Author Topic: Battlegroups meet Funtegus? (Wall of Text)  (Read 1178 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Meow

  • Awesome Consulting Detective
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1071
  • Infamy: 150
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Fallen Brigade
Battlegroups meet Funtegus? (Wall of Text)
« on: January 21, 2012, 09:37:16 pm »
+3
So after testing the Battlegroup System with chadz earlier i came up with this rough idea but as i never actively played Strat i can not say if people would be interested in it.
I wrote this post on the fly so some ideas might make no sense and others might open loopholes i did not think about, input about that is very welcome.
Also i am not a coder and after all this seems like a lot of switching and merging of already existing mechanics.
So in no way is this in planing but just a collection of ideas put into some kind of structure.

With the Battlegroup system it is possible to set up fights, another team can accept those fights, then agree on an amount of gold each team is allowed to spend.
After the gear is bought both teams lock the settings and join a server to start the fight.
(All explained in the Announcement about it.)

Now since one of Strats biggest problems seems to be people exploiting where ever they can, i was wondering how much interest would be there to actually play a sportsmanship based kind of strat.

I would imagine something like:

Clans earn a set amount of money which does not depend on their members in any way.
Each of those Clans is one Battlegroup and Battlegroups can not interact with each other in any way.
Besides gear you also buy troops from that money which will work like they do in strat at the moment.
Troops can only be purchased in Castles.
Gear can only be purchased in Cities.
Troops and gear are actually assigned to players in strat and can be moved around by them.
This in the beginning will make every clan exactly equal no matter how many members it has.

Players assign themselves to one Clan/Battlegroup and can not fight for any other clan.
This means that rather large factions are encouraged but no matter the size, the same amount of available gold to purchase that troops and gear will be at their disposal.
After a while this will lead to multiple clans/factions that have the optimal size for the set amount of gold income.
That income can be tweaked if necessary but should be big enough in the beginning to support even the current large clans.
Another option would be to increase it over time when the amount of battles going on raise.

When an army attacks another army, the people leading those armies talk to each other and agree on a time during a window of opportunity.
They agree on that time and lock it on the website so the server slot gets reserved, in theory even clan servers should be able to host those battles if they run in Battlegroup mode (not sure about this).

If they can not agree on a time, they can both set a time, lock it in and when both set it, something in between gets auto selected, slightly in favor of the attackers time.
This will prevent clans from trying to get unfair advantages due to attacking at specific times or trying to force other clans into fighting at 5am.

Overall this will require a lot more sportsmanship than it did so far but it really is only something for people who enjoy regular clan fights on a fun basis.

Only armies themselves would be able to attack and defend, individual players can either be in such an army and be moved around with it or do "trading" which i will get into later.
If you assign yourself to an army, your own first spawn into battle will be free which means inactive players who just hang out in an army will have to play to actually give that army an advantage.
Everyone in the clan who is not in that army will have a regular first spawn at the cost of one ticket.

The amount of players on each team in battle should depend on the amount of troops(tickets) in each army and should be still somewhat balanced even if huge armies try to smash smaller ones although there needs to be small advantage in numbers.

This will make it worth not having only one big army with your whole clan assigned to it as not all players would be able to participate to make use of their free spawn except if you are having a battle between two huge armies.

The village/city/castle taking would basically work as is right now although the AI would need to be adjusted but is only important until all fiefs are taken by clans/factions which would be desired to happen asap.

All three would have different impact in a set area around them (circle most likely or region if those get predefined).

Castles: Being in range of a Castles owned by your own clan would allow everyone fighting for you to spawn with free gear on the first spawn (not only the people who are assigned to the army and get the free spawn).
Also it allows you to directly assign troops to that Army without actually entering the Castle


Cities: Being in range of a City owned by your clan will allow you to purchase gear inside it's influence. Without actually entering the city.


Villages: Villages would play a minor role and only boost the armies movement speed inside their influence, this will make it desirable to take villages while you are on the move to somewhere else and basically use them as speed boosts to outrun armies. Due to that minor effect they would most likely be undefended a lot and by that instantly taken without a battle.

All three should have a minor impact on gold gain of a faction or some other benefit i can not yet come up with - feel free to add.




This would be the basic concept.




