Page 8 of 19 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 188

Thread: Fresh Idea for skirmishes

  1. #71

    CSA Captain

    von-Winkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    242
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Decimus Meridius View Post
    I think that it will works. I see a lot people here who were part of the NW community for years like me and have over 1000 hours in it. Most of the time they played battles without capture zones and time limits only tickets or in our case the moral would limit it.

    the map and geography makes the rules who attacks and how defends. and the artillery. you may have a great position behind a fence or on top of a hill but if the enemy artillery can hit you, you have to advance and get the enemy artillery which is protected my it's infantry.
    Such a scenario would of course be the most interesting implementation.

    But only for clan-oriented battles. As a compromise, a system with several successive conquest points would also be an extension. The "Red Orchestra" series would be an example of the interlinking of points.

    20170612213007_1-800x450@2x.jpg
    Captain Walter, Leopold, Lothar von-Winkler

  2. #72
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Decimus Meridius View Post
    so please make a fenceline not so superior. Every time you get a feeling that you kill nobody who is hiding behind a fence even if it is a fence with huge gaps. thats frustrating.


    to come back at the removing capture areas.

    I think that it will works. I see a lot people here who were part of the NW community for years like me and have over 1000 hours in it. Most of the time they played battles without capture zones and time limits only tickets or in our case the moral would limit it.

    the map and geography makes the rules who attacks and how defends. and the artillery. you may have a great position behind a fence or on top of a hill but if the enemy artillery can hit you, you have to advance and get the enemy artillery which is protected my it's infantry.

    I know that you don't like this comparison me too. but thats a system which works and make a lot of fun when you have organised units playing it. You will see officer meeting to plan the engagement and formation of the companies.

    At least you could give it a try

    It may not work properly with people without a company but it will be perfect for companies which I think form a very big part in this community and game.


    And thank you for your answer Trusty
    You are probably correct in regards to the companies. This is because they are organized. It really does not matter a whole lot what game systems are in place, if the organization level is high enough they will work their way past it. You are correct that companies are a huge part of the game (especially now in the alpha) but that does not make them the sole thing we should be focusing on. We’ve always went into this with the goal of achieving as organized play as possible during public matches (we don’t want a scenario where public matches play vastly different than organized events (hence systems such as the formation buff system (and soon flag bearer and officer specific restrictions).

    The capture point forcuses the battle. If you’re a new player you may not know very much about how to best play the game - but at least you can run to the cap point.

    in short, the game would probably work fine for the companies if we removed the formation buff, the capture points, the map boundaries and the map time - but would have great comsequenses for the public play battles.

    We don’t want the norm to be “oh yeah you’re right this game plays like any other silly multiplayer game in the public matches. If you want to experience organization and realistic play you will have to join a company.” Like a great deal of similar games have went with so far. That was never the intention - that is like giving up to us.

    - Trusty

  3. #73

    USA Brigadier General

    Maximus Decimus Meridius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,682
    but you don't have to decide to please only one group companies or non company players.

    you can please both with capture and no capture points it's just another gamemode

    I also not say that we are the only player base. that would be ignorant and a lie.

    in short, the game would probably work fine for the companies if we removed the formation buff, the capture points, the map boundaries and the map time - but would have great consequences for the public play battles.
    nobody want to remove the formation buff. it's (in my mind) one of the coolest features and brings a interesting level to the great moral system. (because I have to decide to be a smaller target but a loss cost more) but removing time and/or capture zones would be at least an interesting way for companies.

    In my mind you cant hold every server as public in the future. thats normal. special groups want to play together with their own rules. So one time when private servers are available you will see plenty of them and then companies will ask for it again because it gives a very comfortable level of liberty.
    http://www.warofrightsforum.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=522&dateline=14500460  02


  4. #74
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Decimus Meridius View Post
    but you don't have to decide to please only one group companies or non company players.

    you can please both with capture and no capture points it's just another gamemode

    I also not say that we are the only player base. that would be ignorant and a lie.



    nobody want to remove the formation buff. it's (in my mind) one of the coolest features and brings a interesting level to the great moral system. (because I have to decide to be a smaller target but a loss cost more) but removing time and/or capture zones would be at least an interesting way for companies.

    In my mind you cant hold every server as public in the future. thats normal. special groups want to play together with their own rules. So one time when private servers are available you will see plenty of them and then companies will ask for it again because it gives a very comfortable level of liberty.
    Yes but this seems like a non-issue to me. As already stated previously by myself and a few others when there's enough organization people will play around the capture points (see line battle events).

    I've seen it suggested to remove morale which is in effect removing the formation buff system.

    Oh you're absolutely right and we don't intend to - we do intend to make the public play and the organised play as similar as possible via game design however. This is one of the fundamentals of the design of WoR.

    - Trusty

  5. #75
    I agree that the Skirmishes mode has gone utterly stale. Though I think most of this is due to the incessant crashing and loading issues. It only took a few times of eternity loading for me to give up for weeks and associate attempts to get in a server as increased blood pressure and disappointment. Most of my WoR friends on steam do not even try to play and stopped months ago, during the worst of the loading issues. We definitely could muster a full server not long ago before that problem, now it's almost impossible. If it's a 'fast download' issue then perhaps better hosting packages can be attained. I'm assuming that the server itself is not what the players are downloading the files from and that the game engine allows for servers to use an external download source to get the files they need or any custom content.

    Even with full servers, the group-think leadership and the flow of the gameplay is just terrible beyond endurance. Too much toxic 'line battle' culture has been imported from other games to fill current voids. This least-common denominator team movement being embedded in the Alpha culture to tragic effect. I'm confident that will be obliterated with wider releases but not now. I don't even want to play in private events with most of these knuckleheads trying to lead a team. "Line battles?" Forget it!

    I don't believe that "It's the Alpha" is a good excuse to have the vanilla cap/defend that we have now. Objectives should at least be recapturable. They really are stale objectives. Fences and the wonky ballistics around them (as I keep harping on) destroy much of the tactical nature of the battlefield. You just don't see the incessant references to the advantages of fences in any accounts from the Civil War. Heck, I was definitely told by a Licensed Guide at Gburg that some of the regiments of Graham's Brigade hopped the fence on the Emittisburg Road near the Peach Orchard to fight in front of it due to the advantages in terrain as Barksdale attacked. It wasn't "OMG, let's use this fence because it's basically an entrenchment." It was ""the fence is in our way."

    I really, really, really don't like the team morale system for reasons I will explain. What makes players work together in a video game is very complex. If it was so simple all could easily understand it then we'd be so simple that we couldn't understand it. People are complex and the reasons they'll work together are complex. "For the team," as opposed to personal enjoyment, is not a sufficient incentive to work together. Spawn time penalties will help but not entirely, because it doesn't affect you if you don't die. I'll write about this but to break it down effectively and with a good presentation matters so much that I just haven't gotten it done.
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 07-07-2018 at 03:39 AM.
    Gameplay Suggestions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjUuaVXTJsY


    Old Pennsylvania Discord: https://discord.gg/MjxfZ5n

  6. #76

    USA Colonel

    MajesticBiscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Maryland, United States
    Posts
    67
    I agree with this.

  7. #77

    CSA Captain

    Stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19
    Ok I know I'm a little late in replying to what you said in response to what I posted Trusty but here goes. I don't think any of us want any thing removed that was there historically. If there was a fence there let there be a fence there. That's part of the terrain. You say that you don't think moving the borders will change much but after walking the borders of maps for both sides you start to see the advantage some of them can give. CSA guys don't take offense to this next part please because these are just a couple of prime examples I can think of. Number one Hagerstown Turnpike. There are a couple of spots on this one. On the far left flank of the Union, yes the Union can flank there to flank the cap but the CSA has some extra room they can get on the flank of that maneuver and the Union can't shift without being out of bounds. The far right flank of the Union we can push up to the little hill with rocks but we can't hold it because we can't cover all sides of it without being out of bounds. So we constantly have a flank open facing the woods with no way to even observe when there is an attack that is coming from there. The CSA spawn on this map is far enough back that even if we was allowed to take the hill we couldn't spawn camp yet they can spawn camp us because of the placement of our spawn. Number two would be some of the Harpers ferry maps. The one that was in rotation right after the two long bridges map forces the Union to fight in a narrow area and any small deviation and we are out of bounds. The CSA are able to move around to create a three direction attack putting us in a cross fire and we can't even counter this. This is another map where we can be shot in spawn. The map that comes up after that one is another we can be shot in spawn from the hillside with no real counters to that. As far as moving cap points Nicodemus Hill comes to mind right off the bat. I know we don't have player controlled artillery yet but have you thought about what is going to happen on that map when we get it. The cap is in the road. The artillery is on the hill and the borders wont let us push that far to take the guns. Shouldn't the objective of that map be to take the hill and the guns if possible and not just stop short and let them rain lead upon us. Look I love the historical setting I just don't think the map outcome should be decided by advantages because of borders and cap placement. It should go to the ones that perform a better strategy.
    Last edited by Stone; 07-07-2018 at 05:32 PM.

  8. #78
    Allow me to link you to the most recent hotfix: https://www.warofrightsforum.com/sho...ll=1#post80348

    We are very excited to try it out.

    Thank you for motivating us to fix these things

  9. #79

    CSA Captain

    Saris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    South East Texas
    Posts
    1,294
    I'm not sure if somebody mentioned this but I would like to see an autobalancer. It would make the skirmishes more enjoyable since each side would be roughly even throughout the whole round. Possibly set it to regulate the sides when players die to keep the two sides even.
    Texas Poppin B
    My Youtube:https://www.youtube.com/c/SarisTX

  10. #80
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Saris View Post
    I'm not sure if somebody mentioned this but I would like to see an autobalancer. It would make the skirmishes more enjoyable since each side would be roughly even throughout the whole round. Possibly set it to regulate the sides when players die to keep the two sides even.
    Yeah this is on our todo list.

    - Trusty

Posting Permissions

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