Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Ideas for Respawning

  1. #1

    USA Captain

    Takerith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    45

    Ideas for Respawning

    From what I know, the devs already have an idea for respawn functions. I think they plan to have it centered around flags, where people are able to respawn on flagbearers. However, one concern of mine about this game is that the gameplay will be too much like Mount and Blade: Napoleonic Wars, where both sides charge each other suicidally in order to keep the length of rounds short. In NW, there is no concept of taking ground and tactically retreating (except arty pits) which leads to unrealistic and cheesey gameplay. Therefore, I would like to see some way for the game to incentivise proper troop movements after initial combat.

    My system takes inspiration from Verdun and any game that features control points. Simply put, a company can be ordered to attack a position, and only when the position has been taken may respawns be allowed for that company. Similarly, if a regiment is performing poorly and taking heavy casualties they can be ordered to retreat further into their own part of the map, giving up territory in exchange for reinforcements. Of course, this system can't be fully realised until other factors have been decided. For example, how much authority will high-ranking players have over the companies on their team? Until we know more this idea can't be fully developed.

    Another way to do this is to punish taking casualties without making the game unfun for those unlucky enough to die early. For example, have constant respawns on the flag (or however the system will work), but increase the spawn timer for everyone the more people die. As well as frustrating the players slightly, it provides a tactical disadvantage to companies who lose too many men too quickly. This can incentivise a tactical retreat in order to bring the debuff back down to a normal level and return to the fight when ready.

    These are just ideas, but in my opinion they have merit and can be developed into valuable gameplay mechanics. If anyone has any thoughts I would be glad to discuss this further.

  2. #2

    USA Brigadier General

    michaelsmithern's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Statesville, North Carolina
    Posts
    863
    I like some parts, others not so much. For instance, when you take too many casualties your penalized, well I understand what your saying, but sometimes you're just unlucky or an in a position where little casualties are impossible, such as with burnside bridge as my example. You'll have Union troops charging a small narrow passage, while confederates hold a height advantage and maybe better cover( I say maybe as it would be wise for the Union to use the stone sidings of the bridge as cover) this would frustrate the Union players as they wouldn't have any say in the amount of casualties they would take, or even in the Cornfield(and I know there are plenty of cornfields, but I'm talking about THE Cornfield) when you can't see that far in front of yourself, and blammo half your line is wasted from god knows where, essentially the way you have it, it would help make the game more tactical, but in other cases it's aggravating and annoying when you can't do anything to stop it.

    On top of this, we shouldn't compare this game to Mount and Blade. you wouldn't compare Mount and blade naval battles to Blackwake, no need to do it here, there are similarities, but completely different gameplay and mechanics being used.

  3. #3

    USA Captain

    Takerith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    45
    I like some parts, others not so much. For instance, when you take too many casualties your penalized, well I understand what your saying, but sometimes you're just unlucky or an in a position where little casualties are impossible, such as with burnside bridge as my example. You'll have Union troops charging a small narrow passage, while confederates hold a height advantage and maybe better cover( I say maybe as it would be wise for the Union to use the stone sidings of the bridge as cover) this would frustrate the Union players as they wouldn't have any say in the amount of casualties they would take, or even in the Cornfield(and I know there are plenty of cornfields, but I'm talking about THE Cornfield) when you can't see that far in front of yourself, and blammo half your line is wasted from god knows where, essentially the way you have it, it would help make the game more tactical, but in other cases it's aggravating and annoying when you can't do anything to stop it.
    The whole point is that in order to avoid frustrating situations, the company would retreat and give ground. After all, why charge in to a well-fortified position with no real plan and expect not to be penalised? Perhaps this wouldn't work in skirmishes, where the maps are too small to make the idea of tactically retreating viable, but the system doesn't have to apply to the whole game.

    On top of this, we shouldn't compare this game to Mount and Blade. you wouldn't compare Mount and blade naval battles to Blackwake, no need to do it here, there are similarities, but completely different gameplay and mechanics being used.
    I knew someone would say this. It's naive to think that we can't compare War of Rights to M&B:NW. I don't know of any other game similar to these, they're simply the only Line Battle simulators out there, so of course we can compare them. Besides, many people that will play this game will be coming from NW, and many leaders of Companies will have had experience in M&B, so this suggestion is to try and get those people to break the NW style of play.

  4. #4

    USA Captain

    Takerith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by KernelPopcorn View Post
    I'm pretty sure that there is already a ticket system planned, so each side will only get a set number of respawns. I imagine that that will incentivize retreat.
    I'm sure that if this game turns into a NW-style onslaught something will be done in the testing phase to remedy it. Those are some good ideas, though!
    TBH I don't see why a simple ticket system would incentivise retreat. Plenty of games (such as Battlefield) have ticket systems but players don't give a damn about dying there. Anyway, in my opinion a ticket system would be too much like NW's system, but with more waves of men. It wouldn't change the tactics of each unit.

  5. #5

    USA 1st Lieutenant

    Dman979's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    201/200
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by Takerith View Post
    The whole point is that in order to avoid frustrating situations, the company would retreat and give ground. After all, why charge in to a well-fortified position with no real plan and expect not to be penalised? Perhaps this wouldn't work in skirmishes, where the maps are too small to make the idea of tactically retreating viable, but the system doesn't have to apply to the whole game.
    Well, let me give you an example of where frontally attacking a well-fortified position is a good idea.

