been awhile since i studied the civil war regarding melee deaths

[TheRegulator]

You do not need to repeat the realism-hate clishe, it is invalid argument. Realism can be fun (if you disagree - go play CoD ).
I just do not like the fact, that melee is so powerful in this game right now - it is not only unrealistic, it is not fun neither. I expect firefights with muzzle-loaders from this game, not worse Age of Chivlary. Maybe you disagree and you like the bayonet dohfights, I do not...

I dont play COD nor i am up to buy or play the new one . . . Ive been playing FPS ever since the first PC was invented (Commandore C64) You just judge ... Instead of thinking. And then you use some old kliches.

Using the Word "Realistic" in content of a PC-game is absurd . . . This will never be the Antietam as it was. Its a game and no matter how much you try to force people into a "Historical" play style, invented to fit your misunderstood perception of the 18 Century warfare, it wont Work.

There are no realismen in PC games. Get used to it. There might be in the future, when everything becomes viritual reality, when you smell the death, feel the pain and come close to a near death experince. When you feel the pain of being hit . . . Or stabbed. But that is the future.

Make the game good and playable in a realistic way, this means being able to react and counter react realistic, as a human.

I like the steel . . . Its more personal. And if you belive it was not used, fine... But your so wrong. There is so many stories written down by suvivers, about close combat in the civil war, that just inside these stories are a lot more than 4 people dying from the bayonet. A more common cause of death, is however being beaten to death by using the riffle as a Club . . . And a lot of Guys had a Knife in thier boots as a last resort. People got choked with the bare hands . . . Close combat is a very filthy and dirty buisness, you fight for your life and that with any means posible.

As you cant make a realistic close combat with all these thing posible in the game, you have the bayonet charge, to repensent it all in one .... The steel.

I said it before, but ill say it Again . . . I am sure the Dev's will come up with something we all can be happy about, based on thier comment's is there no reason why it shut not be a good game.

[A. P. Hill]

@A.P.Hill
I do not believe, that more players will solve the issue. I even do not believe there will be heavily populated servers in future or for long time. Now, we have almost permanently empty servers. I will be happy to see one or two 24+ player populated servers after the full reales peak fade off. This game si very specific to attract wide audience for long time...

Allow me to make a personal observation then.

I think you're wasting your time being here if this is trule how your see the future of this endeavor. You should probably get out before the efforts of these developers and community come crashing down in failure.

I came here with high and lofty expectations, and I still hold those expectations. I hold no negativity towards the developers or the community.

There are other games out there in the MMORPG world whose servers host thousands of players in their virtual worlds, there is no reason to belive the developers here cannot achieve the same thing. Therefore I still hold that the day is coming when this project becomes epic.

Sadly, I suspect with your predisposition to foresee failure for this, you may not be here to experience the glory!

[Bivoj]

Luckily, we're not as pessimistic in regards to the future of the game as it would seem you are (or we would have stopped working on it ages ago).

It is one of the primary reasons why we're in no rush to release on early access. You only get one shot at making a decent first impression there. Fail that and any game is likely to stay in "early access limbo" forever.

Don't get me wrong - I am not pessimistic at all! On the other hand - I hope your game will be functional and playable also with moderate numbers of players on servers and not only with tens or even hundreds of players on each server. I do not believe such specific game will attract more players than Verdun, Red Orchestra or Rising Storm - but if you get similar number of players as these games, I will consider it successful and I am sure I will enjoy it. I am optimistic in that.

The reason for my response to A.P.Hill was: the mantra "hundreds of players will fix flaws in gameplay" is wrong and may lead to failure.

@A.P.Hill - Thank you for your kind words, your sarcasm is very entertaining Anyway, I disagree with your advice and I will continue to follow this game's progress and hopefully enjoy the game when more players jump in Believe me, I am not wasting my time and there is no need you should care how I spend my time. Anyway, being sarcastic against others is not the best way to make the community bigger...

[Stalin]

There are other games out there in the MMORPG world whose servers host thousands of players in their virtual worlds, there is no reason to belive the developers here cannot achieve the same thing. Therefore I still hold that the day is coming when this project becomes epic.

