Smaller Rosters

[Tomas]

[Chris_the_Animal]

There is some point in this suggestion. But No!

There are already alot of peoples who cannot become a slot in a strategus battle even when they are level 30 and been in ts 30 minutes before the rolecall. Decreasing the max mercenary amount would make even more people suffer and become angry.

(click to show/hide)

You will call decline your own suggestion when winter comes, because then there will be some more Coalition players available to strat rosters.

[Harpag]

You forgot to tell us more about changing 1/3 rule into 1/2 rule 

[Tomas]

There is some point in this suggestion. But No!

There are already alot of peoples who cannot become a slot in a strategus battle even when they are level 30 and been in ts 30 minutes before the rolecall. Decreasing the max mercenary amount would make even more people suffer and become angry.

These people are generally clanless people who struggle to get into fights because they don't know people.  The answer for them is the same as it has always been....join a Strat clan.  Smaller rosters won't change this however at least if there are more clans making battles then there will be more clans to consider joining.

You will call decline your own suggestion when winter comes, because then there will be some more Coalition players available to strat rosters.

I know full well what this will mean for the Coalition when we are at our most active.  Our record for members on a roster is around 35 from memory and so we will have to ditch some "allies" and downgrade them to merely being "friends".  If they choose to fight us then so be it.  If they choose to do nothing then who cares.  If they choose to get more active in strat themselves then great and they will no doubt get plenty of our players applying for them to help out.  This is one of the good things about Strat 4 compared to Strat 3...we don't need a huge alliance to make money.  Its the roster support and troops that we need the huge alliance for and so these are the thing that need addressing in Strat imo (besides 1/3 rule ofc ).

[Vermilion]

Roster size changes for smaller battles.. The current strat issue is every clan has far too many troops (and silver).
The fact that smaller clans can easy make an 1800 troop army is the issue not how many people are on their roster.

With your suggestion even less troops will be killed in each battle, which will lead to even more troop stacking. It will also kill all smaller clans forcing yet more massive alliances (why do you want to do that? Small clans/factions are great and unpredictable making them interesting)

Maybe
Add more troop/mercenary ratios.. troop - 100/200/500/800/1000/1300/1800/2500 equaling roughly mercenaries - 15/20/30/40/30/50/60/70. So there is a point in taking a certain number of troops rather than anything over 1000 is 51 mercenaries (or what ever the current limit is for 51 mercs)

Also I play cRPG for the strat battles/sieges. I'm not in a clan or faction.. If you're idea got implemented I would be less likely to get into battles so I would probably just quit cRPG (I'm sure there are others in a similar situation) or be forced to join a faction. Larger rosters means more people playing, having fun and enjoying cRPG.

[Chris_the_Animal]

These people are generally clanless people who struggle to get into fights because they don't know people.  The answer for them is the same as it has always been....join a Strat clan.  Smaller rosters won't change this however at least if there are more clans making battles then there will be more clans to consider joining.

I know several people who just dont want to join any Clan because this would mean getting binded to the game. Every Clan brings duties for its members and there are people who dont want to have duties to do on the internet. I really see your point, but you need to understand other peoples opinion aswell.
When I changed my name, so nobody knew it was me, I tried to get into some strategus battles. I applied for Grey Order, Coalition, Apostates, etc. but even when I was lvl 31 and showed my stats (sometimes its helpful to do this) and I sat in ts 1 hour before the battle started...I didnt get accepted even once.

[Thovex]

I don't think it's a good idea to make the strategus rosters smaller... When I applied for the Mercenaries in a siege a while ago Haboe mentioned they had 300 applicants, and only 61 people can play... Since M&B, looking at Native and such could hold 250 people in the server with little to no problems, why not increase roster size if its possible.

The bigger roster, more chance "Nameless" or Clanless people will get accepted.

The rosters are already smaller in smaller battles, and big battles 99% get filled up anyway because easy experience.

[Vovka]

I'd like to suggest reducing maximum rosters sizes in Strat from 51 to 41 and scaling smaller rosters accordingly.  Obviously this will reduce the number of tickets kill-able in the battle times but people will easily adjust once they work out what the new optimum is (currently ~1800)

Reasons
1) Easier to fill rosters in general.
2) Much easier for small clans to fill rosters and more impact from their limited number of players on the roster.
3) Harder for huge alliances/clans to keep everybody happy and therefore provides a natural but flexible cap on alliance size.
4) Less incentive for small clans to simply vassalise themselves to a bigger clan and merely fight in their battles whilst giving the bigger clan troops and gold.
5) More incentive for smaller clans to create their own battles and therefore wars.
6) More people making battles = more people capable of properly leading a strat clan = more diplomatic options and diversity in Strat = potentially more decent sized clans in the future.

Classic example: Quincy.  Sorry En_Dotter but what exactly have you done in Strat since taking over the Yalen area?  However who can blame you when the few players you do have can always get into whatever big battle is going on.  We've already seen that there is no longer any real incentive for big clans to stomp little clans so long as they aren't being annoying, so the only thing i can think of that is stopping small clans from having their own private wars against each other is the lack of incentive to do so.  Smaller rosters would at least help with this imo.

