• Make sure to read the forum rules before creating a new thread or commenting on someone else's thread. The forum rules can be read on this page.

Wars

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rob

Rob

New member
V2 Legend
Loosely based off Battlefield 1's 'operations', wars are combinations of different maps in a longer war, for example Helm's Deep - Edoras - Isengard would be a Rohan/Isengard war.

Continuing on with the example, the war would start in Edoras - if Isengard defeated Rohan, Rohan would be pushed back to Helm's Deep and a map change would occur to Helm's Deep. Vice versa, Isengard would be pushed back to Isengard (this depends on whether Isengard will be re-added, but for now there could be just a war using Helm's Deep and Edoras). If the defeated team was to be defeated again, that's it - war over. However, if they manage to win then the next battle goes straight to the other team's 'home' map instead of back to Edoras, e.g. Rohan were victorious at Helm's Deep and so a map change occurs to Isengard. This third battle would be the final one; both teams have exhausted their forces so this one battle would define who won the war.

Other wars could include:

  • Gondor/Mordor: Minas Tirith - Osgiliath - The Black Gate.
  • Perhaps one using Laketown and Erebor?

Obviously this wouldn't be added until the server lag is fixed and there is a stronger 24/7 playerbase, but maybe could be implemented by moderators/admins if there are enough people online.

I personally believe that this should be considered and perhaps added when (a) the lag is fixed and (b) the server's slots increase to at least 50 players (maybe this could happen by the end of the year).

And until the criteria are met, maybe a Helm's Deep - Edoras war could be implemented quite easily?

The poll beneath closes on 21/05/17 15:30 BST - sorry for so many options xD.
 
There needs to be an incentive for winning one of these wars I feel. Atm, at least for me I haven't cared much for what team wins, maybe add some kind of reward (not sure what since points are removed) for winning a map / war. But this war idea sounds cool.
 
Perhaps a new stat, 'Wars won' - preferably this would mean you were on the winning team of a war the whole way through without quitting/joining halfway through/changing teams. Since the proposed wars could last up to 90 minutes, the stat would have to make a significant contribution to your overall score.
 
Well maybe the integration of the proposed 'Wars won' stat with wars would be a little harder to code, but as for the wars themselves I do not believe there is much code needed;

ATM, a war would probably be staff-initiated at peak times, so a simple command could simply start a war.

Then, the wars themselves would just be simple map switches, most of the coding is done already. E.g. Rohan/Isengard war would be map switch to Edoras. Then, depending on which team won, it's another map switch. All the code needed would be different map switches and perhaps a 'War MVP' would just add up the war's battles' stats.
 
You know what also has potential to attract more players? ADD BACK POINTS!!

Btw. Love ur Idea Robrem.
 
Didn't someone suggested this idea like 2 or 3 years ago and you reacted the same?
(Great idea 2 hard 2 code)
TBH it seems that new players are having old ideas but they get more attention for some reason.
 
I litteraly asked this years ago and it got refused by Tim himself. Simply because people dont have time for such long wars and simply want a battle and just go do something else, I for instance would love the wars but imagine the marching time between Edoras and helmsdeep, if you would decrease this insanely then it wouldnt be realistic Anymore, if you made the marching tome realistic it would be boring af to march 10 minutes from Each settlement to another. I get that its Fun and all but I highly doubt Tim would add this since its SO much work.
 
Gundabad1 said:
I litteraly asked this years ago and it got refused by Tim himself. Simply because people dont have time for such long wars and simply want a battle and just go do something else, I for instance would love the wars but imagine the marching time between Edoras and helmsdeep, if you would decrease this insanely then it wouldnt be realistic Anymore, if you made the marching tome realistic it would be boring af to march 10 minutes from Each settlement to another. I get that its Fun and all but I highly doubt Tim would add this since its SO much work.
Click to expand...
Im sure you wasn't the first and it seems you are  not the last but you approved my point.
 
