Denied Re-rework wars

This suggestion has been denied and will not receive development.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Merlin

Active member
Nov 16, 2022
81
23
21
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:

I'm afraid that in practice the new war system sucks, I'm sorry. As points aren't really held between wars there is little incentive to care about the result of a conflict and so players are switching off. There is also not much point in being online in the quiet hours as only comparatively useless FOBs can be placed, and always in the same few spots.

Without persistent conflict state the system just isn't compelling and people won't keep returning. The new modes are a nice attempt at fresh gameplay, but they mostly mimic other existing games in a way which doesn't play to MRP's strengths. For example if I wanted to play Kill Confirmed, I'd just go and play CoD - MRP's take doesn't offer any improvement on that.

Afghan does suffer from balance issues, and conquest wars are crippled by the lack of persistent capture. Conquests in particular tend to play out similarly as there isn't much starting state variety. Capping Mosque in particular is very difficult, yet NATO can now never hold or fortify it. As a result most players no longer want to bother with it.

I know that a campaign system is in the works, but I don't think anyone expects it to arrive quickly and the server is likely to be dead until it does.

I've therefore compiled some proposals to fold these elements into the old territory system without too much effort... I hope these ideas might spur action. Other suggestions on this theme are appreciated.

General gameplay changes:

- Revert changes to capture status. Territory control persists between wars and is no longer hidden from players.

- FOB placement rule changes reverted. Remove the confusing highlight system.

- FOB construction speed doubled during peacetime/pre-war. This rewards play during those times and reduces the time that needs to be spent, freeing up people for RP.

New War Types:

- Conquest Classic -​

Keep the new lane opening/closing system, but with persistent capture as before. People like conquest, it feels meaningful and base raids are a major reward for success.

- Demolition -​

Occurs when one team controls a whole lane. A lane belonging entirely to one side is marked as the target lane. Those that held the lane will be on defense and the others on offense. The point closest to the attackers' base becomes neutral and two "control points" spawn in it. The attackers have 10 minutes to plant and detonate briefcase bombs next to those points. For each destroyed target the war timer is extended by 5 minutes. If both targets are destroyed the territory is capped by the attacking team and new targets spawn on the next territory in the lane (which turns neutral). When time runs out the neutral/target territory is capped by the defenders and they get a victory, otherwise war ends when the attackers capture the whole lane. Spawning on owned territories should be enabled for this mode, bomb timers should also be around 60s with defusing taking 5s.

The point here is to provide a little more direction to Search and Destroy, largely based on BattleField's "Rush" mode. Right now S&D generally plays out as each team planting bombs and ignoring the enemy's, as otherwise it's just a running simulator.

- Information Warfare -​

Occurs when at least one territory is neutral. A neutral territory is highlighted. Reskin CTF flags as intelligence laptops and perform a CTF war as usual. Retrieving 'intel' awards capture percentage for the selected neutral territory. Once a territory is capped, a new neutral one is selected or the war ends.

A more RP-friendly approach to CTF with some tangible territory rewards.

- Evacuation -​

Requires a neutral point. A 1000lb bomb is scheduled randomly to detonate on a neutral point(s) in 10-20 minutes. Dog tags will spawn randomly on the point throughout that time. Killing enemies will also spawn tags (as in Kill Confirmed). Each team must collect as many dog tags as possible. After the detonation capture is awarded to whichever team recovered the most tags.

The bomb here is mostly flavour, but provides a bit more urgency and should encourage people to get onto the point due to the ambigulous duration. Spawning tags randomly should prevent the current trend of a team not engaging once they're in the lead.

- Sabotage -​

Can occur if an entire lane is held by a team. The territory in the center of the lane is marked as a target zone for the attacking team. Classic S&D bombs can be planted on that zone, for each that detonates the attacking team is awarded capture % on the last territory in the lane (not the point being bombed). War ends when 10 bombs detonate (full cap) or 10 are defused.

A more restricted S&D mode should make combat a bit more intense. Punishing defusals would help to prevent reckless placement/spammy bombing. Longer plant/defuse times should be applied here. The intention here is to provide a fresh point of attack when a lane has been held for a while.

- Skirmish -​

Conquest war begins as usual, however players drop dog tags when they die which can be picked up by both allies and enemies. Cap rate is significantly faster, but picking up an enemy dog tag within a point takes a chunk out of the capture bar. Could possibly also give a chunk of capture % for collecting an enemy tag.

The idea here is to encourage players to stick together in a unit and collect the tags of their fallen. It should also make territory capture less prone to quiet stretches of doing nothing.


Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- Players motivated to play in wars.
- Fresh gameplay exploiting the best of the new features.
- Tangible end-goals for wars.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- Requires dev effort.
- Unclear how this would fit into an eventual campaign system, since the plans aren't public.
- Some players may like the current war system.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
I can only relay how players I interact with are feeling, and it's not been good. I'm trying to be constructive here in proposing changes that'll resolve the issue, but ultimately it's up to SL to communicate if/when/how things will change. The current, largely meaningless wars shouldn't stay.
 
Upvote 1
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.
Feb 20, 2022
76
20
91
+Support
One of the reasons I outright stopped playing for a week is the lack of progression and current inbalance in how the modes are made (thankfully S&D was updated), these are a way better idea and since the framework is already there, it shouldn't take too long to implement these ideas and cherry pick the ones that work to keep and strip the ones that don't
 

James Overscott

Civil Gamers Expert
Aug 10, 2021
126
37
91
+Support
I like the current modes, but I think the persistent progression should make a return as well. Right now it doesn't feel all that rewarding to capture a point since we'll lose it by the end of the war.
 
Last edited:

Beast

Well-known Member
Feb 25, 2023
62
5
41
+Support

Wars are no longer meaningful in terms of progression.
 

Voltics

Well-known Member
Sep 24, 2022
26
3
41
+Support
As most have said, the outcome of a war is essentially irrelevant and won't affect any future wars of the day so why would someone be motivated to do well?
 

Farrah

Active member
Jan 21, 2023
20
2
21
+Support.

The current war system offers no progression, no rewarding and no conflict. It just feels like Attrition without trying to be an Attrition war.

Currently this feels like Bethesda when they release a game that wasn't finished fully and just doesn't work.
 
+ Support

I've personally noticed a lack of motivation for wars and people are generally unhappy with the inability to even build FOBs during peacetime.

I do enjoy the Kill Confirmed + Conquest wars however the CTF + S&D wars are just not very fun and remove the RP from the server. Especially with S&D, as there are just people running around trying to find bombs. There are an incredible number of loopholes that just make the gamemode completely unfair for one of the factions at every war.
An example of loopholes are; placing bombs underground ET with only 2 entrances that can be camped easily from ladders, placing bombs next to tac inserts/rally points etc. (cant think of them all rn)
 

Erik Glover

Civil Gamers Expert
Jan 2, 2021
55
8
91
+Support

The way the current Conquest war is added within not saving of what has been conquered shouldnt have been added in to begin with due to the campaign system not being released yet.

Like the suggestions added for changing/adding new game modes.
 
There is nobody available to develop such sweeping changes. Sorry to be blunt but it literally can't happen. We don't have the dev resources available, we've already dedicated a lot to MRP. There is no chance Kvarkar will want to basically have to just delete and redo everything he's made - he's burned out currently from development due to various reasons, one of which is how people have been treating him.

In fact that's something that has affected most developers we've had for MRP: they feel like things are thrown back in their face and they are talked down to. You have been polite with your post, even then it's pretty demotivating for them to see something flop, and it's especially demotivating when they spend hundreds of hours on something just for someone to make shitty comments like comparing them to Bethesda or shit-talking their update or 'the devs' in Discord.

Happy to listen to any ideas but I do have to be honest with you, if you have ideas that are less intensive in terms of work required, we can do it. But what you've written here is just too much - I'm sorry - we can't do it. The only idea I can think of that solves some of the problems you mentioned, and isn't too intense to develop, is reintroducing territories to all wars and making it so that the various objectives (e.g. planting bombs) now have the side-effect of capping territories. Not sure how well that would work in practice. The campaign system will hopefully help and I'm trying to prioritize that, just figuring out what the timeline for that will look like atm.

The reason we did these changes is because MRP needs to be freshened up. We've tried it before, it didn't work, and I'm honestly running out of ideas. Feels like what you've suggested will just end up the same way. Everything we try ends up not having a significant impact on the freshness of the server and people don't RP like other servers do, so we struggle. Unfortunately because nobody RPs, the server ends up being boring within weeks, and all that we're left to do is to try to throw content in MRP but nobody likes it for long.

