3 Objective Wars

[Why 33]

Description: The ability for the highest ranking player on each side/briefing leader to suggest a 3 objective war that both sides would agree on, similar to one objective wars. DB leaders would then decide about which objectives to play at. This ability would be allowed when more than 50 players are on and not civ/afk, but less than 70 or 80 players are active.

Reason: Sometimes 70 players aren't enough for 5 objectives and often there won't be any activity at some objectives. Russia only has 4 factions, and often some of those special forces groups aren't on during those medium player counts. 

Additional Information: Nothing

[Ethan 457]

+1
I would suggest that if the server player count is below 80 players, there can be a decision made for a 3 objective war. Often times during this player count, all of the action only happens on three objectives like Comms, Factory, and Company, sometimes only two of the objectives. This would help as less than 80 players, some being AFK, isn't enough to easily play all 5 objectives actively.

[Crin {GG} 80]

You don't have to just say Comms only A/D . You can suggest more places, as far as I know there has never been a rule against it. 

[Abu 6]

+1 if there's any rules against it.

[Lust | TGN 16]

+1 Since there is more Obj's

[Riskii 190]

+1

•Too many objective 3 would be enough

[Jesus 67]

+1 Considering how outnumbered RU has been lately, this is a welcome suggestion

[Panini 148]

You can have an officer say "3 Objective War, (Objectives). A/D"
It's the same premise as a one objective war. This is kind of unnecessary.

[ZedDxeD 21]

I don't understand what is the fuss with 5 objectives. I like that. Spices up the things. And it is no more liniar and no more feels like a trench war. But again, if there are not enough players you can set up a certain amount of objectives in game, like Panini said.

[Ethan 457]

12 hours ago, Crin {GG} said:

You don't have to just say Comms only A/D . You can suggest more places, as far as I know there has never been a rule against it. 

 

2 hours ago, Panini said:

You can have an officer say "3 Objective War, (Objectives). A/D"
It's the same premise as a one objective war. This is kind of unnecessary.

 

1 hour ago, ZedDxeD said:

I don't understand what is the fuss with 5 objectives. I like that. Spices up the things. And it is no more liniar and no more feels like a trench war. But again, if there are not enough players you can set up a certain amount of objectives in game, like Panini said.

JJ is suggesting that since the rule for 60 and below players allows for one objective wars, and when there are 70 players online, we have to do 5 objective wars, that the middle amount of below 80 should allow us to scratch off two of the objectives as most of the time, those two objectives are never or rarely are attacked.

For example, lets say the server has 75 players online. RU has 10 guys show up to Briefing, and US has 30 guys show up to Briefing (this happens pretty often at these player counts). There are 75 players online, so if RU attempts to ask for a one objective war, they are denied as that isn't allowed in the current rules. This suggestion is stating that in a situation like this, where there aren't enough players to have action happening on 4 of the 5 objectives that we should be able to decide on a 3 objective war instead, eliminating two of the objectives. JJ explained this to me on TS as he was playing Construction one war, and no RU ever attacked it or Town Center the entire war, they just held Comms and Company, and attacked Factory every once in a while because of the numbers.

Hope that example and explanation helped you guys understand what this suggestions is suggesting.

Edit: And the rule for this states "Wars: When the playerbase is sub 60 players, the highest on from each side may communicate in order to exclude objectives from an ongoing/upcoming war." This rule has been  determined to ONLY apply at sub 60 players, and not any other playercount. This is where this suggestion comes in that we should raise the player count for this to sub 80 players instead, or specify that sub 60 is for one objectives and sub 80 is for 3 objectives.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Ethan
Added in the rule argument.