Now for individual players who are either not in a clan or are roaming outside of an army there would be stuff available in Cities, like Tournaments.
Those would happen regularly and are announce on a news page so players can travel there to participate.
Those events would feature their own Battlegroups which can be joined by players already in a clan and would be event with either zero or very low impact on the location they are at.
Also those could be further adjusted towards fun by allowing people to vote on the kind of event.
So it could be a Rageball, Siege, CTF, Battle and so on and on any map available.

More serious events or even all of them could include rewards inside cRPG, mostly small amounts of gold i guess or for major, Staff hosted events maybe some items or fluff rewards inside Strat.

Trading and stuff could be included as with caravans that are mainly transporting gear from cities to armies which cost 50 tickets + the gear they carry and can only be raided by armies that consist of 50 tickets or something like that so people can cut off supply lines of the enemy by sending small raid groups.
Those raid groups and caravans would be moving at a different speed than armies so they are more of a small scale battle thing and allow factions to grab each others stuff.

My creative phase sadly ended about 10 mins ago and I drifted off quite a bit from the whole battlegroup thing but people who actually play strat might be able to imagine those mechanics applied to how it works right now.

It could be massively simplified if only the battlegroup system was used as in unlimited gold and regular game modes without tickets but clanfights do not really need any strat implementation.

Also sorry if you hate the ideas and I wasted a lot of your time. :mrgreen:
Any kind of suggestions to get the most fun out of it are appreciated though!

Offline von_felty

  • Peasant
  • *
  • Renown: 4
  • Infamy: 2
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: TBT
Re: Battlegroups meet Funtegus? (Wall of Text)
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2012, 12:48:48 am »
0
Well it sounds like an awesome idea. Would Battlegroups be a system that replaces Strategus or be a system unto itself?

Offline Meow

  • Awesome Consulting Detective
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1071
  • Infamy: 150
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Fallen Brigade
Re: Battlegroups meet Funtegus? (Wall of Text)
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2012, 12:59:00 am »
0
Well, the Battlegroup system itself right now is basically an open system for everyone to arrange quick battles between teams and any gamemode you like.
http://battlegroups.c-rpg.net

If you combine that with strat some how, does not necessarily need to be in the way i described above, it might become something purely fun oriented for clans to fight for fiefs and stuff.

Sure needs some competitive basis but anything that does not give any big advantage to zergs or huge alliances seems like way to go.

Means gold, troops and gear can not depend on the amount of players in the clan/faction/alliance.
Or if only in a so minimal way that it will not kill the game for others.

Offline isatis

  • Duke
  • *******
  • Renown: 624
  • Infamy: 78
  • cRPG Player
  • ink+water showing their true potential!
    • View Profile
    • le Clan des Cochons!
  • Faction: Le clan des Cochons!!
  • Game nicks: Cochon_Furtif_Isatis
  • IRC nick: Isatis
Re: Battlegroups meet Funtegus? (Wall of Text)
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2012, 05:20:28 am »
0
Would be awesome!
a lot more battle, a lot more fun!!!!

as always, the Meowken got some wonderful insightful idea!

to resume this wall of text (for dah lazy people here!)

1 you got a big mob, using the battlegroup system (item shared etc... i'm not going to do it all!)
2 all clan are equal at first (clan has one battlegroup)
3 way to make money: same that today (craft and trade)
4(to be clarified by Meow) in your battle group you got transported by leader and you cannot fight for another clan
5if you single (not sure if you can be in a clan and be single) you can fest at city, go tournament, rageball etc (I think you can do that in your battlegroup)

so basically it will make strategus more like a sport field, with more battle and cool war, wich please both casual and hardcore gamer.

if you think i got it wrong feel free to add to my little résumé!
So the new response to ranged ragers is not "get a shield", it is "learn to chamber ranged nub!"
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Tears of Destiny

  • Naive
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1847
  • Infamy: 870
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Quiet drifting through shallow waters. 死のび
    • View Profile
    • NADS
  • Faction: Black Company
  • IRC nick: Tears
Re: Battlegroups meet Funtegus? (Wall of Text)
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2012, 06:30:28 am »
0
This thread is automatically not worth reading with you naming "Strategus" into "Funtegus."
I'm not normal and I don't pretend so, my approach is pretty much a bomb crescendo.
Death is a fun way to pass the time though, several little bullets moving in staccato.
The terror of my reign will live on in infamy, singing when they die like a dead man's symphony.

