To win a war.

[Daaaah Whoosh]

I just don't see how this makes the battles more fun. If you don't want to play Conflict, you don't have to. Making it mandatory to play Objective is only going to complicate things.
And I can't help but say it, but as I recall, REDD always wanted to play Objective, and on many occasions, they pulled out a victory because of it. Does that have anything to do with these changes? Because if you force everyone to play Objective, then everyone will be prepared for it, and the underdog can't choose Territories out of the blue in order to gain an advantage.

[d3ad1te]

It seems to me myth made his decision based on some pretty good info.


Kudos to making changes based on results instead of doing what we always do...

[Mythonian]

I just don't see how this makes the battles more fun. If you don't want to play Conflict, you don't have to. Making it mandatory to play Objective is only going to complicate things.
And I can't help but say it, but as I recall, REDD always wanted to play Objective, and on many occasions, they pulled out a victory because of it. Does that have anything to do with these changes? Because if you force everyone to play Objective, then everyone will be prepared for it, and the underdog can't choose Territories out of the blue in order to gain an advantage.

That wasn't really involved in the decision, but unfortunately that may be a result of it.

We mainly wanted to (1) reward people who liked playing objective games by making it go toward them being able to participate in the Capital Battles, and (2) provide incentives so that more people will give objective games a chance.

If in a situation where the armies are extremely unbalanced or where they pretty much have the entire warmap, we can adjust the details to prevent the war from dragging out unnecessarily. This is also true for things like perk costs and any numbers that need to be adjusted to improve the war.

It seems to me myth made his decision based on some pretty good info.


Kudos to making changes based on results instead of doing what we always do...

If I remember correctly, it was Ghost that brought up the idea, and we all pretty much agreed it'd be a decent way to increase the frequency of objective games, because some games are almost never played.

For example, last war never had Sabotage or Oddbomb played a single time, and Occupation only had a handful of usages.

[Nocte]

From my knowledge the easiest way to get squads to pick Obj. gametypes was to simply tell them. Play this gametype tonight... They then practiced on it the entire week.

That idea limits the restrictions on how to win a war, honestly Conflict gametypes were chosen because of the crowd we have in this community.

May I say that all of my best (most fun) games in this community were while playing Obj. gametypes, simply because of the amount of teamwork and chemistry is takes to play those gametypes.

[Mythonian]

From my knowledge the easiest way to get squads to pick Obj. gametypes was to simply tell them. Play this gametype tonight... They then practiced on it the entire week.

That idea limits the restrictions on how to win a war, honestly Conflict gametypes were chosen because of the crowd we have in this community.

May I say that all of my best (most fun) games in this community were while playing Obj. gametypes, simply because of the amount of teamwork and chemistry is takes to play those gametypes.

Simply telling them to choose a gametype seems more forceful than giving them a minor incentive. >.>

Every Battle Night, whenever someone was unsure of which gametype to choose, I always recommended various objective gametypes, particularly the lesser-played ones, namely Oddbomb and Occupation. Unfortunately, the majority of the time they say "nah, we'll just go with Conflict I guess" or Hill 30, or Liberation.

So, we want to encourage it within forcing it. Sure, we could say "Each battle night, there has to be so many games of this gametype", and we considered doing that. We did do that for the Capital Battles. For the rest of the war, though, we found a compromise which lets people play what they want, but they will need to balance what they want with what would help their army win the war.

We discussed and contemplated multiple systems similar to this, and this one had the best of both worlds, so we went with it.

If near the end of the war and they are absolutely no where close to something (or, say, there are issues with the gametypes for whatever reason), we will change the rule. We aren't going to stand by and let it ruin the war or drag it out for a month. If it came anywhere close to that, we'd change it.

[VerbotenDonkey]

Meh I'd still pick Conflict >__> Waaay too fun.

[Nocte]

If near the end of the war and they are absolutely no where close to something (or, say, there are issues with the gametypes for whatever reason), we will change the rule. We aren't going to stand by and let it ruin the war or drag it out for a month. If it came anywhere close to that, we'd change it.

Well myth I'll be watching you and if you don't play nice. I might have to burn your motherboard, and we all know how that goes!

I just don't want this seriously screwing the war :/

[Choca Cola]

For me, let's see how this goes, and make changes (revert or stay) due to how well it went.

[bazongaman502]

if an army sucks at a certin gametype, its up to them to improve...

I like this idea, its actually very interesting

[d3ad1te]

I think its a good idea.