Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 70 of 70

Thread: Harsh words for players

  1. #61
    In fairness though I haven't seen this rule that I wrote myself being enforced in months.

  2. #62

    CSA Major

    Revan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    81
    It will be difficult to encourage people to play together. Currently in the alpha with help from an officer, people will listen to orders, and try to work as a unit. I'm curious to see how it plays out during the beta.

  3. #63
    Hi. I have not yet purchased the game. I plan to but if I bought every game in kickstarter /early access I was interested in I'd not be able to pay the mortgage

    The OP is a bit confusing to me. I can understand the concern with not all aspects of possible game play being explored in order to identify issues, I agree with that. The point capture mechanics or what ever mechanics are used to determine victory need to be fully challenged as well as any mechanics based around team play and buffs that may exist (again, haven't got it yet).

    The rest of the post appears to be a lamentation over young and or 'unqualified' people taking leadership roles. I don't really understand that part. Though I did see quite a bit in subsequent posts regarding concern over the future of the community. I can't recall rules about posting this stuff so I'll try to be vague with my reference; There's a certain DLC for another game that introduced a similar game style (different time period) and it was a success. That was 5 years ago. There are a number of factors that have led to the fall of the community. The game it was based on was already 2 years old and was really only a multiplayer mod for the game previous with slightly updated graphics. There was also a great number of mods for the base game which already had the same features and, in addition, came the mods of the DLC. This led to a greatly fractured community, each segment in its own niche. No doubt also that there came with each 'Regiment', many toxic leaders who couldn't get along with their own groups much less the others. Even then, as each fell, consumed by its own narcissism someone from among the ranks would pick up the banner and carry if forward. This led to a series of shifts and merges as groups struggled to boost their dwindling numbers or as real life removed the benefactors paying for server hosting. Even this though was not at the core of what went wrong.

    The number one failure of that community was the dev team. They generally retreated into their own forums and tried to pretend nobody was saying anything negative. They ignored long standing issues that impacted game play and for the most part moved on to their next project. The greatest crime was their neglect for their community. There really was no community management team to speak of, they allowed generally offensive behavior to take place on their official servers (race and sexual orientation were sacred cows but all other explicit language save posting porn links was tolerated) and they handed over control of their servers to a group of players. Think about that. Generally, if a person buys a game they are going to go to the official servers first. Private servers are where you will generally find mods and special rules, you'll get your first taste of a game from the official sources. Those player Admins modified and tweaked and introduced game maps that were appealing to them but more often than not were terrible for fun. Not only that but there was a great deal of abuse and harassment taking place on the part of server admins that really left a bad taste in people's mouths. That's not the sort of impression that you want people to have of your game or your company.

    Human nature is what it is. No amount of opining in the forums will get people to agree with each other or to change their approach to the game. What is essential though, is a strong community liaison that promotes a healthy atmosphere and community driven events that bring everyone together. Human nature is what it is and not one of us has any position of authority to speak definitively on these topics but those are my observations and opinions.

  4. #64

    USA Captain

    javelina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    44
    Great post anfiach. thanks.

  5. #65
    I agree it's the developers who set the framework for everything. You're always gonna have 'organizations' that do something and they are always, always going to have major issues and fall apart in almost all occasions. My point is that the game needs to provide what players want. You can't rely on the players to make it work. The organizations should fit into the gameplay not the other way around. Currently a good 90% of players are eagerly trying to make it work most of the time. Very few are challenging that in gameplay. Very few are trying to win. They're more concerned with role-playing. If players were more focused on winning then they would be doing infinitely more service to the developers in their development of the game instead of creating an entirely false picture of what gameplay is like. You aren't trying to win if I'm standing alone on a hill blasting away and any random guy who joins me hugs up against my left or right side 90% of the time for no reason whatsoever.

    Bad language doesn't make a bad community or server in any way at all. Fair, impartial, and anonymous admins performing a service (and not flexing their own e-nuts is) of ridding the servers of habitually toxic players is what will make good servers. More on that in another topic some other day.
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 10-01-2017 at 05:08 PM.

  6. #66
    Stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1
    It makes it real hard to want to follow a commander who may know the commands but use no real tactics. They throw the game away because they want to live out this wet dream of charging all the time. A prime example is I just followed some commander that four times ordered a charge down a narrow road that is fenced in. Needless to say it failed all four times. Yes I know there was charges during the time that did work but it is not the norm no matter what you learned from Hollywood. Fire and maneuver gentlemen. I'm sorry I just don't see the point in following someone who thinks the way to win is just push waves of 8 to 12 men at a well entrenched enemy. All they are doing is costing us manpower and giving the enemy target practice. Now on the other hand last night I followed a commander who was smart enough to detach skirmishers to work the enemies flank while using his main line at a distance to keep the enemy preoccupied. When the enemy started taking enough losses that they started to filter in one at a time and was disorganized then the charge was ordered and the enemy broke. Also on another note. If my unit is on the field I don't care if it is our Sgt. or Corporal that is leading us he will be my primary commander unless I am told by him to follow whoever's orders and I will ignore yours.