Offline Gristle

  • Duke
  • *******
  • Renown: 560
  • Infamy: 130
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: BRD
  • Game nicks: Gristle_BRD
Re: Battlegroups meet Funtegus? (Wall of Text)
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2012, 10:56:02 am »
0
Sounds interesting, and it's nice to see a dev actively and openly discussing ideas like this. Forwarded this to the FCC forums to hopefully get some attention.

Offline Meow

  • Awesome Consulting Detective
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1071
  • Infamy: 150
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Fallen Brigade
Re: Battlegroups meet Funtegus? (Wall of Text)
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2012, 02:21:49 pm »
+1
This thread is automatically not worth reading with you naming "Strategus" into "Funtegus."

Yeah i'm starting to adjust to your average posts in the worth reading department.

Sounds interesting, and it's nice to see a dev actively and openly discussing ideas like this. Forwarded this to the FCC forums to hopefully get some attention.

Well just not sure how viable this is or if it will ever be considered but if there are good ideas, by anyone - odds are they will be taken into consideration :mrgreen:
« Last Edit: January 22, 2012, 02:22:50 pm by Meow »

Offline Kalam

  • Duke
  • *******
  • Renown: 697
  • Infamy: 163
  • cRPG Player Sir White Bishop A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Never do an enemy a small injury.
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Linebreakers
  • Game nicks: Cavalieres_Midnighter, Dunsparrow
  • IRC nick: Kalam
Re: Battlegroups meet Funtegus? (Wall of Text)
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2012, 03:38:14 pm »
0
Awesome. That's all I have to say.

Offline Ujin

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1057
  • Infamy: 166
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Pawn A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: Battlegroups meet Funtegus? (Wall of Text)
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2012, 04:10:31 pm »
+1
These are all great ideas and evertything , but to be honest all i want is a decent ladder (league) system properly administrated by devs  :|.

Offline Meow

  • Awesome Consulting Detective
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1071
  • Infamy: 150
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Fallen Brigade
Re: Battlegroups meet Funtegus? (Wall of Text)
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2012, 04:15:00 pm »
0
Pretty sure that will be the next step for the Battlegroups system.

Offline Tears of Destiny

  • Naive
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1847
  • Infamy: 870
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Quiet drifting through shallow waters. 死のび
    • View Profile
    • NADS
  • Faction: Black Company
  • IRC nick: Tears
Re: Battlegroups meet Funtegus? (Wall of Text)
« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2012, 01:25:27 am »
+1
Yeah i'm starting to adjust to your average posts in the worth reading department.

Alright, fair enough.
Since you actually post more then one-liner quips on the forum, let me give you an actual response.

I don't fully like this idea. I think this idea has potential, but needs to be heavily reworked.

  • Clans earn a set amount of money that is not effected by the amount of members.
  • You can only fight in your clan battlegroup.
This raises issues with me.
Basically, smaller clans will lack the people to fill the roster for a full battlegroup, and larger clans will fill them with ease. This punishes small clans on an almost unforgiving level if they do not have 60 members for a full roster. You can of course off-set this by making the rosters smaller, say 20 or 30 people per side for strategus battles but then strat battles will lose their "epic" feel which is a shame (and I would greatly prefer to keep that large scale engagement possible). Otherwise, you will have a 60 roster fight against a 20 member clan who is screwed due to lack of members and other clanners not being allowed to help.

This system will encourage people to make micro-clans though, to "double" or "triple" the income, since income is set and based on per-clan not per-member. This means instead of Strategus having The Fallen brigade at 90 members, we will have FBRIG1, FBRIG2, FBRIG3 all at 30 members. This means we can bypass the game mechanics and triple our income.

Of course, a solution to this is to allow mercenaries, where if you are not part of a clan then you can fight in any battlegroup, of which we then see this scenario: 3 FBRIGs at 10 members each or 6 FBRIGS at 5 members each for the massive income boost, and then a dedicated group of 60 factionless Fallen members to fight in any battle. This is a massive problem to me.

Another concern I have is that a fixed income will make larger empires near impossible, though this is easily fixed.

There you have it, my concerns.

