Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 70

Thread: Harsh words for players

  1. #11

    USA Major

    Lightfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Houston, Tx
    Posts
    110
    My approach is that if its an organized event then the organizers deserve to have random players like me conform to what they are trying to do. If they are making lines and jump in on the end of them and do where they go, charge what they charge.

    These events being larger than most random ones are good place to test how officers work and practice formation tactics.

    They rarely represent good tactics although I have seen some use their formations well. Most times you have to remember that these battles aren't called "Skirmishes" for nothing. Skirmish tactics will serve the players better than formation tactics. Most of the time the formations are shot to pieces before they are prepared to do anything.

    But "skirmish" tactics are a type of organized tactics too. Those who join the game and then randomly run around doing what they want too rarely contribute to "winning" the battle. The best tactics I have seen are when the Leaders take the trouble to position the men in "open" or "skirmish" formation but with an eye toward making sure the men are supporting each other, flanks are covered, people are in the rear to react to charges.

    Right now it helps to keep people relatively close together for offensive charges since the in-game voice only has a short reach. This will change as more people enter the game with third party systems like TeamSpeak to coordinate actions over larger distances.

    It will be difficult once the game goes live for true Civil War tactics to work like they should. It will be very dependent on the size of the battlefield and the number of players logged into it. Formation tactics are easily undone if lone wolf players can slip behind lines and raise havoc. For those who want to do formation fighting it may require private or at least password battles where they can choose who plays and have those players conform to rules similar to what other games call "role playing".
    Lightfoot

  2. #12

    USA 1st Lieutenant

    Dman979's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    242
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightfoot View Post
    It will be difficult once the game goes live for true Civil War tactics to work like they should. It will be very dependent on the size of the battlefield and the number of players logged into it. Formation tactics are easily undone if lone wolf players can slip behind lines and raise havoc. For those who want to do formation fighting it may require private or at least password battles where they can choose who plays and have those players conform to rules similar to what other games call "role playing".

    Or, there could be game mechanics to discourage players from lone wolfing. "Morale" was mentioned a bit ago, and while it's not possible to simulate everything that goes into combat stress, there has been some discussion about how to encourage players to stick together.

    Pure formation battles will likely need a private server, but I think that it will be possible to have random players work together- even if they move as a blob- with the right methods of persuasion from the game.

    Best,
    Dman979

  3. #13

    USA General of the Army

    A. P. Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    In Maryland State Near to both Antietam and Gettysburg, Harper's Ferry et al.
    Posts
    2,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Dman979 View Post
    ... random players work together- even if they move as a blob- with the right methods of persuasion from the game. ...
    Nothing like a well organized or semi-organized blob.

  4. #14

    USA 1st Lieutenant

    Dman979's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    242
    Quote Originally Posted by A. P. Hill View Post
    Nothing like a well organized or semi-organized blob.
    Absolutely!

    I say blob, because I think it's the most efficient way to maneuver groups of people who have never met each other before and have no experience moving in a more complicated formation- I.E., randoms on a server. It's possible that random players have enough coordination to move in formation, but I doubt it.

    Best,
    Dman979

  5. #15

    CSA Captain

    McMuffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by Poorlaggedman View Post


    There is wayyy too much respect for unelected/unappointed officers.
    Too often I'm finding most players willing to follow any random person in an officer class as if they automatically know what they're talking about. A lot don't. I have guys asking me to stand in double ranks when there's 8 of us. Stop. it. Stop asking me to fire by volley for no reason. You're just assuming we even have a target or have any idea where the enemy are, when not everybody does. Doesn't anyone say anything about where the enemy is? They're too focused on drill and ceremony with public players.


    The smart leaders aren't going to spawn in a server with 10 players as an officer. They're going to carry a musket. Stop assuming the developers have appointed people over you and just play the darn game. Many officers aren't there to help the team. They're there to feel special. Winning happens by chance in those circumstances. Numerous times I spawn in and someone's like "alright guys load and fix your bayonets and line up, double ranks." They have no idea what they're talking about. And the enemy team captures the point before we can even get there. This has happened multiple times in the East Woods because the people trying to assert dominance don't even know the map they're on. They don't know what map is next in the rotation. They have no plan, no idea. They waste time and initiative. There is zero connection between the Officer Class and competence. Stop. Assuming. There. Is. Work together and if leaders emerge then they emerge. You should find them in the field, alive and keeping a sustained effort not in the spawn with you every single time you die.


