Well, that was fun

[Tomas]

Good suggestions. Though I prefer larger battles, its hard to fill a roster as non-member of one of the carebear-alliances. Especially at the non-usual times. Also the roster-size should be reduced even more at those times where hardly anyone is playing (night, morning and during the day).

That would be nice, but at last during battle you would see the names. So still no carebear1 would play against a carebear1-clan.

In the battle you would appear with a random name.  The only thing you would need to be careful of is that the people in the TS you join and the clan leaders of the battle don't give you away.  The first can be done by simply not speaking and using an alias in TS.  The second is a trust issue that probably adds to the game

[Keshian]

Make a better strategus:

1) Make troops and gold easier to get from ticks so more aggressive gameplay allows for greater fluctuations in fortune forcing new territory claims and thus new alliances - as alliances fluctuate more they also tend to decrease in size, only stagnant alliances slowly creep up to include 70-100% of playerbase.

2) Completely random assignment of villages to players (cities and castles should be neutral - fun fights, and also creates discord with whoever mercs on neutral side), so no clan will know which fiefs they will get and will be forced to relocate.  Some clan may get lucky, but then other clans will just attack them if they have too many fiefs.

[Nessaj]

In the battle you would appear with a random name.  The only thing you would need to be careful of is that the people in the TS you join and the clan leaders of the battle don't give you away.  The first can be done by simply not speaking and using an alias in TS.  The second is a trust issue that probably adds to the game

If that would be put into place, the battle commander should be able to Kick people (or even ban them for the duration of the battle from EU/NA3). Otherwise we'll have a huge army of trolls and idiots fooling around due to anonymity. Polls won't be effective enough.

"TROOP 43 GET IN FORMATION!"
"TROOP 43 WHAT ARE YOU DOING!?"
"TROOP 43 DIES"

 

There's other ramifications as well, suddenly people will stop talking on TS, not relaying vital battle information or otherwise because they won't want to be recognized, given they want to play as many battles as possible. This would encourage sneaking around, lying, and generally bad behaviour. People would start fixing information on other players, for example which country is someone from, so they can easier spot them playing for the enemy (by checking out his TS) - or simply checking out IP(s). It wouldn't work unless there's a better commanding system present, one that would negate having to use Voice programs such as TS etc. Writing doesn't cut it at all in the bigger battles.

My point is, that this change alone would not help solve the actual issues behind, just mask it more.
We'll have players less talking and "socializing" and in general participating less, and other players/clans will fanatically try to make sure they have the best rosters (which would not be too hard).
It wouldn't solve any of the actual issues of allowing people to sign-up freely.

I personally do prefer anonymity in battle, e.g. only the battle commander knows who is who, only the host of the battle (or people with high enough rank) can see who have signed up etc. It would help, but as stated above it isn't a solution, it is simply 'moving the problem' slightly, and it carries a lot of other issues with it.

[Cicero]

"TROOP 43 GET IN FORMATION!"
"TROOP 43 WHAT ARE YOU DOING!?"
"TROOP 43 DIES"

"TROOP 43 DO YOU COPY ?"
"TROOP 43 "
"TROOP 43 KIA ASAP"

[Tomas]

(click to show/hide)

If that would be put into place, the battle commander should be able to Kick people (or even ban them for the duration of the battle from EU/NA3). Otherwise we'll have a huge army of trolls and idiots fooling around due to anonymity. Polls won't be effective enough.

"TROOP 43 GET IN FORMATION!"
"TROOP 43 WHAT ARE YOU DOING!?"
"TROOP 43 DIES"

 

There's other ramifications as well, suddenly people will stop talking on TS, not relaying vital battle information or otherwise because they won't want to be recognized, given they want to play as many battles as possible. This would encourage sneaking around, lying, and generally bad behaviour. People would start fixing information on other players, for example which country is someone from, so they can easier spot them playing for the enemy (by checking out his TS) - or simply checking out IP(s). It wouldn't work unless there's a better commanding system present, one that would negate having to use Voice programs such as TS etc. Writing doesn't cut it at all in the bigger battles.

My point is, that this change alone would not help solve the actual issues behind, just mask it more.
We'll have players less talking and "socializing" and in general participating less, and other players/clans will fanatically try to make sure they have the best rosters (which would not be too hard).
It wouldn't solve any of the actual issues of allowing people to sign-up freely.

I personally do prefer anonymity in battle, e.g. only the battle commander knows who is who, only the host of the battle (or people with high enough rank) can see who have signed up etc. It would help, but as stated above it isn't a solution, it is simply 'moving the problem' slightly, and it carries a lot of other issues with it.

The commander hiring you will know who you are.  If you piss about, they will simply not hire you again as it is now.  If they blow your cover then that is the risk you take when applying.

[CrazyCracka420]

I think you guys are putting too much thought into the anonymous sign-ups.

The only thing that should change (or would need to) is the enemy in game, cannot see the other team's names on the scoreboard.  People in game, on your team would still be able to see the names of their teammates.   Of course someone on your side could tell the enemy who signed up, but that's the problem of your side, not theirs (don't sign up people you don't trust).  And would be no different than it is now anyways if that were to happen. 

Nothing else would need to change.

