Strategus Anti Big Alliance System

[Beauchamp]

imo the main (and obvious) reason why big alliances are formed (and why there is no multi polar world in strategus) is so that players from these alliances win the game as easily as possible. those that are unlucky and won't get into the first alliance will form a second alliance hoping they will be the winners. in big alliances you have the numbers, you have the money, you have full roster so its easy to pwn everyone weaker and feel like the boss.

some loom points, strategus points, faction points, titles or anything else is far far far behind and won't change a thing. 9/10 players will prefer to pwn to pwn to pwn to pwn (even being the last one peasant in their alliance) over solo getting some crappy loompoint or crappy title.

the game how its designed now just works this way. there is no objective, so the only objective everybody is able to come up with is to conquer all the others. well what else would u expect from a medieval simulation? and how to conquer others easily without being a part of a care bear? you would have to completely change the game/rules if you'd want to achieve anything else than what you saw in previous strateguses (and what you will see in this one too).

[Turboflex]

Right now there's no downside to a big alliance empire. What's missing is this "corruption" element, and also a diplomatic relations network that ties allies/mercs into it (though battle support).

[CrazyCracka420]

To address the large alliances (not just large factions) you could make it so that you had to set diplomatic relations (not necessarily publicly) for your faction.  The only way to merc for another faction would be to have your relations set to allied, or mercenaries.  The more allies you have, the more chance for corruption, I'm not sure about the mercs though. 

Very rough draft idea, but something like that would make sense to me.

[Rikthor]

To address the large alliances (not just large factions) you could make it so that you had to set diplomatic relations (not necessarily publicly) for your faction.  The only way to merc for another faction would be to have your relations set to allied, or mercenaries.  The more allies you have, the more chance for corruption, I'm not sure about the mercs though. 

Very rough draft idea, but something like that would make sense to me.

That's not a bad idea Huseby, although it would need some kind of cooldown on changing from a faction to merc as potentially clan A and clan B could be allied; then clan b switches to merc to avoid costing either clan the corruption charge. Hopefully that makes sense.

[LordBerenger]

Fighting for possible loom points? Yeh that's gonna prevent alliances pfft. Easier just to level to 31.

[Turboflex]

That's not a bad idea Huseby, although it would need some kind of cooldown on changing from a faction to merc as potentially clan A and clan B could be allied; then clan b switches to merc to avoid costing either clan the corruption charge. Hopefully that makes sense.

I wrote this out on first page no one read it 

The way to balance switching support should not be fake cool down, but corruption spike instead. So a clan that switched support/supporters a lot would be able to do it but would pay for it.

[Huey Newton]

Mind you this idea is very raw and needs a lot more work.

Without reading anymore I can tell you Rodrick_Of_Chaos will have a vested interest in your idea.
Present this to chaos and particularly him and I believe you will find some Chaotic results.

(click to show/hide)

Staph Infection

[Havoco]

Sorry if I understand you wrong, but do you suggest that there is some kind of bonus for the next round for those players ranked best in the previous? Sounds like a very bad idea.

It wouldn't be rewards, I'm suggesting that instead of the FP giving loompoints it is used in a lvling system. The levels could decrease troop upkeep costs, give extra gold from trade runs, etc.

[kinngrimm]

can you explain in more depth how exactly huge clans with 80+ upto 200 members or alliances with 300+ upto 500 players would be balanced by this?

same topic different angle and a suggestion done a while ago

[Vibe]

can you explain in more depth how exactly huge clans with 80+ upto 200 members or alliances with 300+ upto 500 players would be balanced by this?

same topic different angle and a suggestion done a while ago

By making smaller factions viable. I never said this could completely balance the game, since it's all about loom rewards, but it could help break some larger factions.

[kinngrimm]

By making smaller factions viable. I never said this could completely balance the game, since it's all about loom rewards, but it could help break some larger factions.

i am all for that. Complettly counter productiv to that goal is the S&D introduced recently. I might be wrong here but i would now tend to attack randomers even befor they reach my claims so they don't fuck up the S&D. Before that the goods production was dependent on each single guy. Therefor at some point he was able to get his caravans done as also the factions, which then still needed to move their stuff. No problem for a faction to allow some more people to fill in within fiefs for troop production. Now a single guy who may have amassed 20k gold can just buy thousands of trade goods and be gone in an instant. I think randomers will get attacked more often now because of that.

Still i like the S&D System, not sure how it could be improved to make randomers less threatening to factions who fear to loose some S&D. I'd like to have the system in a way, so single players can make caravans and even come to the state to attack and take a village(holding is a different thing) And perhaps even give more jobs to randomers which Faction Palyers can't even take part in. Like espionage missions or sabotage(then perhaps been able to destroy S&D) but as a built in task which anonymous would offer and they take a risk if caught but if successfull get rewarded by the anonymous contract giver.

[Vibe]

i am all for that. Complettly counter productiv to that goal is the S&D introduced recently. I might be wrong here but i would now tend to attack randomers even befor they reach my claims so they don't fuck up the S&D. Before that the goods production was dependent on each single guy. Therefor at some point he was able to get his caravans done as also the factions, which then still needed to move their stuff. No problem for a faction to allow some more people to fill in within fiefs for troop production. Now a single guy who may have amassed 20k gold can just buy thousands of trade goods and be gone in an instant. I think randomers will get attacked more often now because of that.

Still i like the S&D System, not sure how it could be improved to make randomers less threatening to factions who fear to loose some S&D. I'd like to have the system in a way, so single players can make caravans and even come to the state to attack and take a village(holding is a different thing) And perhaps even give more jobs to randomers which Faction Palyers can't even take part in. Like espionage missions or sabotage(then perhaps been able to destroy S&D) but as a built in task which anonymous would offer and they take a risk if caught but if successfull get rewarded by the anonymous contract giver.

I agree that S&D system atm is pretty shit, specially for those that are not fief owners since fief owners will be very protective of their S&D. Also like your other suggestions, there definitely needs to be more to do for a solo player.

[Boss_Awesome]

I just can't see any mechanic that couldn't be circumvented by players determined to create a big mega alliance.  The only thing I could think of is to award a trophy to the faction that controls the most fiefs at the end of each strategus and limit the total number of players in an individual faction.  My only hope is that personal clan glory would cause big alliances to disintegrate once they have defeated their big alliance enemy.  The worst thing about the UIF is that they refused to do this once they had conquered the majority of territory. 

[kinngrimm]

...The worst thing about the UIF is that they refused to do this once they had conquered the majority of territory.

That may have happened if Strategus wouldn't be in beta and would just keep on going without resets.

Admitted there isn't a perfect system, but you could get damn close. By giving Factions insentives to use a diplomatic system by which them, they are catagorized then, it would be possible to balance depending on player counts(within a faction AND within an alliance) and other defined relations. That combined with an unrest system against inactivity would surly be a great improvement.

EDIT: And to those who say it would only make things more complicated with more micromanagement, not true. You make your realtion settings for your factions, those you want treaties with get a notifier and either reject or confirm. Done. Everything could be calculated by Strategus without any hustle to anyone else.