Strat Disparity: What Killed Strat.

[Lt_Anders]

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

168K tickets lost since the start of this strat versus about  925k lost in over 8 months last strat. Simple Math: there were 5.5 times MORE battles, lost troops and gold, in those 8 months than in nearly 6 months of this iteration.

I would say there's quite a few reasons.
First: AI By having AI you ruin and make it far more stale for everyone. Last strat, the voting system was nice because clans could, within a week get into a war. With the AI: it took at least 2 weeks just to get started(depending on faction, of course).

First day: 17 Feb > First Village Capture 22 Feb. 6 Days before anyone was able to take a fief.(I believe it was only 5 on EU) The first castel was done 1 month later.

Second:
Prices: By upping the prices you decreased combat capability further and for the most part, have removed an entire class out of the game. This leads to point 3

Third:
By upping prices you forced everyone into lower tier gear. By forcing people into low tier gear, the only thing that people REALLY had going for strat, the XP, was nerfed into the ground.(it has since been addressed, but 4 months to late)

Fourth:
Tydeus. (Not really just him, but he's the poster boy) I know many people who've gotten fed up with the recent buffs/nerfs breaking stuff far to much.

Fifth:
Age of game

Sixith:
(on the EU side) Stale, repetitive. Nothing has broken the Endless cycle of alliances that are their every single iteration. (For those who can't count, or are new, that's 3 years of EU effectively fighting on 1 side together against the exact* same enemies EVERY. SINGLE. ITERATION.)

There's Possibly others, but those are the ones I've seen the most. Go ahead and sound off on anything you think killed strat.

EDIT:
Where Am I getting that 925k tickets? That's coming from the old thread I made to keep track of the NA wars statistics back in 4.
http://forum.melee.org/diplomacy/the-great-na-war-losses-to-date/

The Start of that war was counting was February and lasted until it's termination sometime around December. Strat had been ON GOING for 5 months previous to this.(Sept-January which is before records date.)

[Keshian]

I agree with most of the points except point 1.  With the nerfs from the other points especially the cost of gear - voting for castles and cities we would have less than a 1/4th the battles we have had so far because it is ridiculously expensive to put together an effective siege army now - whereas an ineffective siege army can still wear down or take an ai castle.  Ai battles probably account for half to 3/4ths the battles initiated and troops lost since the start of strat.

Also, on NA side all the largest factions have enough silver and troops to do field battles, attack trade caravans, and attack villages (squids are  a perfect demonstration of a clan actively doing this), but the vast majority of these largest factions have initiated less than 5 attacks on a non-ai target (MB, Occitan, Wardens of the North (since they defeated astralis), Acre (not counting 13 knights who kind of do their own thing).

Some of the blame definitely lies with the remaining playerbase mentality not just devs.  Many of the most active players are now primarily playing other games after seeing how boring this strat was (Im play more cs:go than crpg and I know quite a few others like that with different games), leaving the leaders who tend to do absolutely nothing but trade runs and defend still playing this game (you know who you are).

[Artyem]

As much as I like the increased prices, I will admit that it was probably a bad idea to implement it with AI fiefs.  Especially when the player base has declined so much, it just makes the game less fun and many people have basically given up already.  I definitely feel my interest in strategus fading, even strat 4 was better than this.

[Balikar]

I agree with most of the points except point 1.  With the nerfs from the other points especially the cost of gear - voting for castles and cities we would have less than a 1/4th the battles we have had so far because it is ridiculously expensive to put together an effective siege army now - whereas an ineffective siege army can still wear down or take an ai castle.  Ai battles probably account for half to 3/4ths the battles initiated and troops lost since the start of strat.

Also, on NA side all the largest factions have enough silver and troops to do field battles, attack trade caravans, and attack villages (squids are  a perfect demonstration of a clan actively doing this), but the vast majority of these largest factions have initiated less than 5 attacks on a non-ai target (MB, Occitan, Wardens of the North (since they defeated astralis), Acre (not counting 13 knights who kind of do their own thing).

Some of the blame definitely lies with the remaining playerbase mentality not just devs.  Many of the most active players are now primarily playing other games after seeing how boring this strat was (Im play more cs:go than crpg and I know quite a few others like that with different games), leaving the leaders who tend to do absolutely nothing but trade runs and defend still playing this game (you know who you are).

Kesh, the economy sucks.  It takes weeks to field a poorly armed army of note, and it takes months to field one with gear.  Many feel, what's the point?  Grind grind grind away for that army, have one fight, and poof, you may be back to grinding it all out all over again. 