[Tibe]

To be fair, I dont really get why leaders get so pissed when few guys from their alliance join in a roster against them. If its not some players with insane skill and its not about the madder of who has more players showing up, it makes very little difference.

its always like PM:  "WTF? *lots of snorting and nerdtalk* waahwaah you were against my dudes on that roster, you all deserve to be wiped from strat forever!"
Really? Bitch I go were I can cause I want xp! This really annoys the hell out of me, cause I always have to take out a fucking list of who I can sign up for and for who I cant.

[Segd]

1) Slightly reduced roster sizes in general.
mercs = power(smaller_army_size,0.6)
capped at 50 mercs

Less mercs = longer battles = less XP = less fun.

Anonymous mercing + doubled\tripled xp = full rosters all the time!

[Moncho]

Less mercs = longer battles = less XP = less fun.

Anonymous mercing + doubled\tripled xp = full rosters all the time!

how on earth does longer battles = less XP and fun?
Last time I checked, you get xp every tick, and with every tick slightly less if attacking or more if defending, so the longer a battle, the more xp you get... (maybe your average xp is slightly lower but still better than cRPG...)

And what is the point of a 50v50 battle with 100v100 men? Its just one respawn...

[Segd]

how on earth does longer battles = less XP and fun?
Last time I checked, you get xp every tick, and with every tick slightly less if attacking or more if defending, so the longer a battle, the more xp you get... (maybe your average xp is slightly lower but still better than cRPG...)

And what is the point of a 50v50 battle with 100v100 men? Its just one respawn...

XP mainly depends on equip of killed enemies +6k every 200sec. So less people you kill = less XP you gain per tick.

& right now there is not a lot of xp you gain from battles. I get just a little less xp on X1(about 1.5k with my generation against 1.8-2k from Strat battle), but I need to be in TS 10-30min before the battle, follow the orders & fight with this shitty gear(as a xbowman I saw cracked arbalest only once )

[Bjord]

The #1 reason why alliances form is to fill rosters with reliable players.  As a rough estimate it takes at least a 200 man alliance to guarantee filling a 50 man roster and since there are only 500ish players on EU in Strat then of course there is only room for 2 alliances.  It is also the #1 reason why small clans struggle and independent players fail in the end

So here's what I propose

1) Slightly reduced roster sizes in general.
mercs = power(smaller_army_size,0.6)
capped at 50 mercs

Results

(click to show/hide)

army size - mercs
0      0
50      12
100      16
200      22
300      26
400      30
500      33
600      36
700      38
800      40
900      43
1000      45
1100      47
1200      49
1300      50
1400      50
1500      50
...
2000      50

As you can see a 100 vs 100 battle would get reduced down to just 16 mercs from its current 28, and village battles at 200 defending troops would only have 22 mercs.  The big Castle and Town sieges meanwhile will still have at least 45 (Castle) or 50 (Town) mercs.

This makes raiding much easier and also slightly prolongs the smaller battles so that they feel less like time wasted.

2)  Remove the reduced upkeep of troops in Fiefs.  This just encourages carebearing over attacking.  If troops cost the same everywhere then faction with too many troops would be forced to get rid of them and actually attack someone.

3) Anonymous mercing.  Only the roster manager can see who you really are.

Please make a suggestion thread so I can +1 you again!

[Harafat]

Allright, i was gonna stay out of this, but ye....

1.) The only reason the eastern alliance-carbears-cuddlemonkeys is allegedly there (i mean, is it rly there?  ), is cuz the other block (that has existed for longer then me playing strat) is still there. We hate mega-alliances as much as every1, but you cant expect us to roll over and die again for the sake of sportmanship. This whole shit reminds me of Kant, where the UIF is the these, we're the anti-these and the synthese has to be decided yet as well as the new antithese. Dont bark to us; we tried it semi-independent last time and look how that turned out.

2.) It is funny as hell that you are trying to addapt the game itself because some group of players make it impossible to play the game it was intended to be. You dont need to tackle the game, you need to tackle the players breaking it. Its like when some1 is murdered, you take all kinds of precautions so that no one can be murdered again (this is good), but you leave the murderer unpunished (not so good). All these measures etc to break up UIF, one crazier then the other. You need to decide, or you'll have a game with UIF, or you need to take em out of the game (and thats a LOT of players). I'm sorry but this is the reality. I for one prefer a game with a good enemy, that way you have some1 to fight.

[Bjord]

So basically, UIF are a bunch of murderers and bad people who need to be severly punished, and the eastern alliance bloc doesn't exist because for some reason it doesn't?

:golfclap:(we need this smiley btw!)

Sir, you win +10 internets.

[Teeth]

To be fair, I dont really get why leaders get so pissed when few guys from their alliance join in a roster against them. If its not some players with insane skill and its not about the madder of who has more players showing up, it makes very little difference.

its always like PM:  "WTF? *lots of snorting and nerdtalk* waahwaah you were against my dudes on that roster, you all deserve to be wiped from strat forever!"
Really? Bitch I go were I can cause I want xp! This really annoys the hell out of me, cause I always have to take out a fucking list of who I can sign up for and for who I cant.

It used to be acceptable to sign up against anyone even when in a clan that is active on strat, without it immediately being a declaration of war, as long as you did not sign up in groups. Nowadays its a huge deal if there is one player of a faction fighting against a clan they are supposed to be neutral with.

[Harafat]

Yes, BJORD, you nailed it!

sry for previous non-troll-imune-comment