Just to point out, CryEngine, Although beautiful, is not really desgined for the MMO scale of multiplayer it would take massive optimisation of the Engine, server and game itself. People's personal hardware would also be massively stretched by having so many players in one instance(hence why most MMOs spread their players throughout many instances). Realistically the max players will be in the hundreds, which is plenty enough, and I would put my bets on anywhere between 200-400 players. With the graphics and the intricate detail that Campfire Games want to create it seems that the engine will become too unstable with too many people with server hardware at its current quality(Affordable server hardware). That being said I would love to be proven wrong and the devs can bring more players into a server without lag being too much of an issue.

[Max Krause]

Just to point out, CryEngine, Although beautiful, is not really desgined for the MMO scale of multiplayer it would take massive optimisation of the Engine, server and game itself. People's personal hardware would also be massively stretched by having so many players in one instance(hence why most MMOs spread their players throughout many instances). Realistically the max players will be in the hundreds, which is plenty enough, and I would put my bets on anywhere between 200-400 players. With the graphics and the intricate detail that Campfire Games want to create it seems that the engine will become too unstable with too many people with server hardware at its current quality(Affordable server hardware). That being said I would love to be proven wrong and the devs can bring more players into a server without lag being too much of an issue.

I won't worry about that so much. The future will bring what the future will bring. I think in one or two years, the engine will get better if Cry Engine works on it and I think they will when they see the potentional of this game. So I wouldn't worry about that so much. Maybe it will be possible, maybe not nobody knows. Let the future come and stay positiv.

Greetings from Germany.

[Bivoj]

Using the Word "Realistic" in content of a PC-game is absurd (...) There are no realismen in PC games. Get used to it.

Believe me, I am used to this kind of cry more than you think. I have been experiencing realism-haters like you since the old Day of Defeat mod. Your pseudo-arguments can be copy-pasted into any historical game discussion against any idea or suggestion and I saw very similar statements many many times before. It is funny, that many such hated "realistic" ideas were successfully transferred into great game features

Anyway, you should get used to see in this (or any other game) forum the word "realistic", because it will be used heavily. "Realism" is taken into account and being discussed. Just look around - find for example several threads regarding revolver reloads, which are flooded by "realism" based discussion and they end by "realism" based decision of devs

I like the steel . . . Its more personal.

Maybe you like it - your opinion, but it is not realistic - sorry. And I do not like the melee at all (also just an opinion, I know) - at least the current implementation (I hope it will be better in future updates).
Also, the devs announced, that melee will serve as secondary gameplay element. Firefights have been announced as the primary instrument of WoR and I hope devs sustain the opinion and I also hope they will tweak melee somehow to discourage players from using it too often, while encouraging the use of firepower.

your so wrong. There is so many stories written down by suvivers, about close combat in the civil war, that just inside these stories are a lot more than 4 people dying from the bayonet. A more common cause of death, is however being beaten to death by using the riffle as a Club . . . And a lot of Guys had a Knife in thier boots as a last resort. People got choked with the bare hands

That is the most interesting part: do you have some trusted source to back your statement? I must admit, that my knowledge of ACW is limited (my main focus in history is European warfare in the age of blackpowder), so I am eager to learn something new!
Anyway, when bayonet is not that efficient and improvised-club, knife or bare hands caused more effect, the melee should be changed accordingly to be more realistic.

[TheRegulator]

Believe me, I am used to this kind of cry more than you think. I have been experiencing realism-haters like you since the old Day of Defeat mod. Your pseudo-arguments can be copy-pasted into any historical game discussion against any idea or suggestion and I saw very similar statements many many times before. It is funny, that many such hated "realistic" ideas were successfully transferred into great game features

Anyway, you should get used to see in this (or any other game) forum the word "realistic", because it will be used heavily. "Realism" is taken into account and being discussed. Just look around - find for example several threads regarding revolver reloads, which are flooded by "realism" based discussion and they end by "realism" based decision of devs



Maybe you like it - your opinion, but it is not realistic - sorry. And I do not like the melee at all (also just an opinion, I know) - at least the current implementation (I hope it will be better in future updates).
Also, the devs announced, that melee will serve as secondary gameplay element. Firefights have been announced as the primary instrument of WoR and I hope devs sustain the opinion and I also hope they will tweak melee somehow to discourage players from using it too often, while encouraging the use of firepower.