You want to give the Squids props (and they do deserve a bit of them), but they are also the reason it's very hard to do this.  Every Squid army I've seen is 750+.  They have the fiefs to afford armies that large, and they have a territory they can trade in on their own for the most part.  Like it or not, they are neutral with the only ones that can truly knock them down a peg.  Their enemies can't trade as effectively, and it stifles them.  Astralis is a prime example.  There are closed borders everywhere, with closed fiefs everywhere, and they don't have the fiefs to do anything.  Heck, they hadn't had their one fief for very long before the squids were at their door again. 

That strangle on trade prevents the wars, and battles, and the armies to fight in them from taking place. 

There is also a lot of ineffective fief setups.  Sorry Wardens, but you fall in this category heavily.  Your northern fiefs, Sargoth, Kwynn, and Fenada are all sell fiefs.  An effective trade set up would leave at least one of those as a buy fief, and one of the Ismiralas as a sell fief.  Think about it.  If you have a sell fief, the trader needs to restock, so a buy fief should be right next to it.

There are also a lot of poorly spent production points for SnD purposes.  Trade in the north is truly not worth it. 

[Bryggan]

The new prices do suck.  The 13 Knights had planned on raising armies, using them immediately in some cause or other, then starting all over again.  This worked well in the beginning when most people were using cheap gear as the PP went to raising/lowering prices/taxes.  A couple trade runs and you had a deadly army.

Now everyone is using much better gear.  Using armour that lets you get hit 3 times rather than twice is like having 50% more men, and weapons that kill in two hits rather than three... well you get it.  But it gets so damn expensive!  An option is to have double the men as your enemy but with crappier gear, but that leads to a better chance of them capping the flags, plus people won't show for your battles unless you have good gear.  Roster support is 90% of the battle.

So now its been ages since we fought, and we really, really want to, but we look at our gear and think 'meh'.  More trade runs, but the SD at free trade fiefs (well, all fiefs) are always low because everyone has to trade so much to buy the good gear.  Once I get all the gear I want, and enough cash for upkeep, I'd like to bomb around some enemy's territory, threaten fiefs, chase caravans and get chased by big armies (trick is not to march with exhausted armies- thanks for the lesson, Murderbeard).  This would take me out of the trading pool until I finally got stomped on- or destroyed everyone on strat- whichever comes first.

The best suggestion I've heard is make army size dependent on renown.  Peaceful traders would have just 100 men- shiny because they can afford it, and a couple hundred horses.  Warlike factions wouldn't have the silver, but they would have the men, while the factions that just sit and build up would have lots of money but no one to spend it on- except maybe on some bloodthirsty mercenaries like the 13 Knights who would happily fight their battles for them on their coin.  Right now we only get paid in good will, which is fine, but it would be most awesome if we could fight battles and not have to trade for a month or two before the next battle.

[Macropus]

I'd say its the system that encourages factions to close their borders and not allow anyone to pass, in order to not lose s&d (=wealth).
Its those attracting more traders who should be richer, not those who live in isolation. Otherwise it all leads to the stagnation.

[Corsair831]

druzinha / grey order ruined EU strat for everyone else

as the 2 only large, efficient active factions on the map they refused to fight each other

twats

[McKli_PL]

hmmm i thought ideas like buff yumi bows or -2 arrows ruined strat lololol

[Algarn]

Yumi didn't get buffed as far I remember, but the regular bow did get a buff of 2 damage points compared to what it should have been after the archery looms re-buff.

[Bronto]

I agree with one point you've made. Tydeus ruined game.

(click to show/hide)

#gottem

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[HardRice]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Lt_Anders]

Further proving strat 4 was better than 5. To much crap.

[Sandersson Jankins]

Besides the economy and other changes that helped to drastically reduce activity on the strategus map, the battles are far less populated than strat 4. I think it is a combination of the latter half of strategus 4 taking place to extremely good gear on both sides (in large part due to dupe bugs, in addition to an easier economy), causing many players to become accustomed to this. Once strat 5 started, NA1 was simply a much better place to get XP, and the battles were perceived as much less fun.

Once that perception was firmly lodged in players' minds, the problem becomes something like this: "Strategus battles are dead because nobody plays in them, and nobody plays in them because Strategus battles are dead." It's a self-perpetuating cycle of inactivity. Players expect the battles to be very lopsided in terms of mercenary numbers since battles are more likely to be 40v20 than 30v30, so only the most die-hard of turbo-nerds show up to the empty side.

[Erasmas]

druzinha / grey order ruined EU strat for everyone else

as the 2 only large, efficient active factions on the map they refused to fight each other

twats

Bullshit. Morons who can't get their shit together ruined Strat. Besides, Druzinha and Grey Order never refused to fight each other. We just didn't do it

[Sandersson Jankins]

I agree! Also welcome to the recent-forum-renown-king club with the other cool kids

Thanks, man. Do I get a badge informing everyone that reads my posts of how much of a shameful nerd I am or something?

I hope so.

Oh, nevermind, I see it. Sick, I'm a king of spergs.