Another example: At the start of this Strat the Eastern block was very active and I remember the difficulty in keeping all the clans happy on our rosters.  We used to have to make sure we always had X Kapikulu, X Guards, X Templars, X SB, X Mercs and X Deserters on our rosters.  On top of that there were always a few key randomers that we liked to include plus 15-35 of our own Coalition players. If one battle we messed up and shorted a clan then they would get upset and complain.  Had the max roster size been just 40 we would have had to turn round to probably 2 or 3 of the clans listed above and told them there was nothing we could do to get them in and they would have to find some other way of getting battle time for their members.
we dont have good roster and they have

fixed

i love how u always use the same shit "it will be good for small clans"
 in 2st strat small clan come to as with 5k troops now they cant farm so many cos they are small
 in 2nd strat they have "shinny" now they cant buy shit cos of awesome economy zystem
 all change agains big clans just ruin strat even more and more
small clans never be so effective as big one
 
 

[Haboe]

I don't think it's a good idea to make the strategus rosters smaller... When I applied for the Mercenaries in a siege a while ago Haboe mentioned they had 300 applicants, and only 61 people can play... Since M&B, looking at Native and such could hold 250 people in the server with little to no problems, why not increase roster size if its possible.

The bigger roster, more chance "Nameless" or Clanless people will get accepted.

The rosters are already smaller in smaller battles, and big battles 99% get filled up anyway because easy experience.

That was on the first senuzgda battle. It was the biggest battle this strat so far, so we had that many applicants. Now that the zing is off it, we barely get a proper 51 men roster 

[Chris_the_Animal]

Making Rosters bigger is not that clever either...

I like Vermilions Idea of making the amount of possible mercenaries more dependent on the army size, because at the last months the amount of applicants for smaller battles like 500 vs 500 decreased dramatically. For battles like 1800 vs 100 arent enough applicants, but for more battles where both armies got more then 1500 troops the amount of applicants is most times over 70 players for each team. That is a big problem I think. And thats why increasing the roster size would only be a good thing, when there are 2 armies with 2000+ troops. I already see Battles where a huge Clan like Grey Order gets 70 players in a 1000 vs 1000 battle while the enemy side of some no name faction only gets 40. It would unbalance strategus battles and this is not what we need.

[Tomas]

i love how u always use the same shit "it will be good for small clans"
 in 2st strat small clan come to as with 5k troops now they cant farm so many cos they are small
 in 2nd strat they have "shinny" now they cant buy shit cos of awesome economy zystem
 all change agains big clans just ruin strat even more and more
small clans never be so effective as big one

I never said I want small clans to be as effective as big ones.  For a start it is near impossible to do through mechanics anyway since big clans will just split into smaller cells to overcome any malus.

Small clans will never be able to compete against bigger clans toe to toe, however right now they are deterred from even trying to compete against other small clans as well.  They have no choice but to pick sides in the UIF/Anti-UIF war.

What I want is for the likes of Barabe (6.8k tickets per fief), OdE (5.2k tickets per fief), Peacebreakers (5.2k tickets per fief), Conquistador (17.3k tickets per fief), BROs (12k tickets per fief), Guards (5.7k tickets per fief) and Quincy (3.6k tickets per fief) to be able to use those tickets attacking each other without having to worry about Greys, DRZ or Coalition stepping in to protect our allies, or having to worry about putting together a huge roster. 

This will never happen though so long as big clans need small clans to fill their rosters.

[Thovex]

That was on the first senuzgda battle. It was the biggest battle this strat so far, so we had that many applicants. Now that the zing is off it, we barely get a proper 51 men roster 

o

*leaves thread*

[serr]

I'm not sure about this. On one hand 51 vs 51 battles are much better than 41 vs 41. On other 41 vs 41 is better than 41 vs 51.
Would be great if it was modifiable and you could set preferable roster size in strat info settings. In this case big clans would have big battles(probably it would be better even to increase max to 60 or 70), while small clans wouldn't be spawnraped because of not-full roster.

Anyway it would require some work to balance this and prevent exploits like setting roster size 30 for city with 20k troops inside. And of course it is much more difficult than fixing 1/3 rule, which is still here, so there isn't much sense in discussing it.

[Vovka]

What I want is for the likes of Barabe (6.8k tickets per fief), OdE (5.2k tickets per fief), Peacebreakers (5.2k tickets per fief), Conquistador (17.3k tickets per fief), BROs (12k tickets per fief), Guards (5.7k tickets per fief) and Quincy (3.6k tickets per fief) to be able to use those tickets attacking each other without having to worry about Greys, DRZ or Coalition stepping in to protect our allies, or having to worry about putting together a huge roster. 
This will never happen though so long as big clans need small clans to fill their rosters.

I dont see any problems if quincy will attack Peacebreakers and 1st one make roster from greys and co and the second 1 ask coa help with roster
in prime time its always atleast 70 mercs for hire + 20 randomers who not show up in ts

- change nighttime zystem to primetime zystem for whole clan
- fix 1/3 rule to 1/3 but not more 1800
problem fixed

[Tomas]

I'm not sure about this. On one hand 51 vs 51 battles are much better than 41 vs 41. On other 41 vs 41 is better than 41 vs 51.
Would be great if it was modifiable and you could set preferable roster size in strat info settings. In this case big clans would have big battles(probably it would be better even to increase max to 60 or 70), while small clans wouldn't be spawnraped because of not-full roster.

Anyway it would require some work to balance this and prevent exploits like setting roster size 30 for city with 20k troops inside. And of course it is much more difficult than fixing 1/3 rule, which is still here, so there isn't much sense in discussing it.

I have thought about this option before in the past but always discarded it because as you say it seems really complicated to balance.  I also thought about making max roster sizes different for different fief sizes (60v60 for Towns, 50v50 for castles, 40v40 for field battles and villages.  But again this seems overly complicated

I dont see any problems if quincy will attack Peacebreakers and 1st one make roster from greys and co and the second 1 ask coa help with roster
in prime time its always atleast 70 mercs for hire + 20 randomers who not show up in ts

And yet Quincy (and others) have shown no signs of wanting to attack Peacebreakers (or anybody else) and I'm guessing that part of the reason for this is that doing so is just too much effort for a reward that they can easily get from fighting on other people's rosters.