[Suggestions] First things... last?

[Zaharist]

Hey everyone!

      First of all I would like to ask you to forgive me my pure language skills. I wish I could speak english fluently and write understandable grammatically correct sentences, I should've learned better at school %) I will try to do my best, please try not to be too grammarchocolate chip cookie.
Thank you in advance! ;)

This thread is all about my personal thoughts about strat development and expresses my personal opinion. I can be absolutely wrong, that's ok ;)


I think we are going in wrong direction since the end of first strat.

What made strat2,3,4 boring comparing to first strat?
They had the same scenario, same roles and same participants. UIF - antiUIF.
Small factions have no chances to settle down without "permission" or protection, no faction can survive alone, big factions (with adequate leaders) are overpowered etc.

What changed since Strat1?
Fixed numerous exploits, changed local fief micromanagement, added and then changed several times economy, battle management changes etc
Are these things really first to do?

IMO first thing that should be implemented in Strat is GLOBAL faction management.
Diplomacy should be in-game, not forum.
Factions should have bonuses/disadvantages according to their diplomacy (agreements, wars..), political system, size, number of fiefs, village-town-castle ratio, number of players.
Factions' fiefs should have global parameters like loyalty, rebellion chance, distance from capital.

(click to show/hide)

1. In-game diplomacy

ATM we have no Diplomacy ingame interface, so we have to form alliance, declare wars and make agreements on forum. This should be done in game.

For example


forming alliances can be done only during war. Faction A declares war on FacB, FacB ask for assistance FacC, B and C form alliance, FacC automatically becomes "at war" with FacA.
Every faction management action should affect some aspects of faction management.
Forming war alliance allows you to transfer troops within your alliance, may have positive affect on troops' morale - bonuses, on the other hand it can slightly increase corruption or rebellion chance in your fiefs.

without declaration of war no faction member can attack member of another faction. if FacA declares war on FacD, FacD automatically at war with A. Being at war should increase troop recruiting speed and items production, but also increase rebellion chances, taxes, decrease loyalty etc. The longer you stay at war - the less positive affects, the worse negative.

With trade agreements you can change taxes in your fiefs for each faction separately.

Having defensive pact with FacB you automatically join them in case they are attacked by FacX. But you can garrison your troops in FacB fiefs, FacB pays wages, not you.

and so on

2. Faction size, number of fiefs and players. Random events.

The more players in faction, the more fiefs it can hold without significant flaws.
Like 5 players per fief for factions <20ppl, 10 players per fief for factions 20+ppl. If FacA (19players) conquers 4th fief they face some problems, like low loyalty in that fief, high corruption etc.

The bigger territory faction has the more it suffers from corruption and rebels in province. Rebels - AI light-medium equipped armies 300-500 tickets randomly spawning to attack province villages with low loyalty (prime-time only).

Village-town-castle ratio. Town without villages is useless. Factions holding towns without villages should suffer somehow. Low prosperity or production. Castle population growth should depend on number of faction's nearby villages. The more villages - the sooner castle has full garrison/population. Owning a castle should affect positively on surrounding villages, decreasing rebellion chance. The bigger castle garrison, the closer village - the less rebellion chance.

3. Fiefs global parameters.
smt like
-Capital: yes/no (towns only, affects loyalty, corruption, rebellion chance, prosperity)
-Distance from capital (affects corruption rate, loyalty, rebellion chance, prosperity growth)
-Loyalty (affects corruption, prosperity, random event: ppl leaving your village)
-Rebellion chance (causes random event: rebel army spawn)
-Corruption (decreases the amount of gold fief produces)


Please, don't pay attention to details, names, figures, numbers... I want you to understand the idea in general.

Global faction management should solve current problems like:
1. Forming enormous alliances. Should be useless.
2. Managing big faction should be difficult
3. Small factions should have a chance to play on par with bigger ones.
4. Faction should be encouraged to play actively, making more "concentrated" wars (short duration, large number of battles), more diplomacy
5. Make multiaccaunting almost useless

Example of how it should work:

(click to show/hide)

Faction A has 80 players, 2 towns, 2 castles, several villages. Faction B has 10 players and 2 fiefs.
Faction A wants to wipe them and do it easily. One evening, two sieges, no Faction B.
But. Due to it's big size FacA suffers from at-war status greatly (losing loyalty and stability). The very far FacA's village attacked by fairly strong rebellion army (troops, equip, gold partly taken from nearby fief garrisons. figures depend on global parameters). Rebels take the village, it goes to FacB (as they are the one who are in war with FacA), 2-3 facB leaders are teleported to their new fief. Rebellion chance of surrounding villages grows.

fiefless FacD strike, attacking A's fief on the opposite to D side. due to high rebellion chance and low loyalty village garrison with equip and gold partly joins the attacker's side. A suffers even more. Sure, FacA can wipe B and D, but it isn't an easy task. Isn't just a matter of two sieges.

Attacking bigger factions should benefit attacker more then attacking smaller factions. The smaller faction you are at war with the less bonuses you have, the bigger losses u suffer.
Global faction management shouldn't be "realistic" or anything like that, it should balance the game, making it challenging for everyone.