Gundabad1 said:
I litteraly asked this years ago and it got refused by Tim himself. Simply because people dont have time for such long wars and simply want a battle and just go do something else, I for instance would love the wars but imagine the marching time between Edoras and helmsdeep, if you would decrease this insanely then it wouldnt be realistic Anymore, if you made the marching tome realistic it would be boring af to march 10 minutes from Each settlement to another. I get that its Fun and all but I highly doubt Tim would add this since its SO much work.
Click to expand...

I may have not made this clear but I never thought of actually including the marching parts, just simple map switches to (a) speed things up and (b) make it easier to code.

The idea of marching is interesting to me, but realistically would take way too long; obviously the marching could be shortened significantly to a matter of minutes, but this would put pressure on the current widespread server lag as well as being 'too hard to code', so therefore I believe that there should be no marching but just map switches.

Therefore they wouldn't be long drawn out single wars, but basically standard rounds with maybe some messages in the middle, e.g. instead of 'Rohan has won!' or whatever it is, it could be 'Isengard is pushed back to Isengard, Rohan marches on!' or something like that. Therefore it would feel a lot less longer to users and would be easier in general.

I do see the problem in that I mentioned the 'Wars won' stat earlier; I see your point as it is a long time to stay on the server (up to 90 minutes) for some people, while it is a short time for others. Therefore perhaps it could be changed to 'War rounds won' as individual rounds of wars.
 
Rob said:
[quote name="Gundabad1"]I litteraly asked this years ago and it got refused by Tim himself. Simply because people dont have time for such long wars and simply want a battle and just go do something else, I for instance would love the wars but imagine the marching time between Edoras and helmsdeep, if you would decrease this insanely then it wouldnt be realistic Anymore, if you made the marching tome realistic it would be boring af to march 10 minutes from Each settlement to another. I get that its Fun and all but I highly doubt Tim would add this since its SO much work.
Click to expand...

I may have not made this clear but I never thought of actually including the marching parts, just simple map switches to (a) speed things up and (b) make it easier to code.

The idea of marching is interesting to me, but realistically would take way too long; obviously the marching could be shortened significantly to a matter of minutes, but this would put pressure on the current widespread server lag as well as being 'too hard to code', so therefore I believe that there should be no marching but just map switches.

Therefore they wouldn't be long drawn out single wars, but basically standard rounds with maybe some messages in the middle, e.g. instead of 'Rohan has won!' or whatever it is, it could be 'Isengard is pushed back to Isengard, Rohan marches on!' or something like that. Therefore it would feel a lot less longer to users and would be easier in general.

I do see the problem in that I mentioned the 'Wars won' stat earlier; I see your point as it is a long time to stay on the server (up to 90 minutes) for some people, while it is a short time for others. Therefore perhaps it could be changed to 'War rounds won' as individual rounds of wars.[/quote]
So basically, you want the current maps on a certain placement to implement a war feeling. Thats like no difference since the maps are the same but you just look at the faction that won and trigger a map due to their victory, in unbalanced war maps this would mean that you would play a certain 'map list' for most of the time that would get insanely boring.
 
Gundabad1 said:
[quote user_id="17911961" avatar="https://assets-cloud.enjin.com/users/17911961/avatar/medium.1486905083.jpeg" name="Rob"][quote name="Gundabad1"]I litteraly asked this years ago and it got refused by Tim himself. Simply because people dont have time for such long wars and simply want a battle and just go do something else, I for instance would love the wars but imagine the marching time between Edoras and helmsdeep, if you would decrease this insanely then it wouldnt be realistic Anymore, if you made the marching tome realistic it would be boring af to march 10 minutes from Each settlement to another. I get that its Fun and all but I highly doubt Tim would add this since its SO much work.
Click to expand...

I may have not made this clear but I never thought of actually including the marching parts, just simple map switches to (a) speed things up and (b) make it easier to code.

