now, sometimes, they do.  But not usually.  So it's better, but 2H/polearm/cav still dominates.

What can be done to balance them better in strategus, I don't know.  Fixing the loot bug so people aren't afraid to bring heavier armor would be a good start!

And still it's unacceptable that shieldless inf has more or less a natural counter in archers.

I assume you mean the shieldless people find it unacceptable.  I think it's fine.  Really I don't think getting a shield is as good as just getting some basic throwing skill and two stacks of daggers.  Or a crossbow if you don't want to spend wpf.

My 2-hander has PT 4 and enough wpf to use it (also 6 athletics and I don't wear heavy plate).  I beat archers regularly enough.  They can't stand there and shoot at me for free unless they want a high chance of a throwing axe in the brain.  And when they turn and run, it's great -- throwing axe in the back and if I miss, I just pick it back up as I pass by, still chasing them, and throw it again.  With 6 athletics, I'm actually faster than the str-heavy archers and they can't run.  The tradeoff is I'm not as good at melee combat against the 100% 2-h specialists.  They have 0 PT, no throwing wpf, 0 athletics and all those points are in improving their melee and toughness.  And they wear heavy armor.

When archers shoot them full of arrows, that's the price they pay for wanting to be super tank melee specialists.

I think that's good game design in motion.  You can specialize in 100% melee and you will be a god among men at that one thing, but you will have counters.  Or you can diversify, be much stronger against those counters but weaker against the specialists.


Exactly the way it should be.

[Sharky]

totally agree. I'm just running out of ideas

A good way to promote strat would be giving bonuses to all members, not just to leaders that have fiefs. Leaders don't need bonuses, they have a fief probably because they already enjoy strat and are willing to put effort in it.
Who needs to be persuaded are regular players.
A lot of crpg players are obsessed with grinding, so if you don't give xp and gold for fighting strat battles and doing stuffs on strat they will loose
interest in it soon.

Also more land would help, atm only the older and bigger clans manage to find and keep some land for a while.

Oh and the micromanage increase not only is boring, but is not good at all for the balance. It only makes the most organized clans even more powerful, while others will not be able to catch up.

[Jarlek]

This is a tremendeous idea !
But its not playable.
Everyone err well most of the people have a social life here if you do that only 5-10 guys will be able to play strat.
That would sound good if it was an interactive game but its too much time spending for a browser based game which has a 2d map and few commands to do.

Crazy idea is crazy

[Teeth]

The driving force behind the archer scare is hysteria and probably trolling from some selected individuals who actually know better.

Archers are too effective in Strategus because of the low amount of armour, horses and quality shields arounds. Also it is a lot cheaper to field an archer instead of a halfway decently armed/armored infantry man. That's why clans seek to increase their amount of ranged and especially archer mains. I have seen it in the clan I am. I'm pretty sure that if there is an increase of archers on the servers it is because of Strategus and not because archery suddenly went OP. Archers in Strategus will most likely change in some way to make them less effective. However in normal cRPG I firmly believe they are fine.

I tried it out, I recently respect my old 1 slot archer, taking away his melee abilites to make him a pure archer using 1 slot bow and bodkins only. I'm not a bad shot but this is my least effective class performancewise. With all other set ups I have a greater impact on the round outcome - even with the joke builds. Maybe with looms that would change drastically but I somehow doubt it.

The light armor and reduced awareness compared to a crossbowman(reloading) is a bad combination for me. With no other "class" I am as vulnerable to cav sneak attacks. Armor usually allows me to make at least one mistake in a round, a luxury I don't have as an archer. Also my damage output is rather low even with the expensive(increased break chance) bodkins. I usually end up shooting other lightly armored ranged instead of targeting armored inf.

In Native (where ranged is about twice or trice as effective) it has always been a running gag to tell a 2h or polearm guy to "buy a shield" if they complained about ranged. Different to Native in cRPG going without a shield as inf a viable option - even with skilled players on the other team. In fact, along with (expensive to maintain) melee cav, 2h and polearm guys perform best if one takes k/d ratio as an indicator. The same indicator that suggests that on average archers are pretty much at the bottom of the food chain, sharing the honor with our beloved throwers.

And still it's unacceptable that shieldless inf has more or less a natural counter in archers. Getting shot is unfair. Getting told to buy a shield is racism.

However in normal cRPG I firmly believe they are fine, if they wouldn't be roofmonkeys

[Lezard]

I tried it out, I recently respect my old 1 slot archer, taking away his melee abilites to make him a pure archer using 1 slot bow and bodkins only. I'm not a bad shot but this is my least effective class performancewise. With all other set ups I have a greater impact on the round outcome - even with the joke builds. Maybe with looms that would change drastically but I somehow doubt it.