In conclusion I would like to thank chadz and devs for their great work and with them patience and inspiration to overcome current mod's crisis.


Thank you for your time and attention.

[Panos]

the only way to make strat playable for smaller clans is to ban UIF.

[Havoco]

grammarchocolate chip cookie.

I hate that type of cookie

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

the only way to make strat playable for smaller clans is to ban UIF Eastern.

Fixed that for you, UIF stopped playing, now we just got one carebear bloc left.

[Butan]

You make a lot of good points, even some new ones noone though of.


But the "strat boring coz big block" argument cant work and will never work : human works like this, they try to win and its easier to win when you outnumber the opponent. If you try to put less incentive into building alliances, then the game will just become a "who got the most members in THEIR faction" instead of "who got the most members in THEIR coalition"; still the same shit.

If Strat 4 last until summer 2013, I guarantee you that UIF - anti-UIF will have mostly stopped and new wars will sprout between old alliances members. At least I hope there will be some chaos at some point because it would be indeed boring if not.



Also, just one point you made that is not accurate : managing a big faction IS harder. Not by gameplay rules but because it is VERY HARD to manage so many players, so a growing % of them will do random things, get out of control, and spiral down to death at some point. Or at least drop in average efficiency.

Very very big factions cant use all their formidable power with one mind because they need too much organisation and discipline, so I think this point is already set.



Look at how Druzhina completely overwhelmed defenses from south to north in one big push. People look at armies inside fiefs and are afraid, but do you really think they will all react swiftly and accordingly to the threat ? Human weakness permit all kind of badass thing in strat

[Haboe]

In strat 1 everyone entered as neutral. During strat 1 alliences were formed.
The fact that strat 2-3-4 started with alliences has nothing to do with the game mechanics, its just that factions got to know eachother, decided who they like/ disliked and allied accordingly.

Edit: Doesn't mean i don't like a good diplomatic system in strat though...

[Noctivagant]

Edit: Doesn't mean i don't like a good diplomatic system in strat though...

I do, its called FUCK OFF diplomacy. It was the best diplomacy ever, no trickery, no alliance, no lies, no backstabbing none.

now we just got one carebear bloc left.

Eastern block already said that it will quit the alliance when UIF is no more, UIF is not no more : changing the color doesn't make you neutral.

[Oberyn]

Agreed with Haboe, Strat 1 diplomatic relations were a blank slate, except perhaps for some very lowgrade rivalry between Mercs and Templars. Every following Strat version was based on and reinforced all the relations that were established during the first one. I think the breakdown into two massive coalitions (with the occasional 3rd party clans that have no much weight) was inevitable. Think 2 party system in politics.

Having the entire diplomatic system ingame would be a little restictive I think, but having it at least somewhat represented sounds like a good thing. Not quite sure what the best way to implement it would be however.

[Segd]

the only way to make strat playable for smaller clans is to ban Panos.

P.S. We could always unban him anyway

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

Eastern block already said that it will quit the alliance when UIF is no more, UIF is not no more : changing the color doesn't make you neutral.

If Coalition splits up into several smaller clans and mercs split into mercs and deserters and the cold front alliance splits up and the crusader alliance splits up and all those groups actually split up and not just unofficially do it but still sit around carebearing then I'll personally apologize for my hate against every faction involved in Eastern, however I somehow have gotten a suspicion that things will go down in a quite different way. Also, while UIF still is around they still all sorta stopped playing.

[Noctivagant]

If Coalition splits up into several smaller clans and mercs split into mercs and deserters and the cold front alliance splits up and the crusader alliance splits up and all those groups actually split up and not just unofficially do it but still sit around carebearing then I'll personally apologize for my hate against every faction involved in Eastern, however I somehow have gotten a suspicion that things will go down in a quite different way. Also, while UIF still is around they still all sorta stopped playing.

No need to apologize but you must understand that you are working for the first ever easy mode block, EB is just a counterweight. UIF has to apologize for breaking the game and smearing the poop all over it. What we supposed to do? just fight each other so UIF can destroy each one of us once again and claim superiority?

Harpag himself had nerve to go to some eastern block alliance leaders to suggest joining forces to destroy Mercs, well he got the answer and he got the picture. Kinngrimm and Rogue knows we will fight them when its time, thats when game returns to its normal state. But I'm afraid, this would only mean serving butter on UIF's bread.

UIF made the first unfair mega alliance, how about Grey Order fight Druzhina and Eastern Block fight each other on their roster? that would be the first step of showing the good will for the sake of the game and I'm ready to sign whatever they want to prove I wouldn't take advantage of the situation.

All I want "everyone" to have fun, not a just a group of people. But to make it possible UIF has to get rid off that "doing anything for victory" mentality. We don't need rules or restrictions or complex plans to maintain the balance, just few clan leaders willing to accept the fact that we owe an apology to the game itself for ruining it.