The idea of marching is interesting to me, but realistically would take way too long; obviously the marching could be shortened significantly to a matter of minutes, but this would put pressure on the current widespread server lag as well as being 'too hard to code', so therefore I believe that there should be no marching but just map switches.

Therefore they wouldn't be long drawn out single wars, but basically standard rounds with maybe some messages in the middle, e.g. instead of 'Rohan has won!' or whatever it is, it could be 'Isengard is pushed back to Isengard, Rohan marches on!' or something like that. Therefore it would feel a lot less longer to users and would be easier in general.

I do see the problem in that I mentioned the 'Wars won' stat earlier; I see your point as it is a long time to stay on the server (up to 90 minutes) for some people, while it is a short time for others. Therefore perhaps it could be changed to 'War rounds won' as individual rounds of wars.[/quote]
So basically, you want the current maps on a certain placement to implement a war feeling. Thats like no difference since the maps are the same but you just look at the faction that won and trigger a map due to their victory, in unbalanced war maps this would mean that you would play a certain 'map list' for most of the time that would get insanely boring.[/quote]

In my opinion, it is putting together maps which would be realistically used in a war, which gives a more interactive feeling than just a constant map cycle as it is now, which includes non-LOTR maps such as Cove and Dreadfort. I do see your point, but if wars were added, for example, in the next few days then it would be staff-initiated at peak times and at all other times it would be the current normal map cycle. In terms of map balancing, that could be fixed by actually programming team balancing in accordance with players' scores, which I believe should've been done ages ago.

If in the near/distant future wars were added full-time, they wouldn't be 24/7 because individual maps such as Minas Morgul or Dreadfort, or even Cove would be forgotten. Wars would therefore be in cycle every 4/5 full map cycles.
 
Interesting concept- My only concern is if people would want to go through each map, as it would last awhile. It'd be a fun thing to have War Sundays or something.
 
I would love this. I think there should be some sort of reward for being part of the winning team, but only if you stay on that team for the whole war. Also, it would be interesting if details on the map changed depending on the course of the war. Not sure how that would work, though.
 
Szucsclan said:
I would love this. I think there should be some sort of reward for being part of the winning team, but only if you stay on that team for the whole war. Also, it would be interesting if details on the map changed depending on the course of the war. Not sure how that would work, though.
Click to expand...

[quote user_id="17911961" avatar="https://assets-cloud.enjin.com/users/17911961/avatar/medium.1486905083.jpeg" name="Rob"]Perhaps a new stat, 'Wars won' - preferably this would mean you were on the winning team of a war the whole way through without quitting/joining halfway through/changing teams. Since the proposed wars could last up to 90 minutes, the stat would have to make a significant contribution to your overall score.[/quote]

The map changing depending on the course of the war sounds like an interesting idea, but would need a lot more details on what needs changing and when; however, it does seem like a much more complicated level of coding compared to the original war idea.
 
[quote name="arakrsptec"]Interesting concept- My only concern is if people would want to go through each map, as it would last awhile. It'd be a fun thing to have War Sundays or something.[/quote]

Well yes, but if wars were added soon, they would be staff-initiated as explained earlier:


Rob said:
I do see your point, but if wars were added, for example, in the next few days then it would be staff-initiated at peak times and at all other times it would be the current normal map cycle.

If in the near/distant future wars were added full-time, they wouldn't be 24/7 because individual maps such as Minas Morgul or Dreadfort, or even Cove would be forgotten. Wars would therefore be in cycle every 4/5 full map cycles.
Click to expand...

So yes, at the present time wars would probably happen on Saturdays/Sundays when the server is most full.

In response to whether people would want to go through each map, that is definitely debatable and everyone has an opinion. I believe, reflecting from the results of this thread's poll, that the majority would want to see wars added and would want to go through each map; the proposed concept of wars would have a maximum run time of 90 minutes, which isn't too bad (three standard rounds). And it would be entirely probable that most wars would last between 60 and 80 minutes if they are well-balanced, especially with the ratios.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top