Massive multiplayer strategy games and their metagame. Can something be done?

[Tristan]

First of all lets keep flaming to a min. if you disagree with me, try to stay on point and argue why I am wrong.
Discussing meta-games in games is often sensitive so lets all just stay a bit aloof.

This thread is based on the following premise:

We would like to avoid one meta-block as the idea behind strategus is to combine strategy and tactics and a chance to play warband.

First argument:
It ain't just strategus. It is everywhere. I have played hours of Tribalwars, Kings age and Ogame and what not. I have been leader of larger alliances, won servers closed them what not. Pllaying a bit of Eve etc. But it always comes down to this:

Pre-server start a large active established clan rushes against another nemesis to gain momentum to kill the enemy. If the map is large several powerblocks can exist. If it ain't only two can. Either of those two sides then either conquers og bullies their way through their territory.

Such a game is mostly won in one of two ways:
1) At some point one block will gain the upper hand and knock the other part to their knees.
2) Internal dispute in a powerblock makes it crumble and the other block then:
a) Wins
b) Gives the remnants a chance to make a new powerblock in order to have an enemy to fight.

This is it. Smaller clans exist only to sort out active/non-active players only to conquer/recruit them into your fold.
More often than not the stalemate is only broken due to the internal dispute/inactivity of an important leader.

Enough about tribalwars etc. what does this have to do with strat?

Well, apart from the way battles are fought, it's exactly the same. They didn't find a counter for it.

If we force smaller factions, larger factions will just decentralise but in effect still be one clan.

Then can nothing be done?

I'm not sure. But:

1) The more there is for non-fief-owners to do, the better. A real chance for being a bandit or guard. NPC caravans and bandits?
Player owned ones are good, but there are not enough and profit from caravaning isn't great. Upkeep to troops are great and you can't get gold unless you are friendly with a clan that owns a fief. Fiefs are more important than ever before.
so: If small clans is to have a chance, find a way for them to make a living without fiefs. Forest hideouts? Small "villages" where you can hire bandits? Mountain hide outs... same shit.

2) A way so that people playing strat are playing strat. To many people don't play strat, they milk it. In other words it is to easy to organise and be a centralized organised whole. This is a) unrealistic, b) removes incentive and gives the faction leader god like abilities.
We have to find a way for people to be able to play strat, not just milk it. While production is all awesome and shit, a quest system might be more interesting. Faction leaders need npc bandits dead and give rewards for hunting them down (player fight for the npc's).
You need to "move" and do something beside click. Need people to think to make money.
A small organised active clan should be able to make more money than a medium sized clan of clones.

We need to find  way to break the evil meta of powerblocks that unfortunately hits every multiplayer-strategy game.

[chadz]

A bigger map would help.

Next map will be 4 times bigger, 4 times more locations.

[Zaharist]

Nice joke

[serr]

  I hope it's not joke.

[Zaharist]

Still there are lots of AI controlled villages in current Strat. Yes let's make it bigger and we'll have 4 times more village fights with 2 defenders and completely no fun.
Factions should fight each other not vs AI, I believe this is the main idea of war game. Atm there are no reasons to fight each other except forum insults. That's the main problem of current strat.

[Nessaj]

I'm all for more incentives to play Strat but never add anything that has to do with AI.

The second this game turns into anything resembling PvE its doomed.

In regards to a bigger map, still split between NA/EU or do we get one for each region?

[Xant]

A bigger map would help.

Next map will be 4 times bigger, 4 times more locations.

Even now there are a lot of villages that aren't captured, but in essence they still are someone's territory. What's to stop the megablocs from just claiming a bigger area of the bigger map, then crushing any small clan(s) that settle there?

[chadz]

I don't think that that's that much of a problem. Big clans can't conquer any faster than now, so if there is a bigger map, it will take faster to get filled and smaller clans or even individuals might have a chance of grabbing one. I'm hoping we see more rogue villages. Maybe some "defense bonus", whatever that may be, would be interesting right after conquering an AI village. That way small factions have some time to settle before they get re-conquered.

But yeah, NA and EU will stay on the same map, but maybe not the same peninsula.

[Elmokki]

Strategus needs to:

1) Make being an average player more interesting than recruiting troops or selling goods. One solution is making a cap (defined by something) to troops led by one player. If a faction starts a serious military campaign, majority of it's members should be moving with the army on the map.

2) Make having many people trade / craft in a fief benefit the fief owner enough to let people do that. I know Strategus isn't supposed to be 100% historical simulator, but it's a general real world principle that free trade makes communities prosperous, especially compared to very limited trade. There should probably be some sort of an infrastructure variable for fiefs, basically meaning that if infrastructure is low, less people can craft efficiently there. Basically this'd mean that high value goods and low infrastructure may temporarily make it worth it to have mercantilistic trade policies, but in the long run allowing people to trade should be worth it. But really, whatever is implemented what matters is that people should keep their fiefs open to non-bandit visitors in general and not because of game forcing it, but because of it being worth it financially.

3) Equipment prices. Yeah. They should be lower compared to gold income.

In general for Strategus economy I'd like to see ability to invest in things. After all, in real life there were three ways to be rich back then: Prosperous business, having rights of taxation or inheriting money. First two suit Strategus, but in Strategus you can really currently earn only with the first and it's implementation is a bit one sided too. It'd be nice if the player could increase crafting efficiency and speed by investing money on a fief. These would obviously be always revokable (or burnable if that's better for game balance) by fief owner so it's a risky investment, but if work and trade in a fief brought prosperity in form of taxes to the fief owner too, there's no real reason to burn/revoke the investments of people randomly.

Basically it's nice to see Strategus as more than a map where people can fight, but sadly the current implementation for economy is very simple, boring and also punitive for people who aren't friendly with a clan owning fiefs.

But yeah, these aren't really short term suggestions obviously

[Cyber]

A bigger map would help.

Next map will be 4 times bigger, 4 times more locations.

Sounds good, just what i wanted to suggest myself . Strategus has become a lot more competetive and there are a lot more clans compared to V1 so we really need a bigger map.

[Ganner]

I think what we need also is anonymous village defenders for defending NPC villages.  This would encourage more people to sign up for village defenses.  With the amount of factions that are in alliance or "friendly" or even neutral, almost no one is singing up against each other.  Making the defenders anonymous would solve that issue.  Obviously you would want to watch the rosters to make sure factions weren't exploiting this but i think it could be easily done.

That is, along with fixing NPC villages not paying people

Maybe some "defense bonus", whatever that may be, would be interesting right after conquering an AI village. That way small factions have some time to settle before they get re-conquered.

I like this idea.  A possible extension on it would be a faction with <X number of fiefs gets a % bonus amount of tickets or something for defense.

[serr]

Interesting idea, Ganner. I think also will be good to double experience for defenders of npc village.

[Zaharist]

Strategus has become a lot more competetive

one more funny joke.
love this thread 

[Cyber]

one more funny joke.
love this thread 

Not really a joke.

[BaleOhay]

I agree with Ganner. Need a mechanic that makes people want to defend the villages. Half the problem is no pay or reward but the bigger problem is diplomacy. If you see the same people signing against you every time boom reason for hostile relations. If the people fighting are nameless villagers you can speculate based on play style who you are fighting but can never really be sure.

If the map is 4 times bigger you will have to figure out a way to make people move faster with or without goods/crates. The rates now are insanely slow. Add more area to cover and I think you will bore the active people to death. Open up the trade radius a bit as well.