Archers main purpose isn't (or shouldn't be) to top the kill score board, it's to create tactical advantages. The true strenght of archers shows when they come in numbers. A constant flow of arrows can not only cause a lot of death, but also inspire fear into enemy lines. For example, just knowing enemy archers have you in their sight can cause confusion and a lot of stress, which leads to making mistakes etc. Not to mention archers can shoot down cavalry at range, create lockdowns and deadly crossfires.

But the main problem here isn't vanilla archers without looms, it's the looms that fucks up the balance. The damage boost for MW bow and MW arrows combined with pierce damage gets pretty rediculous. The damage combined with a high rate of fire make them extremely deadly and valuable.

[Xant]

^ Yep, the looms are what really breaks archery damage apparently. And like Leztard says, they create tactical advantages... team with more archers can force the entire enemy team to hide behind one building, then they get surrounded and die.

[Camaris]

totally agree. I'm just running out of ideas

http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,20362.0.html
Look at this thread.
I like some of his ideas.
Especially Fief Loyality.

Another idea is to allow (after you implemented payment) mercs to bring their own equipment to battle.
Single players could use their gold to equip themselve and offer their work to factions.
They so can do useful things in the browsergame and in the battles without being part of big alliances.

If you manage to code that they are able to chose what equip they want to bring it would be even more awesome.
They probably cant fight every battle but they will be able to do some of them.

For factions it would make sense to pay mercs finally.
It would boost trading too cause caravans would be able to hire already equipped mercs if they get attacked.
If you dont want people being able to jump in from everywhere with equipment you could add a radius around battles
where mercs can bring their own stuff.

Those "new" mercs with own equipment would try now to be in the warzones of strategus. => even more dynamic => more action on the map.

[SchokoSchaf]

Kill troop recruitment, make every Player in Strategus 1 person/ticket, max 2

Make some powerful positions like kings, clerics and stuff, who are the only ones to get an regular no-action-involved income of sorts and a fairly selective trading system that supports a "trading" class or caravans in which 10 guards are protecting 1 trader
(short: make trading and earning money hard for single people, implement some sort of hirarchy/employment between players)

Speed things up like Thomek said.



Edit: This way, single and not so active players could sign up for jobs and battles and still make a difference; there would be more action in general; people with too much time could try to become a powerful important person and you got a lot of scheming and diplomatics; those powerful people could start epic battles more at least once a week?

Edit2: that's in no way thought through, just some basic ideas.

[Leshma]

The driving force behind the archer scare is hysteria and probably trolling from some selected individuals who actually know better.

Archers are too effective in Strategus because of the low amount of armour, horses and quality shields arounds. Also it is a lot cheaper to field an archer instead of a halfway decently armed/armored infantry man. That's why clans seek to increase their amount of ranged and especially archer mains. I have seen it in the clan I am. I'm pretty sure that if there is an increase of archers on the servers it is because of Strategus and not because archery suddenly went OP. Archers in Strategus will most likely change in some way to make them less effective. However in normal cRPG I firmly believe they are fine.

I tried it out, I recently respect my old 1 slot archer, taking away his melee abilites to make him a pure archer using 1 slot bow and bodkins only. I'm not a bad shot but this is my least effective class performancewise. With all other set ups I have a greater impact on the round outcome - even with the joke builds. Maybe with looms that would change drastically but I somehow doubt it.

The light armor and reduced awareness compared to a crossbowman(reloading) is a bad combination for me. With no other "class" I am as vulnerable to cav sneak attacks. Armor usually allows me to make at least one mistake in a round, a luxury I don't have as an archer. Also my damage output is rather low even with the expensive(increased break chance) bodkins. I usually end up shooting other lightly armored ranged instead of targeting armored inf.

In Native (where ranged is about twice or trice as effective) it has always been a running gag to tell a 2h or polearm guy to "buy a shield" if they complained about ranged. Different to Native in cRPG going without a shield as inf a viable option - even with skilled players on the other team. In fact, along with (expensive to maintain) melee cav, 2h and polearm guys perform best if one takes k/d ratio as an indicator. The same indicator that suggests that on average archers are pretty much at the bottom of the food chain, sharing the honor with our beloved throwers.

And still it's unacceptable that shieldless inf has more or less a natural counter in archers. Getting shot is unfair. Getting told to buy a shield is racism.