    If you want to host an event and reenact, go for it. But is anyone here actually interested in testing the limits of the game so we can, you know, discover and discuss the problems? Why does that have to come later.
    This is the point that I think is the most important as of right now. There are many different ways to actually look at this, some people are playing the game not to win, but to just be part of that experience. They -want- people to take charge, regardless of validity by rank, election, or appointment. I would feel confident saying, most people who are not in a unit, and a good portion of people in units, don't really care about winning or dominating matches outside of events because they are just playing for the fun of it. When theres 24 people on (which we all know ends up being way smaller than it sounds in a match), and some random player takes officer and starts calling, "Company, double column on me and fix bayonets.", most people will just listen because they know the game is built around the system of an officer leading people into battle, not just for winning it with modern day squad tactics adapted to the Civil War. People just want someone to follow, and they are not concerned about winning because it's what they bought the game for. I have gone officer and lead a team before, and I know I am not an amazing leader, but I don't care cause it's not an event, we have no pressure to win, and I just want to play officer because the other team has rambos galore and someone needs to guard the line, or, there's NO organization whatsoever in the team. And personally, I think that having some organiziation to your team and losing is better than none at all and people just running around and shooting because at least with the first situation, you played it like the civil war (most of the 'officers' I see try to actually be historic), not to win, to try and be immersed as best as you can in a game of 20 people.

    My point is, I do not see the issue with anyone going officer who can speak english and knows the formations and vaguely knows the tactic style of the era with some changes. If they are terrible, most people will have fun, if they are amazing, almost all will have fun. I don't see why you are so irked over the fact that the people who bought the game to play the roles of the era, actually do that as a private, NCO, or officer. If you are really bothered by people experiencing the game from all the ways that the developers have allowed for, then just play it how you want using what the developers gave you.

    As for the last point though, about testing the game and how this delays it. Don't you think playing the game by civil war tactics and with all roles, regardless of skill, in many games is the best way to discover problems? They wouldn't have extended the line duration if people hadn't played the game the way they intended to figure out, "Oh hey, this is really annoying that it fades when usually only 3 people are on it.".

  6. #16

    CSA Captain

    McMuffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    109
    it's called the tactical blob

  7. #17
    McMuffin's point about the blob is good. It's what you can realistically expect. If hugging up to another player helps in some real way then players may do it. If a line formation is best then people will do it. Keep in mind, if you play shooters, that in itself is incredibly hard to achieve - getting players to move together. And there darn sure is absolutely nobody out there in a public server moving in a squad wedge or anything. What this game is trying to accomplish is really hard and we need to be its best critics.

    Quote Originally Posted by McMuffin View Post
    r the last point though, about testing the game and how this delays it. Don't you think playing the game by civil war tactics and with all roles, regardless of skill, in many games is the best way to discover problems? They wouldn't have extended the line duration if people hadn't played the game the way they intended to figure out, "Oh hey, this is really annoying that it fades when usually only 3 people are on it.".
    Later players will not feel the same. The quality will lower. The game should present civil war tactics as a benefit and a way to win. Right now, I believe that isn't even close to the case but people aren't challenging it as much as they should be.

    You can work together without blobbing up close.

  8. #18
    I very much like your idea of morale that is gained by how close you are to your allies.

  9. #19

    USA Captain

    Takerith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    42
    I don't get why people are just accepting that public servers will be chaotic and private events will be where there's actual organisation. Surely we're all committing to this project because we want a game where we can fight in an authentic setting, not one where we have to make the authenticity happen? There's a reason people here are paying a large amount of money for the Alpha rather than just buying Mount & Blade + NW and then playing the N&S mod: it's gotten stale because there isn't any flavour enough mechanics that encourage authentic play. This game is being built from the ground up, so the devs have none of the limitations that FSE had with NW. We should be expecting authentic play as the bare minimum for WoR, not just something that we have to set up special events for. After all, if people aren't playing authentically then what puts this game above Battlefield other than 15-second reloads?

    Also lol @ the guy who's complaining about negativity. We're Alpha testers, we're supposed to be criticising what we don't like. Sure, some people are going too far and just ranting incoherently, but PLM is making very long, thoughtful and concise posts about game design. He's elaborating on his statements, defending what he's saying and providing evidence to prove it. If we were all to just say that the game is great, then the devs might get complacent. We need to keep them on their toes .

  10. #20
    I honestly think Poorlaggedman is one of this forum's best poster. Every single one of his post that I came across has struck me as well thought out and well articulated not to mention critical to the future state of this extremely high potential game.

    Also, guys please chill with the crapping on people whenever someone criticize the game. I mean they are trolls and downers out there, but when someone offers a solid argument and a fair point like Poorlaggedman, we should learn to understand and improve the stated problem. Otherwise, we might end up down a dismal future with un-populated servers and a toxic community.

Posting Permissions

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