Stronghold mode

[Corsair831]

As a huge fan of cRPG Strategus, i'm really interested in this mode, and whilst I haven't donated yet, this would be what I would consider donating for.

(As seen in this Melee: Battlegrounds — Stronghold video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFjlp3nnJgg )

To me the mode sounds very much like Natural Selection meets Warband, both games i love.

I was just wondering whether the plan would be for a stronghold server to operate more similarly to Natural Selection, in that you have one match of approx. 30 minutes - 1 hour, 1 commander each team, battles are intense and finish relatively fast (~~30 mins-1 hour) ..
.. or more similar to the Red Orchestra 2 multiplayer campaign mode, where a single campaign can take anything from 3 to 4 to 10 hours to complete ..

Or, what sounds most interesting to me personally .. if there was some way a stronghold/campaign server could be made to operate only within the times with the highest player counts (so between 1700-2100CET for example), and then shut down until the next day, with a campaign taking anywhere from a week, a month, several months, etc etc.

Just curious ..

[Corsair831]

aww . I WASN'T EVEN TRYING TO TROLL ANYONE FOR ONCE .

[Algarn]

Maybe if you stop spamming the smileys, it'll work out. Nah, the question in the op is interesting, actually.

[Molly]

Iirc chadz said that he's aiming for something between 30 min and 1 hour per Stronghold round. I think he actually says so in the KS Stronghold video...

[Corsair831]

Iirc chadz said that he's aiming for something between 30 min and 1 hour per Stronghold round. I think he actually says so in the KS Stronghold video...

aww .. i guess that still could be kind of cool though )

also what's wrong with smileys i love smileys :D:D:D:D:D:D

[Jacko]

Somewhere between 30 and 1 hour is what we aim for. A longer mode is of course possible, but we'd rather focus on Epic (mix of Strategus and Stronghold) than making some sort of intermediate game mode.

M:BG first, though.

[Corsair831]

Somewhere between 30 and 1 hour is what we aim for. A longer mode is of course possible, but we'd rather focus on Epic (mix of Strategus and Stronghold) than making some sort of intermediate game mode.

M:BG first, though.

cool, thx!

[Wyrda]

In my opinion 30 minutes to an hour seems too short. I'm pretty certain that the player-base of this game won't be a bunch of casuals who lose interest after a short amount of time; there will be other game modes that will be shorter, I think a fully fleshed out strategy game-mode should potentially last an hour and a half or more.

[agweber]

In my opinion 30 minutes to an hour seems too short. I'm pretty certain that the player-base of this game won't be a bunch of casuals who lose interest after a short amount of time; there will be other game modes that will be shorter, I think a fully fleshed out strategy game-mode should potentially last an hour and a half or more.

I'm pretty sure given the scalability of the maps the length could easily last that long on a map that's big enough.

[Byrdi]

In my opinion 30 minutes to an hour seems too short. I'm pretty certain that the player-base of this game won't be a bunch of casuals who lose interest after a short amount of time; there will be other game modes that will be shorter, I think a fully fleshed out strategy game-mode should potentially last an hour and a half or more.

An hour is a long time if you are stuck on an unproductive team which there always a few people who think.
This leads to them RQing which in turn leads to an actual bad team due to few numbers.
If people knew they had to stay on the same losing team for hours then I am pretty sure that a lot of them would leave especially in a gamemode where you depend so much on your team for resources and stuff.

I think it would be really difficult to populate a server with a gamemode that takes more than an hour.

[Wyrda]

An hour is a long time if you are stuck on an unproductive team which there always a few people who think.
This leads to them RQing which in turn leads to an actual bad team due to few numbers.
If people knew they had to stay on the same losing team for hours then I am pretty sure that a lot of them would leave especially in a gamemode where you depend so much on your team for resources and stuff.

I think it would be really difficult to populate a server with a gamemode that takes more than an hour.

It doesn't necessarily have to last that long every time. If your team is bad then you should lose fairly quickly, the only matches that should last that long are the intense games where each team is neck to neck. Basically my point is that I don't think there should be artificial time restrictions put in place.

[Jacko]

It's how long we guesstimate it will last, depending on team size, player skill etc. There is no plan for any form of time limit.

[agweber]

It's how long we guesstimate it will last, depending on team size, player skill etc. There is no plan for any form of time limit.

Unless we inherit early flags bug

[Corsair831]

yeah i mean i brought up the red orchestra 2 campaign thing earlier because that's an absolutely great way of doing it; you're on the same team for anywhere from a couple of hours if you're winning/losing hard, to like 6 or 7 hours if it's an even fight ..

.. i must admit even being on the losing team, or even an even pitched war that we've eventually lost, i've always thoroughly enjoyed being on the same team with the same players for several hours .. you build a great sense of camaraderie, it's pretty cool ..

.. ofc it does help that RO2 campaigns have in-built VoIP so you can communicate .. which i don't know if MBG will have