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

No need to apologize but you must understand that you are working for the first ever easy mode block, EB is just a counterweight. UIF has to apologize for breaking the game and smearing the poop all over it. What we supposed to do? just fight each other so UIF can destroy each one of us once again and claim superiority?
I serve no one but the holy goat, I've also spent more troops against UIF than I have against Eastern.
Harpag himself had nerve to go to some eastern block alliance leaders to suggest joining forces to destroy Mercs, well he got the answer and he got the picture. Kinngrimm and Rogue knows we will fight them when its time, thats when game returns to its normal state. But I'm afraid, this would only mean serving butter on UIF's bread.
One Eastern clan that will kick out deserters (will you even do that?) and then start fighting the other eastern clans doesn't stop the remaining Eastern from standing, it doesn't stop the coalition from existing either.
UIF made the first unfair mega alliance, how about Grey Order fight Druzhina and Eastern Block fight each other on their roster? that would be the first step of showing the good will for the sake of the game and I'm ready to sign whatever they want to prove I wouldn't take advantage of the situation.
I'm aware of that.
All I want "everyone" to have fun, not a just a group of people. But to make it possible UIF has to get rid off that "doing anything for victory" mentality. We don't need rules or restrictions or complex plans to maintain the balance, just few clan leaders willing to accept the fact that we owe an apology to the game itself for ruining it.
Agreed, but Eastern has to get rid of the "do anything to beat UIF" mentality just as much as UIF has to stop their gay bullshit.

[Noctivagant]

As I said, we will not stop until UIF is no more, but that shouldn't mean no more DRZ, no more Empire, no more Union, no more Grey Order etc. No, I want them to remain in the game and I want their players as well as their leaders to have fun. Just don't ruin the shit anymore and call it "diplomatic success" its just being opportunistic.

Mercs are ready to fight anyone in the name of fun even friendly manners. But until the situation is provided, no we don't trust these guys, none of us and earning our trust is simple, nobody has to lick our asses, just respect the game and be yourself.

[Zaharist]

In strat 1 everyone entered as neutral. During strat 1 alliences were formed.
The fact that strat 2-3-4 started with alliences has nothing to do with the game mechanics, its just that factions got to know eachother, decided who they like/ disliked and allied accordingly.

But the "strat boring coz big block" argument cant work and will never work : human works like this, they try to win and its easier to win when you outnumber the opponent. If you try to put less incentive into building alliances, then the game will just become a "who got the most members in THEIR faction" instead of "who got the most members in THEIR coalition"; still the same shit.

I agree with you both, but

I am talking about ingame system that will nullify carebearing.

Can you imagine 40ppl faction (twice smaller then Grey, Druzhina or Union) successfully attacking anyone of these 3 factions in beginning of 4th strat?
I guess not. Cause other 2 will help with troops, gold, equip, roster etc.

now imagine: 40pplFaction declares war on Druzhina. Druzhina suffer losses in economy (being "at war" reduces trading efficiency, overall faction wealth and prosperity) and suffers from increased rebellion. "System" helps smaller aggressor, giving him slight chance to conquer 1-2 fiefs or at least spoil Druzhina's blood.
Old friends can only say: guys, we wish you good luck. Cause they can't transfer troops (they need to be in war alliance to allow troops' tranfers, being in war alliance automatically make them "at war" too with all it's disadvantages. Do they need it? Definitely not, not against twice smaller faction), they can't transfer equip free (system allows only trading between different factions, each item has it's basic price which grows significantly if faction is at war), they can't help with roster (before battle sides should choose factions they would like to hire for their side. the only condition is that overall number of players in chosen factions should not be greater then xxx.)


what I am trying to say is that we need a ingame system balancing gameplay, giving some odds to smaller fiefless factions, nullifying carebear blocks.

[Noctivagant]

(click to show/hide)

I agree with you both, but

I am talking about ingame system that will nullify carebearing.

Can you imagine 40ppl faction (twice smaller then Grey, Druzhina or Union) successfully attacking anyone of these 3 factions in beginning of 4th strat?
I guess not. Cause other 2 will help with troops, gold, equip, roster etc.

now imagine: 40pplFaction declares war on Druzhina. Druzhina suffer losses in economy (being "at war" reduces trading efficiency, overall faction wealth and prosperity) and suffers from increased rebellion. "System" helps smaller aggressor, giving him slight chance to conquer 1-2 fiefs or at least spoil Druzhina's blood.
Old friends can only say: guys, we wish you good luck. Cause they can't transfer troops (they need to be in war alliance to allow troops' tranfers, being in war alliance automatically make them "at war" too with all it's disadvantages. Do they need it? Definitely not, not against twice smaller faction), they can't transfer equip free (system allows only trading between different factions, each item has it's basic price which grows significantly if faction is at war), they can't help with roster (before battle sides should choose factions they would like to hire for their side. the only condition is that overall number of players in chosen factions should not be greater then xxx.)


what I am trying to say is that we need a ingame system balancing gameplay, giving some odds to smaller fiefless factions, nullifying carebear blocks.

or you can make a defense pact instead of 4 strat long alliance, for example there was a blood feud between templars and mercs in strat 1. HRE attacked Mercs in strat 2. Mercs and Fallen never trusted each other till Strat 4...goes on

Just don't carry your past alliances to the next round. You know if DRZ got attacked by 400 clan you could hire Mercs to deal with it and Mercs could buy the service of someone else...its that simple actually