Denied Surrender system

[Jason M.]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Given that a campaign is already decidedly won by one team (And joint NHC/SC agreement is found), a way for a 'surrender' to be done by the losing side, and a base raid to be forced.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
No

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- Excessively boring campaigns aren't prolonged
- Fun conflicts can be more frequent
- Players on losing sides have more incentive to play
- Gameplay loop is healthier

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
None that I can find, this would be overseen by SL/SSL and both sides HC.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
For the past week, NATO have been decidedly winning the current campaign, and there have been many times where one side has won a campaign days before the end. Circumstances like now where there is a ~70 point lead by one side and only 2 days left in a campaign make it impossible for one side to lose, and so players stop playing the side and are demoralised.
Due to the current VWar system and the way capture rate is set up, a naturally done base raid is really difficult to be achieved, and so the server gets stuck on a loop of one team continually steamrolling the map and the other team holding on by one or two points. It's not fun for either side.

If this isn't accepted. Make some form of way to restart points mid-campaign. Because this is a deciding factor for why NWO has such low numbers currently.
I for one wouldn't mind forfeiting the campaign victory NATO are going to have this campaign in exchange for fun, equal combat.

 

[MuD102]

-1

Whilst it's based on good intentions, I think there's a negative side which needs to be considered. Firstly, if one faction is losing heavily to the other then restarting the campaign isn't going to change anything and would likely not make their situation any easier, there's a reason why they are losing. If we keep the campaign going then even if they certainly lose, it gives that faction time to re-assess, reorganise then apply their findings to improve the situation. Time they might not have if they're busy with a new campaign.
-
Secondly, this would be good opportunities for GM's the opportunity to do map change events as nobody is that concerned about the campaign, it would be perfect timing for people to enjoy playing an event.
-
Lastly, this could effectively ruin the campaign system. If the enemy faction have the option to surrender they might compete to their full might as they can restart when it's not suiting them. Furthermore the winners wouldn't feel like they got an actual victory and the players that actually want to win wars will continue to play upon restart, meaning there will be a lack of rest and people will burn out more quickly.


Creating sudden big changes to the server's structure isn't a good way to fix anything, improvement is a gradual concept and if we rush into this change that change the matter that there are likely unforeseeable consequences. "Because this is a deciding factor for why NWO has such low numbers currently.", if we could click our fingers and implement this change, how would this stop NWO from losing another campaign. Removing time for consideration isn't in my opinion a healthy option.

P.S. I want to kill more commies, Jason. Back off.

 

[Alexandria]

- Support

This will just lead to base raids being unpredictable, a large number of our players will come on for baseraids, they should stay on a schedule to keep hype and therefore activity

 

[Oceanus]

-Support

Mud summed it up well. Would it be cool at first? Yes. But it would quickly devolve into one side losing, instantly surrendering, new campaign starting, and the same thing happening again due to no lessons being taken from it, and that, is not fun at all.

 

[Robert Harrison]

- Support

The reasons have been stated above.

 

[Jason M.]

I see the point that it could negatively affect the flow of baseraids and players coming on as well as the actual process of playing until you lose.
But this system wouldn't be useable unless it is physically impossible for a side to win.

The suggestion isn't to allow a team to give up half way through a campaign, but instead to cut a campaign short if there is actually zero reason for players to engage in a war if a side is winning the campaign already.

And again, it would be decided through a mutual conference between NHC/SC and SL/SSL to decide whether it is the appropriate option to end a campaign.

 

[Toni]

+Support

 

[I luv kebabs]

-support

 

[MLGMagicHoodini]

-support ngl
I feel like if this ends up happening a lot, and there's no coming back, then forget the campaign, and do fun stuff and etc, like Map Change or Peacetime events, this way they woudn't affect much of campaign since it was decided already, cause right now, having a peacetime/prewar event is annoying asf

 

[Markous Fenix]

i swear every time i look on the discord i see your ass on suggestions

+Support
+Could be best for the server when a faction has had enough of this and could save more time to do other things like events

 

[Anakin Skywalker]

Suggestion Denied​

---

Hi @Jason M. , Your suggestion has been denied. Content team have seen this as from what we have spoken about this would cause more problems then solve them Thank you for taking the time to make a suggestion​