Poll about Strat battles

[engurrand]

Poll...

With the intent to change up the monotony of start battle tactics and allow more room to test out different strategies, i ask this question.

Should Alternate characters be allowed to join in start battles?

NO STF characters, alternates only.

THis will allow more ability to customize class types for battles... Get it?

[Legs]

This seems like it would do the opposite of adding diversity.

People would just make alts with specialized cookie-cutter strat builds so that they can be as OP as possible.

[engurrand]

Bro...

shiit..

WHy so?

Gimmy a strat cookie cutter build.

oh wait.... STR crutch with great maul?

damn, better watch out for that build! it might start appearing..

all jokes aside..

Can you give any more reasoning?

Honestly, the idea of imbalance is fucking dumb. I think this game is pretty balanced, more than a lot of games...

What are these cookie cutter builds?

Couldn't possibly be 24-12 could it?

Would hate to see that build in strat.

TBH: I just want fucking archers.

[engurrand]

p.s i can't stop staring at your avatar...

[Lennu]

over 60% voted NO

I think the diversity is the biggest problem here, like the talking Legs said:
On sieges the attackers would have mostly 1handers, they have cover against ranged + short weapons with possibly knockdown are ideal when fighting on the walls with very little room to swing your weapon. Defenders would have tons of ranged + greatmauls to hold chokepoints.
On open field battles it would end up as cav vs cav.

Also, the only difference between main and alt characters is that only Main is allowed to join strat. I know the thought of getting tons of exp fast for whatever character you want feels very tempting, but that just might backfire really badly. Strat factions wouldn't hire your character unless if was the right class and on decent lvl, and these class requirements would really fuck up Strategus.
That's why I voted no 

[Angellore]

I would really love to have possibility to play strategus battles with different classes from time to time. But instead of letting you join strategus battles with every alt, they should just add possibility to change your main once per month. So you would have to stick with char you chosen as main for next month, then you can change your main again. This way we won't have plain battles full of cav and siege defences full of crossbowmans, maulers and pikemans.

To be honest, I think that would be briliant addition, because right now strategus battles are starting to be level 33-36 battles. Allowing to change main from time to time will result in decreased average strategus character level, which is always good thing.

[Teeth]

Defensive castle siege coming up, time to use my 30/9 2h...

Offensive castle siege coming up, time to use my 24/15 shielder..

Field battle coming up, time to use my 21/18 polearm.

Bad idea, because of extreme adaptability to different types of battles...

Which would cause people to all use similar ultra effective builds.

I would like to see being able to use the xp gained on your Strat main...

on a different character...

This way I could level more than one build a lot faster..

Sort off like a common xp pool.

Fuck reaching level 35 on 1 character.

I'd rather have 3 level 32 character...

I think you are way too restricted with the way characters work in this game..

Also, reading posts like this one is very annoying.

[bagge]

Who forced you to read it Teeth? Further more post in the thread? ,o

[CrazyCracka420]

Considering "our side" of strat battles is always short on archers, and the enemy team is pretty well rounded, I still voted NO.  It would be nice to get a few more archers in our battles, but if it's not your main, it's not fair to allow them into a strat battle.  Like others said, there'd (apparently firefox thinks "there'd" isn't a word) be way too many cookie cutter builds, way too many massive strength crutchers for siege battles, and a lot of cavalry and archer alts for open field battles.

[engurrand]

at least the community voted.

Also, i guess i just like the extreme adaptability. Why wouldn't you want to defend a castle with archers and great maulers? Soon as the catapult breaks down your wall and starts to get in all of your supreme adaptability fails.

I guess people have a hard time seeing that anything which works great usually gets over used to the point where it's failings rise to the top and it's counter develops.

For example... In a field battle... Everyone goes piker / polearm... well... Pikemen are pretty weak against archers and if it was more viable to easily get archers in a battle, say just 10, then who do you think would win 40 pikes and 10 archers vrs 50 pikes? I don't know the answer.

I know that the idea is vulnerable to exploitation and ridiculousness... I guess i just get tired of fighting the same type of battle over and over...

Cuz you can argue against adapting to a battle as much as you would like but if you fail to see that strat battles are kind of locked into certain tactics then you might just not be playing much strat. So adaptability and a little more variance, or business as usual construct of non change.

[Dach]

Nothing is stopping you from making an hybrid character if you want adaptability.

Already made an cavalry/pikeman/xbow character.

Always usefull in everystrat battle 

[Haboe]

Would love to make an all cav army 

Or a 30% archers, 30% xbow-1h hybrid and 40% greatmaul str my old friends  in a siege defence 

[bagge]

Would love to make an all cav army 

I get a tear by Just by imaginating that scenario.

[Haboe]

I get a tear by Just by imaginating that scenario.

Fu, you are in byzantiums! You'd slice and dice a cavarmy into pigfood with your pikers 

[Malaclypse]

Seems like a cool idea, but one has to remember that there was a time when alts were allowed in Strat battles and all of the trouble/gripe associated with that.

Gotta agree with Daruvian. You want adapability/versatility, you make a build that focuses on it. 18/21, 15/24, 15/21, and for higher levels 18/24, 21/21, 15/27 all come to mind.