Tickets should consider players actually fighting

Some counterarguments:

• That battle was fought mostly at choke points, which tend to cancel any advantage in numbers you have (see battle of Thermopylae);
• Attackers stayed mostly together, concentrating on a single point; so while being outnumbered they still occasionally had local superiority;
• It was very close, and luck favored the attackers this time;
• Best KD ratio in the battle was a defender, 8:1.

I do agree there's a balance problem though: defenders can't define their team as well as attackers. Perhaps one should, when defending an owned fief, be able to accept or decline defenders.

iirc the Spartans lost that battle though :P

I'm not in favor to completely do away with the ticket system as we have it. It's cool that the better prepared army has an advantage in some regards.

But player numbers should count to some degree. It's just weird that the defending side did their job of holding all the flags and still lost despite having the vast superiority in numbers. There is no logic in that.

There has to be a compromise between combat skill of certain players and sheer player numbers. We need to have an incentive to stand together against an aggressor and not just send our very best in.

This battle was completely balanced. It would be unfair to have half of the tickets just because enemy team got 3 times as much players. The ticket ratio needs to stay no matter how many players joined the battle. I can already imagine a clan with complete noobs winning just by a sheer numbers. Even though we had better players we barely won. Right now its hard to win but still posible as it should be. Not to mention we usually fought only half of your army. Because you camped on the flags or pushed 1 by 1 and died. You had the advantage in this battle but you lost anyway. Stop blaming the ticket system and start to think what you did wrong in that raid.

[quote]I can already imagine a clan with complete noobs winning just by a sheer numbers[/quote]

Right now you can win by having almost no numbers. Weren't you present at the first Band of Foxes battle? We almost won that despite being severely outnumbered and spawn killed.

That's no way to win a battle in my mind.

I know about that Sigbert. Thats a problem that could be easilly fixed by adding minimal number of tickets for defenders no matter how many atackers joined.

Yea, we lost because we divided our army and had lots of ppl behind the front lines only waiting for the shieldwall to fall instead of going archer or sth.

Having more players already is an advantage, no need to amplify that with tickets. We just should have played that advantage by either fighting at their spawn or at O.

But the numbers were supposed to be our advantage. We knew that in close combat TKM would whoop our asses. Everybody was afraid of Nemesis so the shield wall seemed to be a good tactic to at least not let them through. The randoms just running to their deaths were what killed us in the end.

But you're probably right about the archer thing. I know I'm shit at it so I stayed back and tried to hold the shieldwall.

Hey, just a few comments: 

If you think numbers shouldn’t give you an advantage, organise an 8v8 with another clan. Numbers are supposed to count for a lot with Militari. Larger clans full of noobs should be able to win against smaller, more elite clans. Otherwise Militari will only be for the elite and it will die probably along with Okam. 

Also, let’s be clear that some people here have some bias here (including me), so take whatever we say with some salt. 

However, It makes no sense that DEFENDERS are punished by the failure of attackers to show up. Right now, it makes more sense for a clan leader only to accept his 10 best men and exclude everyone else. That is bad for gameplay because it gives no space for noobs to interact except as troop farms. Bad players and noobs will see themselves reduced to simply provide troops “for the greater cause” without ever joining the battles. Battles in Militari are supposed to be epic, grand battles where lots of players fight - keeping this system will reduce it to an elitist skirmish mode - implement a tournament system for that. 

There are a number of ways to resolve this: 

1) neither sides gets reduced tickets for failing to show. This was the way it worked in strat and it was fine. If you had severely lower players as attackers you would lose on time and if you had fewer defenders you would lose flags. Makes sense. 

2) defenders don’t get reduced tickets. This will incentivize attackers to fill up their team and provide a large battle. Attackers already have the enormous advantages of - picking the time of the battle- which is a huge drawback for defenders who might need players. The least they can get is not to have their tickets reduced. 

3) my favourite - assign a number of lives per player by taking player count in team divided by tickets. This will make players more cautious and incentivize smart playing, not mindless charging. Noobs can focus on staying alive rather than getting a good k:d. 

Also, this NEEDS to happen for neutral fiefs as well. Neutral fiefs do provide a risk for attackers, but they are the only ones to get rewarded if they win. Already there are many reasons why there might be a lack of serious players for neutral fiefs, such as lack of organised roster, lack of commanders, lack of voice chat organisation, lack of players (because they might not want to offend a neutral attacking clan) and so on. Neutral fiefs needs to systemic buffs that players don’t have, otherwise they will not be defneded as much and we will have boring battles. 

I like your point 3) as well. Biggest problem for defenders yesterday was that some people just kept rushing for the enemy instead of staying in formation. So while some people held their ground hoping to give the enemy a good fight when they come, others just continuously drained the tickets. That was very frustrating...

@Ramses Defenders arent punished by failure of atackers to show up. Ticket ratio is still the same. Only reason why you got less tickets is so the battle dont end up by time. Results would be the same if you got enough time to kill each other. It was only your fault you couldnt make advantage of your supperior numbers it was 3:1 for god sake lol. Before militari was released I wanted assigned lifes for every player. I came to an conclusion its a bad decision though it would make the battles boring not to mention bad players would die a lot sooner anyway.

It was 3:1 but due to the fact that tickets were about even the lower number team can respawn more often than the higher number. So, there was no advantage in numbers.

So you are telling me that If I would fight you with my 2 identic copies. The score would be the same as if I dueled you? No advantage at all sure :) Archer support you had behind the shieldwalls wasnt helping at all am I right. Not to mention posibilities of ganking with those numbers. Next time atleast stick together in the battle before you start to argue on discord and forums.

I'm telling you that the ticket system evens out any number advantage we would have had.

If there was no tickets at all and everybody had one life, who do you think would have won then?

If you would fight split up the same way you did in the raid not to mention players getting killed 1 by 1. We might be still able to win even with 1 life most propably.

Let’s try to look beyond the latest battle and focus on what would be better for the game. 

If attacks fill up every slot, defenders get the max amount of tickets. If attackers don’t fill up every slot, they don’t get the max amount of tickets. Hence, denfenders ARE punished by the failure of attacks to fill every slot/show up.

If defenders were punished equally as attackers are by losing tickets for failing to show up, that would be one thing. They don’t though, they could have a perfect attendance and STILL be punished because of attacker fail. We all want full battles? This system is terrible for making that happen. 

If you want to make Militari essentially a small skirmish mode, keep it the way it is. If you want large and fun battles, change the way it is. 

Also, this needs to happen for neutral fiefs as well. There are already tons of reasons why neutral fiefs are left undefended we don’t need additional ones.