That is the most interesting part: do you have some trusted source to back your statement? I must admit, that my knowledge of ACW is limited (my main focus in history is European warfare in the age of blackpowder), so I am eager to learn something new!
Anyway, when bayonet is not that efficient and improvised-club, knife or bare hands caused more effect, the melee should be changed accordingly to be more realistic.

I made my comments . . . Your free to belive what you want.
Its gonna be one hell of a game, and you risk being charged and stabbed. For sure

[Poorlaggedman]

Hey, check out my thread. I draw some pictures on a few later pages specifically dealing with meelee (on page 3) and how individual morale would counter it realistically. Afterall... if anyone sprinted alone with his bayonet into enemy ranks (from any angle) we'd probably have heard about it in the books. http://www.warofrightsforum.com/show...-to-harness-it

failedcharge.jpg


"Rambos" are not a problem that is going to go away just because players suddenly don't respawn or play counts go up. As long as individual players have the ability to 'charge' alone or in a disorganized cluster****, you empower single players to do a lot of disrupting and damage. You also force people to cancel their reloads. If I were running a team within 100 yards of an enemy and they fired a volley then I'd have some guys charging in order to nullify their firepower. You think players are going to stand in a line and role play because of not respawning? I love realism but that isn't necessarily what I'm going to do on my own free will, especially not without a reason or with incompetent leadership. Too many folks are imagining role play as gameplay. You've got a tsunami of disappointment coming your way. You guys aren't realizing that you owe this game a competitive mindset. Stop trying to form 10 guys into double ranks and start playing competitive with tactics that work so that it can be adjusted. The trolls you are seeing flood the gameplay... the lone wolves... This is only the beginning. Mark my words. You can warn/ban as many as you want, they'll keep coming as the price lowers. When players join a game and have one thing in mind (Civil War combat) and they find another (non-competitive role-playing/reenacting), some of them are going to find other ways to entertain themselves. I just came from an ultra realism community that was ravaged by trolls as the game became free and Youtubers starting showing off what you could do in the game. People assumed they would not be attracted to a realism game and yet this is the juiciest target out there and with 3D voice.

You gota be kiddn . . . . No mele. Seriously . . . . . It will ruin the game completly.

I happen to agree with this statement as meelee is. Fortunately I suspect the developers will do something to counter it, which is better than nothing.


The bayonet was seldom was actually used to thrust it into someone's body. If you think otherwise, you're living in a fantasy. One historian who I trust put the estimate on bayonet deaths in the civil war at 1000. As someone said the use of it was often exaggerated. You may assume that the 20th Maine, in a famous bayonet charge, bayoneted some rebs. Is it known that one single reb was bayoneted? It's difficult for some to believe why anyone wouldn't but it just was not a weapon that people liked to use. When people were 'bayoneted' it was often in an extremity or exaggerated prodding altogether. Hollywood does no service to Civil War combat in this manner. Look at Lincoln's ridiculous opening combat scene that never happened in real life. One guy get's stabbed by 3 bayonets at once and in real life the incident they are talking about had no meelee combat. The bayonet was a weapon of fear. If you want to simulate it... you have to have fear. Just saying.... my concept of individual morale would help solve a lot of these problems.

Right now in early alpha access, and with limited numbers allowed on severs, and to some degree player's lack of mortality fear, there will be an inordinate amount of ahistorical melee. As player numbers increase and the initial shine of meeting the enemy eyeball to eyeball wears off I think the amount of melee may well subside.

Player behavior is not going to change much with a larger number of players. If anything it will get worse. When players are even following officers, the officers will overuse meelee attacks anyhow. They already do. It doesn't help that they are doing basically nothing when at range. In all shooters I've played involving realism, everybody always is itching to close in whether it's to their advantage or not. It's far worse when you (and your enemy) have a disorienting, complex reload process and the bayonet is a lot faster and surer way to get the job done.

I wouldn't want the "Officer" in the game to tightly linked to those so that other players can't ever play officers unless they start their own Companies and declare themselves Leader for life.

I don't want that done either. As someone who plans on hosting a server I don't give a rip about anyone's status in any company for the sake of running events.

[Bivoj]

I almost fully agree with Poorlaggedman, especially:
"The bayonet was a weapon of fear. If you want to simulate it... you have to have fear."
Without individual soldier morale implemented, the game will be very far from realistic.