We can't keep throwing hundreds of hours of development at MRP only for everyone to be like "this sounds great" when we talk about potential updates, and then we release it and it flops every time. I don't know what else to tell you, sorry. I'm at the end of my rope here and I know a lot of the MRP Server Leadership feel the same way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doofy

Merlin

Active member
Nov 16, 2022
81
23
21
There is nobody available to develop such sweeping changes. Sorry to be blunt but it literally can't happen. We don't have the dev resources available, we've already dedicated a lot to MRP. There is no chance Kvarkar will want to basically have to just delete and redo everything he's made - he's burned out due to various reasons, one of which is how people have been treating him.

I actually appreciate this, which is why I'd tried to come up with ideas that could use all the new features but within the original war framework. I don't want to see dev effort wasted.

Happy to listen to any ideas but I do have to be honest with you, if you have ideas that are less intensive in terms of work required, we can do it. But what you've written here is just too much - I'm sorry - we can't do it.

The idea was to dump a bunch of potential ideas and let devs cherry-pick whatever is feasible. I don't expect every proposal to be put together, the aim is to get across that these new war types could have been functional within a persistent capture territory system. When I've spoken with SL about this a common question was basically "how could we add new wars without breaking conquest??", here's an attempt at an answer.


The reason we did these changes is because MRP needs to be freshened up. We've tried it before, it didn't work, and I'm honestly running out of ideas. Feels like what you've suggested will just end up the same way. Everything we try ends up not having a significant impact on the freshness of the server and people don't RP like other servers do, so we struggle. Unfortunately because nobody RPs, the server ends up being boring within weeks, and all that we're left to do is to try to throw content in MRP but nobody likes it for

We can't keep throwing hundreds of hours of development at MRP only for everyone to be like "this sounds great" when we talk about potential updates, and then we release it and it flops every time. I don't know what else to tell you, sorry. I'm at the end of my rope here and I know a lot of the MRP Server Leadership feel the same way.

Providing even a basic outline of what these changes would actually entail would have resulted in a resounding "dear god no" from the community. Of course teasing flags and bombs sounds interesting to players and gets a nod, but the idea of scrapping the territory system should have never been on the table. I don't want to be harsh, but making these kinds of changes highlights a fundamental disconnect between SL and players. These massive updates are largely put together behind closed doors and delivered along with a bunch of very basic bugs that frustrate players further. I was involved in some of the testing this time around, but that session was cursory at best and performed without any real explanation of the larger planned changes.

I believe you'd have more success if there was more community involvement in the design and planning of these sorts of updates. I know a lot of players are increasingly frustrated by the server's direction and the seemingly arbitrary choices being made.

The only idea I can think of that solves some of the problems you mentioned, is reintroducing territories to all wars and making it so that the various objectives (e.g. planting bombs) now have the side-effect of capping territories. Not sure how well that would work in practice.

Ultimately I'd say you either need to revert the update or do something like this quickly. What might make sense would be to revert to the old system and then incrementally add new war types like those you mention or those I suggested. What can't happen is sitting in the current state for several months and hoping that the next surprise update is what people wanted.

But seriously, "war is being reworked" has been used to shut down suggestions for months now. It arrives and it turns out to be a near-total disaster crippling some of the fundamentals that people enjoy on the server. I know that's got to be frustrating for management, but it could have been predicted if we'd been given more information before all that effort was put in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kvalax
The ticket was on the public dev tracker and had been posted in Discord and in the change-voting channel - it wasn't exactly hidden away! I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with your sentiment. It's just wrong.

The current plan is to get the campaign update out ASAP, as it will provide meaning and progression to wars, but I need to see if Kvarkar will be able to do that on a priority basis or if I'll need to do it myself.
 

Merlin

Active member
Nov 16, 2022
81
23
21
The ticket was on the public dev tracker and had been posted in Discord and in the change-voting channel - it wasn't exactly hidden away! I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with your sentiment. It's just wrong.
Tucking these things away in a public GitHub issue is not really the same as a proper announcement. Most people had no idea this was coming despite it being such a major change. And yes, I did see the changevoting thread but there was minimal further information given when asked about it. That's not to mention that at no point was anyone told that the new wars would be dropped without the campaign system.

The current plan is to get the campaign update out ASAP, as it will provide meaning and progression to wars, but I need to see if Kvarkar will be able to do that or if I'll need to do it myself.
Given the QC issues in this update I'm not confident that the campaign system can truly be delivered in a good state any time soon, sorry. If the server is going to rot for another month waiting for such changes I'd reconsider putting the time into it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.