  7. #67

    CSA Captain

    McMuffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    43
    I do have to say, the lack of people using genuine tactics is now starting to be an issue. It's an issue for the reasons Stone and Poorlaggedman have stated but also, the game is starting to not be fun anymore. I don't care what you have if people don't have fun in your game they won't play and it will die. One event (I will leave it unnamed) I played, the tactics consisted of line up, shoot (most of the time we could BARELY see the enemy as they crouched behind fences), die, rinse and repeat. Come on, that's not fun at all. And I really do not care if you are bad at commanding, I don't expect the Union to have a few Ulysses' S. Grants and the CSA to have some Lee's, but if you bought the gamne and really know the civil war and want to roleplay, you know they had more tactics than that. Events are the number one way the devleopers will get the most feedback because the game is really pushed to its limits and every mechanic is used and tested over and over and over, in public matches that have like 10-20 people on a good day, nothing really happens and that's fine. I don't want people to take away, "Oh, he is just bitching over the fact people aren't expert commanders", no, I want to say that people should use more tactics of the era or even bend the rules a bit and modify some tactics to work a bit better. Don't let roleplaying and such make the game so boring and unfun from just dying over and over and over.
    wait, im not supposed to shoot my teammates?




  8. #68

    CSA Captain


    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by McMuffin View Post
    I do have to say, the lack of people using genuine tactics is now starting to be an issue. It's an issue for the reasons Stone and Poorlaggedman have stated but also, the game is starting to not be fun anymore. I don't care what you have if people don't have fun in your game they won't play and it will die. One event (I will leave it unnamed) I played, the tactics consisted of line up, shoot (most of the time we could BARELY see the enemy as they crouched behind fences), die, rinse and repeat. Come on, that's not fun at all. And I really do not care if you are bad at commanding, I don't expect the Union to have a few Ulysses' S. Grants and the CSA to have some Lee's, but if you bought the gamne and really know the civil war and want to roleplay, you know they had more tactics than that. Events are the number one way the devleopers will get the most feedback because the game is really pushed to its limits and every mechanic is used and tested over and over and over, in public matches that have like 10-20 people on a good day, nothing really happens and that's fine. I don't want people to take away, "Oh, he is just bitching over the fact people aren't expert commanders", no, I want to say that people should use more tactics of the era or even bend the rules a bit and modify some tactics to work a bit better. Don't let roleplaying and such make the game so boring and unfun from just dying over and over and over.
    You are correct but unfortunately the current limitations of the game as it is right now will likely see this happening for some time more. Tactics in the ACW, being rank-and-file in nature, are in essence orchestrated shooting and moving. The weapons have very limited personal firepower. Put the two together and you automatically come to the conclusion they did back then; you need to put a lot of them together! Currently the maximum is 32 versus 32 which is barely platoon versus platoon. This means if you want to have enough firepower to setup say, a base of fire you're left with very few people who can conduct a flanking maneuver.

    So until the player capacity is increased, it will remain very small scale. If people group up they'll be mostly in one place, and if they disperse they'll have little local firepower.

    Also being a "good commander" in the actual grit of the fight usually more comes down to picking the right moment to advance, fallback and your ability to manage your men into a line. Not about making superb tactical moves. Historically battle winning moves were most often dictated (as in they didn't want to do that) by the moment, the terrain or sheer coincidence (e.g. not intended but worked out great).

  9. #69

    CSA Captain

    McMuffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDewitt View Post
    .The weapons have very limited personal firepower. Put the two together and you automatically come to the conclusion they did back then; you need to put a lot of them together! Currently the maximum is 32 versus 32 which is barely platoon versus platoon. This means if you want to have enough firepower to setup say, a base of fire you're left with very few people who can conduct a flanking maneuver.
    True, but, my point is there are more things you can do that involve multiple rifles and work just fine with not great numbers that still utilise the conclusion they arrived at of, "More rifles=better chance of not being cucked"
    wait, im not supposed to shoot my teammates?




  10. #70
    Nobodies really trying to command to win right now. They're just role playing. If you're listening to them but getting slaughtered in the open against a preposterously hard-to-hit enemy behind a freaking rail fence then that's fine as long as most people are following. Right now my point is that too many people are listening to fools for the sake of making the game work, among other problems.

    Anyone who takes you on a prolonged frontal firing against an enemy behind a fence isn't trying very hard unless it's a feint. Anyone who leads you into close combat in woods in a close formation with nobody watching your flanks isn't trying. We don't need eight man tight formations, ever.

    I'll go one step further and say that anyone who get's their force wiped out isn't usually trying. It's not unusual in a game like this for your people working up front to get obliterated. And I don't care if it's musket-era or modern. It's far, far, far better to fall back and maintain a presence (whether offense or defense) on the nearby battlefield so that the threat is there that you can maintain a harassing effect until reinforced to be a serious threat again. There's plenty of spots on the battlefields that allow you to do this but it seldom happens. Usually it's all-or-nothing assaults that sometimes work and sometimes don't. When they work you're left with 2-3 guys alive to hold an objective and when they don't you lost all presence on that area of the field and your enemy retakes all ground lost with no resistance.

    A skillfull commander would realize when to rush in and when to hold back. It's just going through the motions is what I'm seeing. It wouldn't be so bad but people are following it religiously. There are alternatives. Start playing the game again and try them out.

Posting Permissions

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