What I do not agree is calling the "Ramboing" style of play "trolling". All these "Ramboes" are not trolls, they are playing the game as they like and competitively, without abusing anyone or cheating. It is not their fault, that unrealistic playstyle is far more efficient in the current game mechanics. When you want to avoid Ramboing, you have to implement some kind of ingame "punishment" for unrealistic playstyle. Like individual player morale...

TKers and cheaters are Trolls, not competitive players.

For those, who dislike the concept of individual player morale (especially for realism-haters) - it has been very nicely implemented in cartoonish fantasy game called Darkest Dungeon. When your avatar accumulates enough stress, after several flaws collected in the process he/she dies. It is not that innovative to implement fear/morale/stress in game, nor "too realistic".

[TheRegulator]

Hey, check out my thread. I draw some pictures on a few later pages specifically dealing with meelee (on page 3) and how individual morale would counter it realistically. Afterall... if anyone sprinted alone with his bayonet into enemy ranks (from any angle) we'd probably have heard about it in the books. http://www.warofrightsforum.com/show...-to-harness-it

failedcharge.jpg


"Rambos" are not a problem that is going to go away just because players suddenly don't respawn or play counts go up. As long as individual players have the ability to 'charge' alone or in a disorganized cluster****, you empower single players to do a lot of disrupting and damage. You also force people to cancel their reloads. If I were running a team within 100 yards of an enemy and they fired a volley then I'd have some guys charging in order to nullify their firepower. You think players are going to stand in a line and role play because of not respawning? I love realism but that isn't necessarily what I'm going to do on my own free will, especially not without a reason or with incompetent leadership. Too many folks are imagining role play as gameplay. You've got a tsunami of disappointment coming your way. You guys aren't realizing that you owe this game a competitive mindset. Stop trying to form 10 guys into double ranks and start playing competitive with tactics that work so that it can be adjusted. The trolls you are seeing flood the gameplay... the lone wolves... This is only the beginning. Mark my words. You can warn/ban as many as you want, they'll keep coming as the price lowers. When players join a game and have one thing in mind (Civil War combat) and they find another (non-competitive role-playing/reenacting), some of them are going to find other ways to entertain themselves. I just came from an ultra realism community that was ravaged by trolls as the game became free and Youtubers starting showing off what you could do in the game. People assumed they would not be attracted to a realism game and yet this is the juiciest target out there and with 3D voice.



I happen to agree with this statement as meelee is. Fortunately I suspect the developers will do something to counter it, which is better than nothing.


The bayonet was seldom was actually used to thrust it into someone's body. If you think otherwise, you're living in a fantasy. One historian who I trust put the estimate on bayonet deaths in the civil war at 1000. As someone said the use of it was often exaggerated. You may assume that the 20th Maine, in a famous bayonet charge, bayoneted some rebs. Is it known that one single reb was bayoneted? It's difficult for some to believe why anyone wouldn't but it just was not a weapon that people liked to use. When people were 'bayoneted' it was often in an extremity or exaggerated prodding altogether. Hollywood does no service to Civil War combat in this manner. Look at Lincoln's ridiculous opening combat scene that never happened in real life. One guy get's stabbed by 3 bayonets at once and in real life the incident they are talking about had no meelee combat. The bayonet was a weapon of fear. If you want to simulate it... you have to have fear. Just saying.... my concept of individual morale would help solve a lot of these problems.


Player behavior is not going to change much with a larger number of players. If anything it will get worse. When players are even following officers, the officers will overuse meelee attacks anyhow. They already do. It doesn't help that they are doing basically nothing when at range. In all shooters I've played involving realism, everybody always is itching to close in whether it's to their advantage or not. It's far worse when you (and your enemy) have a disorienting, complex reload process and the bayonet is a lot faster and surer way to get the job done.



I don't want that done either. As someone who plans on hosting a server I don't give a rip about anyone's status in any company for the sake of running events.

I do not base my "Fantasy" about bayonets on Hollywood movies... Its based on many years of studies in the Danish/Preussian war of 1864. Same type of warfare and tactics.
Also i stated that the bayonet is to repensent all types of killing inside mele, that are not posible to put in the game. Stop pretending that melele was not used . . . Its absurd.