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.
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.
I can roll back the update, but honestly, if the end result of this is a full rollback, I'm not sure I can ever convince a developer to work on MRP again. Would you want to develop for MRP again if you were Kvarkar, seeing how he's been treated? You might not have seen everything I've seen, but honestly, the way some people have spoken to him is pathetic. It's not an overexaggeration, every developer we assign to MRP gets burned out and either leaves or decides to do development for any server except MRP.

Anyway, I would be aiming to get the campaign system out within the next week or two. If it comes down to it, I'll make it myself, it's just that will require me to delay SCP-RP updates to do so.
 

Merlin

Active member
Nov 16, 2022
81
23
21
I can roll back the update, but honestly, if the end result of this is a full rollback, I'm not sure I can ever convince a developer to work on MRP again. Would you want to develop for MRP again if you were Kvarkar, seeing how he's been treated? You might not have seen everything I've seen, but honestly, the way some people have spoken to him is pathetic. It's not an overexaggeration, every developer we assign to MRP gets burned out and either leaves or decides to do development for any server except MRP.

Anyway, I would be aiming to get the campaign system out within the next week or two. If it comes down to it, I'll make it myself, it's just that will require me to delay SCP-RP updates to do so.
I actually don't blame Kvarkar at all and respect the effort. It's a small team so bugs are expected, but overall project management is a different story. If it were only a week of work then dropping both updates together would have been a far better option.
 
I actually don't blame Kvarkar at all and respect the effort. It's a small team so bugs are expected, but overall project management is a different story. If it were only a week of work then dropping both updates together would have been a far better option.
It's a week of work for myself because I can work on programming it for almost all of my waking hours and sacrifice other parts of my schedule to focus on it, it's not a week of work for Kvarkar, who has school. I'm saying if it comes down to it, I can grind it out at the cost of other updates and network management tasks, which I'll need to make up afterwards. Not exactly my preferred option, and to get it out in this amount of time I will need to descope parts of the ticket and focus on function rather than form.
 

Merlin

Active member
Nov 16, 2022
81
23
21
It's a week of work for myself because I can work on programming it for almost all of my waking hours and sacrifice other parts of my schedule to focus on it, it's not a week of work for Kvarkar, who has school. I'm saying if it comes down to it, I can grind it out at the cost of other updates and network management tasks, which I'll need to make up afterwards. Not exactly my preferred option, and to get it out in this amount of time I will need to descope parts of the ticket and focus on function rather than form.
Tbh this isn't and shouldn't be like a job that anyone needs to grind full time on. I think most of the community would be on board with you rolling back the update and re-releasing it with a properly polished campaign system. Take some time to finish it and maybe still consider persistent territory capture.

I really don't want this to be taken as an insult by the dev team. The reality is that the new system just doesn't work without the campaign functionality and shouldn't have been deployed early.
 

Deleted member 1078

Guest
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.



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.




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.



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.
Honestly imo just keep the core gameplay the same as it's always been and focus on QOL issues that have existed for years. I haven't played S & D yet but Idk how it got approved and how no one thought it might not be a good idea. More weapon variety would also be cool but ig perma weapons are useful now so probably not needed.
 

Voltics

Well-known Member
Sep 24, 2022
26
3
41
It's a week of work for myself because I can work on programming it for almost all of my waking hours and sacrifice other parts of my schedule to focus on it, it's not a week of work for Kvarkar, who has school. I'm saying if it comes down to it, I can grind it out at the cost of other updates and network management tasks, which I'll need to make up afterwards. Not exactly my preferred option, and to get it out in this amount of time I will need to descope parts of the ticket and focus on function rather than form.
I honestly think most people only have a problem with every CP being neutral in peacetime and nearly all CPs get reset every war making people feel like its "pointless".
Completely understand how Kvarkar would feel if he's getting shit on by people that's not cool at all, but I think peoples problem is the cap points etc being neutral and reset every war.
I don't think most people want a brand new rework again, but maybe that's just me.
 
I honestly think most people only have a problem with every CP being neutral in peacetime and nearly all CPs get reset every war making people feel like its "pointless".
Completely understand how Kvarkar would feel if he's getting shit on by people that's not cool at all, but I think peoples problem is the cap points etc being neutral and reset every war.
I don't think most people want a brand new rework again, but maybe that's just me.
I don't really see a solution for that which doesn't involve reworking everything again, most wars don't involve territory capturing and so having the CPs stay the same creates this weird situation where I can guarantee people will consider all the other wars to be 'pointless', even after we add the campaign system. The best idea I have is what I mentioned earlier about making all wars involve territory capture in some way but Kvarkar is working on the campaign system right now (as luckily he agreed to smash it out as quickly as he can), I can't pull him off that to redo the wars again.
 

Merlin

Active member
Nov 16, 2022
81
23
21
I don't really see a solution for that which doesn't involve reworking everything again, most wars don't involve territory capturing and so having the CPs stay the same creates this weird situation where I can guarantee people will consider all the other wars to be 'pointless', even after we add the campaign system. The best idea I have is what I mentioned earlier about making all wars involve territory capture in some way but Kvarkar is working on the campaign system right now (as luckily he agreed to smash it out as quickly as he can), I can't pull him off that to redo the wars again.
While this is understandable, resetting territory capture every war does substantially reduce the variety of gameplay both in Conquest mode and for peacetime FOB building. The inability to hold points also exaggerates any imbalance in the map design (which is very obvious on Afghan). I did raise an eyebrow at this when it was first proposed.

I'm also not convinced that trying to rush development of the campaign system is going to produce good results. While the lack of persistance is the primary issue people are upset with right now, I'm not sure that bolting on a broader win/lose tally will be sufficient to make individual wars feel meaningful. It'd need to be designed very carefully.

The suggestion here was an attempt at finding ways to utilise the new mechanics alongside the capture system. I hope that idea may still have legs. Perhaps it'd be worth polling the wider community for the best path forwards ("rollback until campaign mode is done", "wait for the campaign system" or "rollback and redesign new wars to include capture").
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Cloak

Farrah

Active member
Jan 21, 2023
20
2
21
After experiencing CTF on the server, FOBs not being able to be spawned in and some war concepts not being executed properly. I am losing faith in the server. What happened to just the simple conquest and Lane war, where were they entirely. My expectations of seeing the war being fixed is low at this point for me.
 

Jack G

Head Moderator
Head Moderator
MilitaryRP Staff
Content Team
Donator
Feb 19, 2021
299
97
111
Suggestion Denied

Hi Merlin,
Your suggestion has been denied. As Cloak mentioned, the Github has ALWAYS been public and so if players want to know the Updates that we have planned, they are more than capable of accessing a link. Furthemore, Kvarker had the campaign out in quick succession to the war changes. Although we may consider some future changes to the wars that we have, we will not be changing the entire way the wars work after having it just updated. We will however look towards the FOB Rule Changes and develop them to be more appealing.

Thanks, Content Team​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.