Native warband has bad balance, c-rpg warband has a little bit better but still crappy balance.

You (and Fasader, Complex...) balance things in this mod based on reports (battle/siege server statistics) and whines from the biggest portion of this community (people who play range classes).

How about you guys cut that crap and start balancing the game based on logic? You know, things like risk/reward. Archery and ranged in general are low risk roles, why should they be able to kill as my 2H fighter who actively engage in battle. Most of the time I have trouble keeping with cavalry players of same skill because they have speed advantage and damage advantage over me (yet they are low risk class as well).

For the love of god, stop looking at damn kill statistics when you balance this mod. If you must, nerf armour of 2H/polearm fighters but don't punish us for actively engaging in fight and playing the only class that worth something in this silly indie game which has horrible animations and even worse net code.

Everyone else got it easier (and less interesting) than people who choose to manual block. Why punish them for choosing to play the most rewarding class?

Cavalry was cool until you made it boring (cowardly backstabbing is the only way for most cav). Archery was cool when only pierce bow was longbow.

And don't put yourselves above "certain individuals who should know better". You're no better than them, they just play the game and occasionally QQ mainly because ranged make them rage a lot. You, on the other hand, ruin this mod with every "balance" change you make!

[Gheritarish le Loki]

My advice is don't make the devs examine balance any further or you'll see cavalry and long reach melee weapons nerfed.  I can support my position by playing c-rpg and screenshotting the scoreboard every round.

You got nothin'.

(click to show/hide)

Just a lot of this:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Noob trying to explain to Gnjus how to kill archer, fuckin'priceless.

Mate you didn't even know this game exist that Gnjus was slauthering archermy old friend.

[Oberyn]

Leshma, on your own you probably account for 25% of all whining about cRPG (making up numbers is fun!). The idea that devs listen to the playerbase's opinion as far as balancing goes is kind of right, in the sense that they'll usually do the exact opposite.
 You just do really annoying, preachy self-righteous whining usually devoid of any reason. I'll rage about archers with the best of them, but at least I won't pretend like I'm some godamn genius cause my ideas of balance differ from the dev's. Your opinion is just that, opinion. And my opinion about your opinion is that it's presented not unlike the way a 5 year old unhappy with his toy would.

[Christo]

Noob trying to explain to Gnjus how to kill archer, fuckin'priceless.

Mate you didn't even know this game exist that Gnjus was slauthering archermy old friend.

Hahaha.

 /popcorn indeed.

[Tears of Destiny]

The driving force behind the archer scare is hysteria and probably trolling from some selected individuals who actually know better.

(click to show/hide)

Archers are too effective in Strategus because of the low amount of armour, horses and quality shields arounds. Also it is a lot cheaper to field an archer instead of a halfway decently armed/armored infantry man. That's why clans seek to increase their amount of ranged and especially archer mains. I have seen it in the clan I am. I'm pretty sure that if there is an increase of archers on the servers it is because of Strategus and not because archery suddenly went OP. Archers in Strategus will most likely change in some way to make them less effective. However in normal cRPG I firmly believe they are fine.

I tried it out, I recently respect my old 1 slot archer, taking away his melee abilites to make him a pure archer using 1 slot bow and bodkins only. I'm not a bad shot but this is my least effective class performancewise. With all other set ups I have a greater impact on the round outcome - even with the joke builds. Maybe with looms that would change drastically but I somehow doubt it.

The light armor and reduced awareness compared to a crossbowman(reloading) is a bad combination for me. With no other "class" I am as vulnerable to cav sneak attacks. Armor usually allows me to make at least one mistake in a round, a luxury I don't have as an archer. Also my damage output is rather low even with the expensive(increased break chance) bodkins. I usually end up shooting other lightly armored ranged instead of targeting armored inf.

In Native (where ranged is about twice or trice as effective) it has always been a running gag to tell a 2h or polearm guy to "buy a shield" if they complained about ranged. Different to Native in cRPG going without a shield as inf a viable option - even with skilled players on the other team. In fact, along with (expensive to maintain) melee cav, 2h and polearm guys perform best if one takes k/d ratio as an indicator. The same indicator that suggests that on average archers are pretty much at the bottom of the food chain, sharing the honor with our beloved throwers.

And still it's unacceptable that shieldless inf has more or less a natural counter in archers. Getting shot is unfair. Getting told to buy a shield is racism.

This is possibly one of my favorite dev posts of all time. Urist became so much more reasonable right now, shot to the top of the list. A well thought out post. I agree with all of it. Awesome, simply awesome. Faith completely renewed in cRPG.