    If I'm coordinating with another company, and they're trying to flank, I have to hold the enemy in place. If I don't they can refuse their line, and meet both threats at once. I'm going to take casualties, and probably fairly heavy ones, too, but the combined efforts of both companies end up carrying the point.
    Should my company be penalized for sticking to the plan?
    If we run, the enemy wins. Is it worth it for shorter respawns?

    Best,
    Dman979

  6. #6

    USA Brigadier General

    michaelsmithern's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Statesville, North Carolina
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by Takerith View Post
    The whole point is that in order to avoid frustrating situations, the company would retreat and give ground. After all, why charge into a well-fortified position with no real plan and expect not to be penalized? Perhaps this wouldn't work in skirmishes, where the maps are too small to make the idea of tactically retreating viable, but the system doesn't have to apply to the whole game.

    but that doesn't mute the point that for the Union has to take burnside bridge to advance, and they can't pull back. there it simply takes the bridge or you lose, there are no if and or buts about it. you can't retreat, and you'd only fall back upon losing so many men that taking the bridgehead is literally impossible. on top of this if you are dealing with the unfortunate circumstance at Burnside bridge, which is designed for you to take some heavy casualties, penalizing one team for doing what needs to be done is ridiculous. The ticket system as is should suffice until a better more efficient way can be conceived.

    Basically don't penalize players because they can't take a point that is intended to be hard to take, hell I'd think the bloody lane is another good example to use for my argument, explain what the Attacking team(probs Union) should do? retreat, why they have nothing to retreat to, they are attacking a fortified position, they'd have to press the assault to win, but they won't be able to put stress on the Confederates because they have no forces anymore due to some idiotic respawn timer that penalizes them for attempting to take a point that is near god damn impossible to take.

    there wouldn't be much planning to it either, i mean what are you gonna tell you troops, "alright guys we got a sunken road to take, it's heavily defended, so the moment you lose one soldier retreat back here and we'll re-assault the position until we take one more loss, don't wanna get that there respawn penalty for trying to assault the point"

  7. #7

    USA Captain

    Dingle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelsmithern View Post
    but that doesn't mute the point that for the Union has to take burnside bridge to advance, and they can't pull back. there it simply takes the bridge or you lose, there are no if and or buts about it. you can't retreat, and you'd only fall back upon losing so many men that taking the bridgehead is literally impossible. on top of this if you are dealing with the unfortunate circumstance at Burnside bridge, which is designed for you to take some heavy casualties, penalizing one team for doing what needs to be done is ridiculous. The ticket system as is should suffice until a better more efficient way can be conceived.

    Basically don't penalize players because they can't take a point that is intended to be hard to take, hell I'd think the bloody lane is another good example to use for my argument, explain what the Attacking team(probs Union) should do? retreat, why they have nothing to retreat to, they are attacking a fortified position, they'd have to press the assault to win, but they won't be able to put stress on the Confederates because they have no forces anymore due to some idiotic respawn timer that penalizes them for attempting to take a point that is near god damn impossible to take.

    there wouldn't be much planning to it either, i mean what are you gonna tell you troops, "alright guys we got a sunken road to take, it's heavily defended, so the moment you lose one soldier retreat back here and we'll re-assault the position until we take one more loss, don't wanna get that there respawn penalty for trying to assault the point"
    People would still opt to lose a lot of men in certain situations, regardless of the penalties, if it is really so important. Penalties would simply encourage companies not to take needless casualties. If a situation calls for such a push, it could still be accomplished - it would just be more costly and difficult due to the penalties.

    The issue is that the game could really do with mechanics that discourage blatant yolocharge-style gameplay. Mount and Blade: NW suffers from such gameplay because there is literally no reason not to have both sides just whittle each other down for a bit with shooting, and then all charge for memes. Obviously, any mechanic can be frustrating at times. Saying that people would immediately retreat after taking "one loss", while obviously hyperbole, is a pretty bad representation of a system that penalizes companies for taking too many casualties. Companies will do what needs to be done to accomplish their assigned objectives, but there just needs to be something in place to prevent NW style combat. #neveragain

  8. #8
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,133
    Thanks for the suggestions.

    We don't design our game based on what works or what doesn't in NW. We design it based on our vision. There will be plenty of reasons not to die besides losing a ticket. The respawn system is not an instant-like one such as used in Battlefield for instance. We instead use base spawn waves which ensures a large percentage of the regiment is spawned at the same time and thus have an easier time of reorganizing.

    In short: if you rush and die without the rest of your regiment you could be waiting several minutes to respawn.

    - Trusty

  9. #9

    USA General of the Army

    Bravescot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Perthshire, Scotland
    Posts
    2,626
    Still better than Arma perms death xD

  10. #10

    USA Captain

    Dingle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post
    Thanks for the suggestions.

    We don't design our game based on what works or what doesn't in NW. We design it based on our vision. There will be plenty of reasons not to die besides losing a ticket. The respawn system is not an instant-like one such as used in Battlefield for instance. We instead use base spawn waves which ensures a large percentage of the regiment is spawned at the same time and thus have an easier time of reorganizing.

    In short: if you rush and die without the rest of your regiment you could be waiting several minutes to respawn.

    - Trusty
    I trust you guys to come up with a system that works and is in line with your vision for the game. We only mention NW as an example of a game that clearly lacks enough mechanics to encourage tactical play. The main point that was being raised in the thread is really that built in mechanics encouraging realistic battle-scale play are desirable. NW just happens to be a game without any.

    I'm sure that a system is already planned, but it's fun to scream at a wall sometimes

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •