Fresh Idea for skirmishes

[Le_Fossoyeur]

I will surf on several posts (Saris, Red Leader, Bravescot) to build this little answer.
To me, RedLeader hit a very crucial point. There are in fact two kinds of people in WOR.

The “Hard”:
Reenactors with big historically expectation who want to see the game as a simulation. As a player, they will be very active. However, they represent a small percent of the community

The “Soft”
Casual people who are interested in civil war history. But defines themselves as gamers first. They will focus on the gameplay and the fun / entertainment. Most of the community.

I am sure the devs are trying to please to the two kinds. But frankly, I think they are more on the “Hard” side.

As example: me

I consider myself as a “soft”. I am in the regiment of Bravescot, and he brought an interesting point. Actually, US side is not funny anymore. The scheme is the same each game and we can easily see 3 phases:

Hope:
Officers try to build smart and beautiful tactics overcome the enemy, due to the strong advantage of the defenders that usually makes a flop.

Status quo:
We try to keep a fire line in front of the enemy and we wait with the hope to spot a weakness in the enemy system.

Desperation:
All charge…

Why the defenders have an advantage? Because, as Saris said, all is slow…
I mean, it is a Civil war game. That takes time to reload, to put a bayonet, etc… no issue with that.
But my god, I feel like a truck at any move. The reactivity of the gameplay kills (Literally) the attackers. In any attack situation, I have a disadvantage. I am not able to cancel an action stand up / crouch quickly; it takes me a considerably long time to aim, etc…

Easy for the other side when they only have to sit and wait…

The content of the game is incredible, it is beautiful, and it is accurate. Although, you are losing me, and maybe other because of the current gameplay.

This is probably not the answer to all but maybe a look on this point could be interesting.

[Maximus Decimus Meridius]

What do we want?

- We (3rd AL + Howitzers 1st. Co.) would like to see servers without a timer and just on tickets. Seems people rush to much and forget tactics. You have large enough maps to manoeuvre around on but it almost never happens its mostly mass vs mass without any consideration for tactical movement. Quoting from 1st Manassass "You have been turned!" You can divide the guys on the servers into 2 or 3 groups for some more tactical interesting (line / Skirmish / Combination of both) battles.

Especially in the last minutes you can often hear "we have no time left. let us charge!" and the mass charge begins.... it feels like "no step backwards" doctrin and a Gatling gun in the back of this people.....

- Bigger maps with multiple capture points

Agreed

- Whats on the agenda? What are you Devs working on? Which roadblocks are you hitting? Some maps are a few years old when you had the old engine(screenshots indieDB and the older reports) how much work is it converting them into the updated version of the Cry-engine? Like the last report you where working on the musicians how is that progress going?

Yeah thats pretty frustrating. If you dont have a roadmap thats ok but you may use a tool for organising your tasks like trello for example. Make it visible for us what are working on currently. Thats pretty interesting for us and generates a lot of hype. Don't underestimate this. It will hold up the interest of people in this game. Thats how such long time projects like star citizen can live. Every week I can watch a video which shows me what tasks they finished and what is the next step.

I know that I cant compare Campfire with Cloud Imperium Games because the finance and the numbers of developers is completely different but you would wonder what a good maintained list of task which are in progress can do.

[FakeMessiah27]

Just adding my two cents:

What about a neutral capture point? I get that on a lot of maps this may not be historically accurate as those maps are depicting specific parts of the overall battle in which one side was the attacker. However, from a pure gameplay point of view, a capture point in the middle of a map, that both sides have to march an equal distance to in order to capture, might shake things up a bit. Of course, the battle can't then be allowed to end as soon as one side takes the point, so instead you'd need a different ticket system. Whoever holds the point gains tickets, something along those lines.

As an alternative, perhaps a map without a capture point?

[Dutchconfederate]

Just adding my two cents:

What about a neutral capture point? I get that on a lot of maps this may not be historically accurate as those maps are depicting specific parts of the overall battle in which one side was the attacker. However, from a pure gameplay point of view, a capture point in the middle of a map, that both sides have to march an equal distance to in order to capture, might shake things up a bit. Of course, the battle can't then be allowed to end as soon as one side takes the point, so instead you'd need a different ticket system. Whoever holds the point gains tickets, something along those lines.

As an alternative, perhaps a map without a capture point?

A map without a capture point is interesting! that is what i meant with my post just try out new features to play battles.

[Numitor]

Just adding my two cents:

What about a neutral capture point? I get that on a lot of maps this may not be historically accurate as those maps are depicting specific parts of the overall battle in which one side was the attacker. However, from a pure gameplay point of view, a capture point in the middle of a map, that both sides have to march an equal distance to in order to capture, might shake things up a bit. Of course, the battle can't then be allowed to end as soon as one side takes the point, so instead you'd need a different ticket system. Whoever holds the point gains tickets, something along those lines.

As an alternative, perhaps a map without a capture point?

I definitely like the idea of no capture points. Somebody said it before but most maps have become rather predictable and I feel this would do nicely to break up the monotony a bit.

[Leifr]

Throwing my two pennies in here, I'm in agreement with much of the thread.
Without new ways to contest the point (artillery, flag-spawning, more caps per flag) it's all getting to be a little too tiresome.

Y'all just need some fresh stimulus before the whole thing falls apart.

[John Jones]

I posted this last month on another thread, seems to fit in better with this one!

