Denied [MRP] Wars of attrition re-work

[Nirvan]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Wars of attrition as of now are a pain for both sides, The idea of wars of attrition sound perfect on paper but when played it's going to turn into one faction Base/FOB Camping the other for a whole war.
Suggestion one
Re-add territory capturing during wars of attrition, Perhaps make it so it's 50% of an average conquest wars cap rate but this will make players want to go to territories and will make FOB/Base camping not a problem anymore.
Suggestion two
Add two spawn points on the cabin and one on the water tower for NWO and make wars of attrition into a PVP TDM in towns. This will be a decent way to make wars of attrition fun for both sides as having spawn points next to the battle will make it so one side doesn't feel they're getting camped.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2:
It makes wars of attrition fun for both sides.
Makes both factions actually have a chance in wars of attrition.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
Spawn camping possibly in suggestion two? This can be easily solved with decently long spawn protection.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Wars of attrition are a head ache for both sides and i think this can help or even fix the problem.

 

[el zapso]

-support, made in iran

 

[Cloak]

I find wars of attrition fun to be honest, from what I've seen most people complaining they don't like it are the ones who go 5/30. If you're getting FOB camped change your tactics up.

 

[Nirvan]

I find wars of attrition fun to be honest, from what I've seen most people complaining they don't like it are the ones who go 5/30. If you're getting FOB camped change your tactics up.

There was a situation yesterday in which a lot of people got punished for simply FOB camping from SL (Demotions) . This is the real reason why I'm suggesting a change.

 

[Cloak]

There was a situation yesterday in which a lot of people got punished for simply FOB camping from SL (Demotions) . This is the real reason why I'm suggesting a change.

Not against the rules.

 

[Nirvan]

Not against the rules.

I'm aware of that but When a whole faction is getting FOB camped they'll just stop playing the war/Leave the game , Which is why a change is needed as wars of attrition become annoying to play if you're outnumbered.

 

[Zokof]

I'm aware of that but When a whole faction is getting FOB camped they'll just stop playing the war/Leave the game , Which is why a change is needed as wars of attrition become annoying to play if you're outnumbered.

Nothing stops them from changing the place they spawn. You die on an FOB multiple times, naturally you’d change spawn location.

 

[Zokof]

Not against the rules.

Tell that to Doofy then please

 

[Cloak]

I'm aware of that but When a whole faction is getting FOB camped they'll just stop playing the war/Leave the game , Which is why a change is needed as wars of attrition become annoying to play if you're outnumbered.

What happened to spawning at base and flanking, using rally points / tactical insertions, paradropping, or just spawning on other FOBs?

 

[Nirvan]

What happened to spawning at base and flanking, using rally points / tactical insertions, paradropping, or just spawning on other FOBs?

I'm not sure why that didn't happen yesterday but these sorts of problems occur with every war of attrition its either extremely boring or one faction gets Base/FOB Camped.

 

[STS LTCOL New York]

+Support, attrition wars are boring. Good idea on paper, didn't translate into gameplay

 

[Cloak]

Still think that attrition wars more have problems with shit leadership and no tactics more than anything else. Feels like every war I'm online (at least on NWO), the "war orders" consist of "uhh it's an attrition war so kill NATO please gl". Anyway, my main problem with your suggestions are as follows:

Suggestion one - you might as well just say "delete attrition wars", this makes them completely useless. People will just do what they always do which is only care about territory capturing and nothing else.

Suggestion two - not a bad one, I would prefer having them be on whatever the assigned killzones for the war is personally, but sounds quite complicated to set up / configure. Not really sure how we're going to achieve this in practice, how many different spawn points are we going to need to configure? Considering we can't just have one spawn point per area like you've suggested, we need multiple for both NATO and NWO to make things work.

I am planning to add more war types in Q1 2023 so attrition wars will be just one of many types, keep that in mind. An idea I would like is making it so you can capture territories in attrition wars but it's only based on getting kills in the territory - e.g. a kill in the territory might cap the territory by a certain amount. That'd be cool.

 

[STS LTCOL New York]

Still think that attrition wars more have problems with shit leadership and no tactics more than anything else. Feels like every war I'm online (at least on NWO), the "war orders" consist of "uhh it's an attrition war so kill NATO please gl". Anyway, my main problem with your suggestions are as follows:

Suggestion one - you might as well just say "delete attrition wars", this makes them completely useless. People will just do what they always do which is only care about territory capturing and nothing else.

Suggestion two - not a bad one, I would prefer having them be on whatever the assigned killzones for the war is personally, but sounds quite complicated to set up / configure. Not really sure how we're going to achieve this in practice, how many different spawn points are we going to need to configure? Considering we can't just have one spawn point per area like you've suggested, we need multiple for both NATO and NWO to make things work.

I am planning to add more war types in Q1 2023 so attrition wars will be just one of many types, keep that in mind. An idea I would like is making it so you can capture territories in attrition wars but it's only based on getting kills in the territory - e.g. a kill in the territory might cap the territory by a certain amount. That'd be cool.

Big agree on that, NWO leading is shit rn, attrition wars are "go kill", lane wars are "go lane". That's probably the biggest issue with it. Kills for cap sounds pretty cool.

 

[Merlin]

I am planning to add more war types in Q1 2023 so attrition wars will be just one of many types, keep that in mind. An idea I would like is making it so you can capture territories in attrition wars but it's only based on getting kills in the territory - e.g. a kill in the territory might cap the territory by a certain amount. That'd be cool.

The big issue with kill-based capping is that the enemy team can simply abandon a point to block capture, then you're straight back to base camping.

An option might be to rework attrition wars to only happen when at least one point is neutal, set the neutral points as the combat area and award capture to whichever team scores the most kills within that radius by the end of the war. Could even set the other (captured) points in the lane as spawn points for each team so that it's easier to get people to the contested zone.

 

[Cloak]

The big issue with kill-based capping is that the enemy team can simply abandon a point to block capture, then you're straight back to base camping.

Yeah I thought about this too but there are simple solutions like penalizing the enemy team if they don't try to attack a point within a certain period of time, things like that.

 

[Doofy]

Tell that to Doofy then please

The suggestion is good and this does need looked into and adapted. Theres mention of SL here and you seem to be confusing the situation a little so I'll clear that for you. It was the case that a lot of (majority) SAS were on a FOB literally 15m outside their base and you essentially farmed kills while making it really difficult for them to leave base, there was no mention of any rule breaks and was no intention of warnings either, lastly none were given. The reason SL were involved in the first place is NWOs numbers started to dwindle as the action of spawning and dying is not fun for anyone. If people start to leave and I have a chance at letting all players have a fun experience then you bet I will start to intervene when nessesary. The health of a server outweighs your "k/d" so i'm sorry if I ruined your ability to gain a few kills last night

 

[STS LTCOL New York]

Could even make it so that kills only give war score if the enemy is on a kill zone, rather than it being double points?

 

[Brian Bell]

Suggestion Accepted​

---

Hi Nirvan, Your suggestion has been accepted. We are looking into small modifications to attrition wars to make them more focused around the central points but the main premise of how they run is unlikely to be changed.​