Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

Thread: Some things I'd like to see.

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    CSA Captain

    Mjtheko's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    7

    Some things I'd like to see.

    I'd like to start off by saying this is gonna be a long read, and that some of the things i will mention here have been mentioned previously. This is a collection of things I (1st TX Maj. Mj) think would improve the game play, or just some cool ideas.

    1: Map changes. There are far too many changes to list them off individually, so i'll give generalizations and examples. Maps should allow more flanking from the attacker, (EX, Open up the Union right flank on Sunken Lane a few yards more, so that the union can use the fence to attack the point from the north west) and more freedom to move from the point for the defenders. (EX: Pry Ford, Roulette lane, Pry House, and Hagerstown) The positional advantage the Attackers have if the Defenders lose the point is so much that the Defenders must hold very close to the point on these maps, You fix this by adding paths to re-take the point from, or lessening the cover on the point itself.

    2: Louder In-game voice chat. Even if you turn up everyone by a bit, i would be happy. As of now it's hard to hear someone on the other side of a 20 man line in game while nothing is going on. This isn't a huge issue in organized groups like the 1st, due to order echoing. For Public disorganized play, and Officers not on with a group of their NCO's, this change is essential.

    3: Fixing the "pushing" for lines. I can't tell you how many times I have been just squeezed out of line while aiming. And i'm usually leading, or acting as an NCO. I have no idea how this could be fixed, but a fix is needed here. a nice Quality of life change.

    4: Ability to Password servers. It would help so many things.

    5: Better Harper's Ferry maps. Most of them have one or more of the 3 worst traits for a map to have, and those are Extremely Limited routes of attack, Very Static positioning for both sides, and Ability to spawn-camp. (The Graveyard map has all of these) More like East woods. Or Hills Counterattack. I Love both of those from both sides.

    6: Ability to take admin action from the tab menu. Or perhaps a new admin menu. It takes me too long as an admin to ban someone. Last night I had someone on the 1st TX server hitting team mates with the butt of their rife. I had to see what team he was on, Spawn in on that team to see his name, Hit f9. Find where he was, Fly to him, Hit E on him (harder than you may think) Then finally take admin action. Doing it via hitting Tilde and typing the command and exact steam name is also... harder than you may think.

    7: Predictable Melee combat. as of now the range of stabs is really hard to work out. I can dill my guys where they will stab the enemy, but telling / showing them where they can be stabbed changes too much. (Hope we will have that full system with blocking and whatnot in the game sooner rather than later :P)

    8: Make dying/ being out of line more punishing for the player out of line. Winning or losing is sometimes not enough to stop Rambo. Rambo likes going off and being... well... Rambo. Him being out of line should hurt him more. Maybe after dying out of line a few times Pvt Rambo can get the same "Go back to your men!" message officers get? or something similar?

    9: Something for flags to do other than stand around in formation. Even allowing them to do some flag animations would be nice. Maybe allowing them to use the flagpole in melee?

    I'm sure more ideas will come to me later, But regardless, I'll keep dumping hours into this glorious game.
    Texans always move em!
    Last edited by Mjtheko; 02-09-2019 at 12:20 PM. Reason: Spelling and Grammar

  2. #2

    USA General of the Army

    Oleander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    646
    Looks good. I would also recommend that the capture area on certain maps be revisited. There are a few maps where the attacker is able to cap while the defender os sitting on the point while not being anywhere near the cap indicator.

  3. #3
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Oleander View Post
    Looks good. I would also recommend that the capture area on certain maps be revisited. There are a few maps where the attacker is able to cap while the defender os sitting on the point while not being anywhere near the cap indicator.
    Yep, those will be reverted back to their original smaller sizes again in the next update.

    It was an experiment too see if bigger capture areas would open up the areas for different strategies - players still gathered on the capture area icons no matter the size of the cap zone however. The bigger capture areas of Miller's Cornfield and Maryland Heights also did not work very well with the new end game events.

    - Trusty

  4. #4

    USA General of the Army

    Oleander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    646
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post
    The bigger capture areas of Miller's Cornfield and Maryland Heights also did not work very well with the new end game events.

    - Trusty
    We noticed

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post
    Yep, those will be reverted back to their original smaller sizes again in the next update.

    It was an experiment too see if bigger capture areas would open up the areas for different strategies - players still gathered on the capture area icons no matter the size of the cap zone however. The bigger capture areas of Miller's Cornfield and Maryland Heights also did not work very well with the new end game events.

    - Trusty
    On this topic, I had an idea the other day during an event in which a cap point was taken in a way that frustrated the losing team.
    Currently it seems that a player is either capturing a point or not (binary, yes or no). What if instead that capture status per player was determined by a gradient based on distance from the center of the capture point? Let me explain with an example.

    Say 5 CSA players are defending a capture point standing very close to the center of the point, when 6 Union attackers occupy the outer edge of the capture zone. In the current system, it is my understanding that the Union would begin to take the point despite only having a slight numeral advantage and being far from the actual capture point. With my "system" and in the simplest terms, the Union would have to be closer to the center of the capture zone to begin taking the point as their per-player capture "value" (a float point between 0-1) would increase upon approach. I believe this would make it more difficult to 'cheese' the system and would possibly allow for quicker capture times from decisive offensives. In the current implementation it takes quite long to actually capture the point with zero resistance.

    I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words, so if you have any questions please let me know.

  6. #6
    Matt(Fridge)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Secessionist Maryland
    Posts
    145
    I agree with Mjtheko. Point 4 is 100% necessary, there needs to be locked servers to preserve the competitive scene of the game. On point 9 although it would not be the best melee weapon it is still better than nothing in a tight situation. Various animations with the flag would also be cool. It could even add a buff of some kind if you wanted it to.

  7. #7

    USA Captain

    Cairnsy44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    160
    on point 9, I agree. Maybe the initial spawn allows the flag bearer to have a pistol, but after he is killed, whomever picks it up at that point is weaponless, as they would have dropped their rifle.

    Personally, I love the Graveyard map. Maybe it's because I get to be the 9th Vermont, but I do enjoy that one.
    Descendant of David Jewell - 1st Maine Heavy Artillery, Philo Johnson - 11th Vermont/1st VTHA

  8. #8
    RhettVito
    Guest
    Maybe allowing them to use the flagpole in melee?
    No

  9. #9

    CSA Captain


    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by RhettVito View Post
    Maybe allowing them to use the flagpole in melee?
    No
    Why
    Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in!

  10. #10
    RhettVito
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by LaBelle View Post
    Why
    Then it would just turn into holdfast with people running around playing music and charging with the flag trolling it would be a waste of development time to add something like that plus then people would play flag-bearer for the wrong reason too many people want to re-enact The Patriot

Posting Permissions

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