War of Rights - Patch Notes

[Max Krause]

Glad to hear you guys fixed the invisibility problem.

Leading an invisible company really makes you start questioning your sanity. Had to constantly mash the T button to make sure I wasn't just talking to myself in the middle of nowhere.

Haha you're right, fighting again an invisible army is very hard. They were like assassins...

Very cool you fixed all that in such a fast time.

Be proud to yourselfs

[Lyman Trumbull]

That was pretty quick on the invisible problem, great work!

[TheRegulator]

Officers limitation . . . . Without any choise in choosing a competent leader at spawn, but the one who get's it first in on the positon. Seems a bad idea. This is sure to back fire.
I can say from my own position that i wont go with officers, who do not act and command competent. Its bound to devide the 32 players, even on a personal level. If you dont like officers personality, then your not going along . .
It smells of trouble . . .

[TrustyJam]

Officers limitation . . . . Without any choise in choosing a competent leader at spawn, but the one who get's it first in on the positon. Seems a bad idea. This is sure to back fire.
I can say from my own position that i wont go with officers, who do not act and command competent. Its bound to devide the 32 players, even on a personal level. If you dont like officers personality, then your not going along . .
It smells of trouble . . .

Thank you for the feedback.

If you're worried of incompetent officers might lead from time to time it sounds like a more controlled environment such as a private server is the place for you. We're not interested in a static place were the same (good as they might be) officers of the bigger companies gets voted in to lead each time. That is what company hosted servers are for, not public ones.

But time will tell - let's see how it goes.

- Trusty

[TheRegulator]

Thank you for the feedback.

If you're worried of incompetent officers might lead from time to time it sounds like a more controlled environment such as a private server is the place for you. We're not interested in a static place were the same (good as they might be) officers of the bigger companies gets voted in to lead each time. That is what company hosted servers are for, not public ones.

But time will tell - let's see how it goes.

- Trusty

I do understand your point, but it will limit my play time to Company events. . . I am going to play when i have the time, so its puplic i will use mostly.
Maybe a point/rank system is useable, where your promoted, and given the right to take the officer slot, after serving a consible amount of time in WoR. Or something in that content.

[Hinkel]

Maybe a point/rank system is useable, where your promoted, and given the right to take the officer slot, after serving a consible amount of time in WoR. Or something in that content.

While the idea is good, it would still be a problem, that the most active commanders always "block" the officer slot.
New soldiers, which might have a great leader ability have no chance to take the officer slot then and show their power

Besides that, please don't use the patch note thread for the officer problematic / idea. Feel free to open a thread in the suggestion board to discuss about it

[michaelsmithern]

Well and with this patch goes my hopes and dreams of leading a horde of ghost into battle

[David Dire]

Thank you for the feedback.

If you're worried of incompetent officers might lead from time to time it sounds like a more controlled environment such as a private server is the place for you. We're not interested in a static place were the same (good as they might be) officers of the bigger companies gets voted in to lead each time. That is what company hosted servers are for, not public ones.

But time will tell - let's see how it goes.

- Trusty

I would greatly prefer a voting system for ranks above captain. Any chance thete will be that but with restrictions, i.e. you cant vote someone twice until 3 or so matches have passed?

[FakeMessiah27]

Perhaps not a voting system immediately at the start of a round, as that would cost a lot of time, but the option for a vote of no-confidence during the game.

It's still not a perfect solution of course, but it still keeps the possibility of people to just pick an officer slot without having to immediately deal with an election at the start of a round (plus the whole time wasting aspect I mentioned).

The voting threshold should be harsh though, to prevent one large company from constantly starting a vote of no-confidence until one of their officers gets a spot. I'm thinking something along the lines of at least 75% of a team.

Even large companies don't usually (outside of organised events anyway) make up 75% of a team. So they wouldn't be able to just vote their own guys in all the time. If multiple large groups are playing they would first need to agree to get rid of the current officer; it wouldn't be as simple as one company having one more man at the start of a round and thus winning the vote.

During organised events, the attending companies can band together to get random officers out of their position and get pre-arranged officers into the leading slots. I know it sounds harsh, but if a group of companies is trying to organise an event at a certain time and they can't get their own officers into leading positions, it will quickly become impossible to organise these kinds of events and they would quickly die out.

Outside of organised events, no one group or company will generally be big enough to be able to force a vote on their own, and the system can be used to get poorly performing officers removed. However, if at any point one company or group does make up 75% of a team, I think they very much should be able to get their officer to lead.

[A. P. Hill]

^^^^^THIS is why every skirmish / battle / etc., should be a two stage event.

First stage, give the opposing sides time to organize, then second stage, step onto the field of battle.