End of match report

[A. P. Hill]

I am, as several have mentioned, against personal kill counts. Even if it is displayed privately to the player after the round.

I support the team effort, as intended.

What I fear will happen if individuals are allowed to see their kills, is personality wars will rise on the forums and in steam accounts where players will make public that which was intended to be private. Human nature will not allow the provision of knowledge of certain things without someone thinking they're better than someone else and they need the "headiness" (adrenalin rush,) of letting other players know they think they're better than others.

With the intent of company scores, it allows the team spirit to overreach the individual which, yes, there will be some of the above mentioned foolishness, but it can't be narrowed down to one individual. Units will have to train better, and drill more to improve their standings among the other units. That by itself can be way more healthy for the community at large, than the individual pissing matches that could arise by informing individual players of their kill count.

No. End game information should never include an individual's count.

That said, players can keep their own score if they like, many times I find myself taking deliberate aim at a group or an individual and as the smoke clears, that individual is down, or the group appears smaller by one, then I know my shot made its target. That's all I need.

Even as it is as such, I still see in the chat box, players shouting their imagined or real kills as if it was a thing to boast about.

The intent of the developers of this game from the beginning has always been about the body of players not individuals. The developers need to stay true to that.

[Dman979]

Kill counts for anything smaller than the team are a no go for me. Ultimately, it's the team that matters, not the individual regiments, companies, or men.

Best,
Dman979

[Takerith]

People are acting like having individual kill counts will literally transform this game into Call of Duty: Antietam. It won't. The developers have made numerous design decisions (and have committed themselves to many more in the future) that will prevent this game from ever being open to a market outside of a specific, niche group. The only question is how niche the group is going to be.

The movement is clunky and rigid, which discourages free movement and forces most players into formations. The models' animations and poses are equally rigid to preserve an image of disciplined soldiers. The team's tickets take a serious penalty when people are out of formation. There's absolutely no feedback (other than visual) when you get a ranged kill in order to maintain immersion and prevent glory hunting. There's no way to tell one team from another at a distance without the use of a flagbearer, again to promote formations, teamwork and to discourage lone wolves.

Poorlaggedman, you gave an example of a person playing a round as a team, thinking they were having an effect, but weren't actually getting any kills. You're saying that the feedback would discourage them from continuing to play as a team. However, I would argue that a game can still provide feedback to a player as well as forcing/encouraging them to work as a team. Like I said, WoR already has a bunch of mechanics which do this, and making a change as simple as providing end-of-round feedback just couldn't undo this.

Squad is a game very similar to War of Rights, just in a different setting. It also requires teamwork and unit cohesion, and it does not provide supernatural feedback when someone gets a kill. However, it does tell you how many kills you got at the end of the round, so you have an idea of whether your general approach to combat actually works. You know if you're aiming accurately, you know if it's more effective to fire full-auto, in bursts or semi-auto and in which situations. Despite this horrific heresy, Squad still revolves entirely around intra- and inter-unit teamwork. Lone wolves and glory hunters are usually scorned and asked to PTFO, and aren't given the assistance squadmates and SLs usually offer if they don't. In other words, the game's mechanics and the community's mindset actually prevent gloryhunting from being viable or particularly fun.

Squad is obviously a game meant for team-based, realistic modern combat. WoR is obviously a game meant for team-based, authentic American Civil War combat. For people who just want to shoot things, there is already a plethora of games available which offer far better experiences. The people who just want to shoot things play Battlefield, CoD, CS:GO and a bunch of other games with far better shooting than Squad or WoR. The people who want a game which rewards teamwork achieved through collectivised individuals play Squad and WoR. Why punish those people by stripping them of any sense of personal accomplishment? It's not that challenging to make a group of people form a line and fire a volley, and if that's all people want to do then the devs needn't have even gone past the Drill Camps. But it is challenging to get a group to form a line, fire a volley, and actually perform better than the other guys. By not having any real feedback, you're basically removing any chance of people being able to find out if their shooting is actually effective. It's easy to tell whether a line fired a good volley; you can just look at them while they're firing. It's relatively difficult to tell whether a line fired a volley which did any damage, so providing people with kill counts at the end of the round will show them whether or not they need to change something.