Strat player limit

[BeastSVK]

Why strategus cant have 120-150 instead of 102 slots per big (1500+) sieges ,battles ?. every time there is ton of people who cant get into roster coz this limitation for max 51 players. It breaks my heart. NI

[Molly]

Performance decision is my guess.

[serr]

Performance decision is my guess.

In third strat in AI sieges there were 70 or 80 slots for defence, so it was 120 players max.
Now we have no AI sieges, so indeed why not to increase amount of slots in roster?
Also, EU3 has 200 slots(omg), EU1 has 140 slots(also a lot, 70 players per team would be great).
Ofc, if strat is dead it doesn't make sense, but extending slots limit is something that could definitely reanimate it.

If perfomance issues are caused by scene props in castle and towns - you can increase number of slots only for field battles.

[Molly]

In third strat in AI sieges there were 70 or 80 slots for defence, so it was 120 players max.
Now we have no AI sieges, so indeed why not to increase amount of slots in roster?
Also, EU3 has 200 slots(omg), EU1 has 140 slots(also a lot, 70 players per team would be great).
Ofc, if strat is dead it doesn't make sense, but extending slots limit is something that could definitely reanimate it.

If perfomance issues are caused by scene props in castle and towns - you can increase number of slots only for field battles.

Well, considering EU1... there you don't get moving gates, siege towers, catapults or a huge caste. Just my 2 cents anyway...

[Tomas]

Whilst I agree that the battles would be more fun for the average player I disagree that they would "reanimate" Strat.

The problem right now is that battles are too big and you need to get 50% of the medium and large strat clans on your side just to guarantee filling your roster.  Even then at awkward times you sometimes need to rely on randomers.  It is this that turns every Strat war into a 2 sided conflict which kills diplomacy.

If the average fight was 30vs30 then Grey/DRZ would rarely need Shu Han or Huscarl mercs and The Coalition would rarely need CA or Merc mercs.  This would mean there would be 3 or even 4 alliances just from those 7 clans instead of the 2 we see now. 

I'm not saying we should reduce roster sizes here but I would hate to see them globally increased as I think it would be bad for strat.

[Segd]

Would allow attackers to attack with more troops ( because they would be able to kill & die faster) 51vs51 allows attackers to use 1.5-1.7k max. 100vs100 will allows to increase it to 2.5-3k.
Would give us more XP (since it based on gear per tick killed. More deaths = more XP)

If the average fight was 30vs30 then Grey/DRZ would rarely need Shu Han or Huscarl mercs and The Coalition would rarely need CA or Merc mercs.  This would mean there would be 3 or even 4 alliances just from those 7 clans instead of the 2 we see now. 

30vs30 will kill this Strat. Since we will be forced to attack your Narra with 1k troops max 
But 100vs100 would be pretty nice now. No need for coding much. Only changing of "Mercs max" required.

[KillerofFlowers]

Although seeing 100 vs 100 would be great, I think it would be hard to acquire the mercs for both sides all the time, and one side could potentially get a lot more mercs than the other. If the player limit was to go up i would have to say that 60 vs 60, 70 vs 70 is enough.

Would definitely need more prime time battles in order to fill roster.
Also I wouldn't mind seeing attackers getting 5-10 more player's.

[Butan]

Maybe rework the merc max formula so its capped at higher value ?


Small-medium battles should stay in the 10-30 mercs max range, but big ass battles where around 200 players wants to participate could easily fill up a 70v70.

[serr]

Tomas, I agree that increasing roster size globally would kill strat. But only for neutral players. And it would definitely reanimate strat for big alliances.
And here is obvious solution:
Every faction(or maybe every player, but every faction should be better) set preferable roster size for them. Then there is roster size, determined by battle size, which works now. It should be changed so it would calculate minimum and maximum roster sizes depends on battle size.
And final value for roster size = Max(MinSize, Min(team1.size, team2.size, MaxSize))
This would allow small factions and solo players to have good battles with small roster sizes and have full rosters even against giants, and big alliances would have huge exciting battles.

[BerG]

Good idea serr, but there will be way to abuse that system by manipulating clan roster size.

[Havoco]

Servers are already shit. Why make em more shit?

[Butan]

Funny reason not to increase strat player limit : EU_1 will go from 100 players to 2 each time there is a strategus battle 

[serr]

Well, of course in any system it is possible to find exploits, but I don't really see one here.
The only way to exploit it - set very low roster size to accept only nolifers, but there is still MinSize, so it won't work perfectly.
Also, faction that will do it, very soon will realise that they don't have allies anymore. And if they won't accept their own players to give slots to nolifers - it will be end for that faction.

[BeastSVK]

HAHAHA THIS!

Funny reason not to increase strat player limit : EU_1 will go from 100 players to 2 each time there is a strategus battle 

[Latvian]

i barely handle 100 player strat abttles, i am afraid i wont be able to play 100 + player battles, and i am sure i am not only one.