"I do wonder how much the rush to the cap is a symptom of actually having a cap point in the first place. Having a point of contention obviously provides focus for the match and its pretty standard for games to have one. I can also understand having one as a focus for locations or features that were historically significant at Antietam. However, it seems to have become the be all and end all of the match to an unhealthy degree.

Reading between the lines of the preceding threads, and others, it seems to me that players are now straining for a bit more complexity than 'simple' cap based matches.

By removing the cap point and basing the results exclusively on ticket loss, both sides would be encouraged to bring their force to battle in an organised way and to maneuver more freely about the map. Terrain (and not always the most obvious types) would assume a much more significant role, as it does in real life, and commanders would be free to chose their own places to defend or attack.

All the buffs from formation should stay in place and the potential lack of focus in the match caused by the absence of a cap point would be countered by the flag bearer spawn system when implemented, and perhaps the ability of commanders to nominate their own 'mini' cap points simply as rally points, which have no effect on the game. I don't see that there would be any more Rambo'ing from such a system than than which currently exists.

Naturally, better organised sides would have an advantage and the risk is that players who take command positions without knowing or caring what they do may cause frustration and loss. However, both those circumstances are historically accurate! "

[TrustyJam]

I posted this last month on another thread, seems to fit in better with this one!

"I do wonder how much the rush to the cap is a symptom of actually having a cap point in the first place. Having a point of contention obviously provides focus for the match and its pretty standard for games to have one. I can also understand having one as a focus for locations or features that were historically significant at Antietam. However, it seems to have become the be all and end all of the match to an unhealthy degree.

Reading between the lines of the preceding threads, and others, it seems to me that players are now straining for a bit more complexity than 'simple' cap based matches.

By removing the cap point and basing the results exclusively on ticket loss, both sides would be encouraged to bring their force to battle in an organised way and to maneuver more freely about the map. Terrain (and not always the most obvious types) would assume a much more significant role, as it does in real life, and commanders would be free to chose their own places to defend or attack.

All the buffs from formation should stay in place and the potential lack of focus in the match caused by the absence of a cap point would be countered by the flag bearer spawn system when implemented, and perhaps the ability of commanders to nominate their own 'mini' cap points simply as rally points, which have no effect on the game. I don't see that there would be any more Rambo'ing from such a system than than which currently exists.

Naturally, better organised sides would have an advantage and the risk is that players who take command positions without knowing or caring what they do may cause frustration and loss. However, both those circumstances are historically accurate! "

Thanks for all if your continued input, please keep it coming.

I don’t see how removing cap areas will do anything overly good for the game. It essentially means skirmishes are now no more than a team deathmatch. No attacker and no defender. This will result in very uneven rounds in terms of enjoyment. Sometimes a team may choose to sit and camp in a corner of the map for the entirety of the round. Other times it will be all over the place. By removing capture areas you’re removing the one thing that enforce a somewhat consistent degree of action, team objective as well as historical authenticity (each map will likely evolve into fighting over the strongest position found there (be that a cluster of trees, some rocks, etc.) this will mean that it is unlikely most, if any at all of the maps will have fighting in the general area of where it took place.

In regards to the point having become the sole thing the teams are focusing on - I disagree. A bad team might only focus on the point. Going the straight way towards it every time, ignoring the movements of the enemy team. A good team will shift in relation to the enemy team and the enemy team will them shift in relation to their enemy, etc, etc. This causes the capture point of being not so much the target but the center of the “Dance of shifting moves” of the two teams. The challenge lies in shifting enough to be combat effective but still in close enough relation to the cap point in order to pose a threat/safety to it. In short, the capture point provide the two teams with a rotation point.

- Trusty

[FakeMessiah27]

A game mode without a capture point would indeed be a Team Deathmatch, and I don't think that's such a bad thing. Some teams might try to camp somewhere sure, but right now the capture point forces every team, on every map, to camp every time. Defenders can't decide to set up shop somewhere else for a change because they'll lose the capture point. The only difference is that in a TDM, the players get to decide what to fight over instead of the game telling them where to camp.

[Dutchconfederate]

Thanks for all if your continued input, please keep it coming.

I don’t see how removing cap areas will do anything overly good for the game. It essentially means skirmishes are now no more than a team deathmatch. No attacker and no defender. This will result in very uneven rounds in terms of enjoyment. Sometimes a team may choose to sit and camp in a corner of the map for the entirety of the round. Other times it will be all over the place. By removing capture areas you’re removing the one thing that enforce a somewhat consistent degree of action, team objective as well as historical authenticity (each map will likely evolve into fighting over the strongest position found there (be that a cluster of trees, some rocks, etc.) this will mean that it is unlikely most, if any at all of the maps will have fighting in the general area of where it took place.

In regards to the point having become the sole thing the teams are focusing on - I disagree. A bad team might only focus on the point. Going the straight way towards it every time, ignoring the movements of the enemy team. A good team will shift in relation to the enemy team and the enemy team will them shift in relation to their enemy, etc, etc. This causes the capture point of being not so much the target but the center of the “Dance of shifting moves” of the two teams. The challenge lies in shifting enough to be combat effective but still in close enough relation to the cap point in order to pose a threat/safety to it. In short, the capture point provide the two teams with a rotation point.

- Trusty

This is the period to experiment with the game-play options.
Maybe you don't see it working but maybe it will turn out differently then you expect or imagine.

Removing the point or removing the clock that could be interesting to test out together as a community. Adding capture points has been mentioned that could also result in some nice game play since each side has to divide the forces to capture or defend different points.