The Battlegroup system would be wonderful in a cRPG league, but does not seem to mesh in Strategus where the goal is to have epic-scale fighting and a slow conquest of the world with political intrigue , and maybe even a side of trading.

EDIT: I did like the rest of your post though, I really should clarify that. The method for time slots seems to be absolutely marvelous.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2012, 01:31:00 am by Tears of Destiny »
I'm not normal and I don't pretend so, my approach is pretty much a bomb crescendo.
Death is a fun way to pass the time though, several little bullets moving in staccato.
The terror of my reign will live on in infamy, singing when they die like a dead man's symphony.

Offline Gristle

  • Duke
  • *******
  • Renown: 560
  • Infamy: 130
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: BRD
  • Game nicks: Gristle_BRD
Re: Battlegroups meet Funtegus? (Wall of Text)
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2012, 02:04:38 am »
0
(I am tired so forgive me)

Quote
You can only fight in your clan battlegroup.

I was thinking about something like this a few weeks ago. I have seen plenty of battles where one side is mostly made up of just one or two clans with just a handful of mercs, while the other side will have significant showings of 4 or more clans. It could lower the power of alliances and force individual clans to be more independent. I think I'd like to see that. However, what would stop people from just making one giant alliance group?

Offline Meow

  • Awesome Consulting Detective
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1071
  • Infamy: 150
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Fallen Brigade
Re: Battlegroups meet Funtegus? (Wall of Text)
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2012, 03:56:25 am »
+1
Alright, fair enough.
Since you actually post more then one-liner quips on the forum, let me give you an actual response.


Ha, there we go :mrgreen:

Well, i was kinda hoping those mechanics would balance each other out.

Too small clans = massive disadvantage over big clans due to lack of players - splitting up one big clan into small clans = they get destroyed by big clans.

The advantage of alliances consisting of multiple clans would be reduced to being able to attack in multiple waves but that could easily be adjusted with an immunity window so you can not spam attack fiefs or armies and give them the opportunity to resupply.

Also small clans could always join up on a big clan but keep their own thing going by having an agreement of getting a specific amount of troops and gear to work with and in trade off help improving that clans numbers as well as getting support for their own fights.

You could keep the "faction" thing in strat going but have them still be in one battle group.
So if Pillagers, Looters and Bandits forge an alliance they have the numbers to fight larger battles but could each also roam in small raid parties.

Players numbers in those Battlegroups would more or less be another factor like troops and gold which you need to blance to be an effective clan or if you don't care about fiefs you could always split up the armies and just go on random raids.

Overall i was hoping this would create a more strategic approach on managing your armies and their gear with the gold at your disposal while it would completely eliminate any major advantage from having inactive players in your clan.

Pretty tired but i hope it makes some kind of sense.

Offline isatis

  • Duke
  • *******
  • Renown: 624
  • Infamy: 78
  • cRPG Player
  • ink+water showing their true potential!
    • View Profile
    • le Clan des Cochons!
  • Faction: Le clan des Cochons!!
  • Game nicks: Cochon_Furtif_Isatis
  • IRC nick: Isatis
Re: Battlegroups meet Funtegus? (Wall of Text)
« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2012, 04:23:21 am »
0

This system will encourage people to make micro-clans though, to "double" or "triple" the income, since income is set and based on per-clan not per-member. This means instead of Strategus having The Fallen brigade at 90 members, we will have FBRIG1, FBRIG2, FBRIG3 all at 30 members. This means we can bypass the game mechanics and triple our income.



and what's if you could make  battlegroup with different meaning like mercenary, trader, patrol etc. in same faction?
the battle group, for no abuse: start up with nothing except some troop and a little crappy equip.
income only made by merchant and by fief possession. and merchant only have low/mid tier wep at disposal sso they need army to support wich cannot make money. mercenary can fight for everyone in their radius for money.

i'm also a bit tired and I got work to-morrow so cannot explain as much as i want.

So the new response to ranged ragers is not "get a shield", it is "learn to chamber ranged nub!"
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Olwen

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 419
  • Infamy: 222
  • cRPG Player Sir White Pawn
  • A shadow among others
    • View Profile
Re: Battlegroups meet Funtegus? (Wall of Text)
« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2012, 03:16:00 pm »
0
meow suggestion, must be silly

(click to show/hide)