Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

Thread: Final Push & Last Stand.

  1. #11
    When both mechanics fire at the end of a round it reminds me of these events I used to host where one team was essentially zombies that respawned quickly and the other defending team had one life and did not respawn. Matter of fact the event type I literally called "Last Stand" and there was no earthly way the defender could win, they just had to inflict as many losses as they could. That's what it feels like and that's the way the attackers inevitably behave except for the timer which dooms one team or another.

    Final Push and Last Stand just highlight some holes under the surface in the Team Morale being the basis for score and thus player behavior in the game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oleander View Post
    Making morale fluid is an interesting concept that I've been thinking over for a while now. I think the whole morale system shouldn't just be based off tickets and out of formation kills. I think there should be modifiers like having a flag or having a CO if a push was successful or if it fell. Like if you take a large number of casualties in a short amount of time not only should that be a huge morale hit it should also suppress them men. It would encourage more organized gameplay and make actions have better consequences.
    Arbitrary bonuses also empower people to perform roles poorly and scuttle the whole team if you're relying on specific people in specific roles to be somewhere and be present or even alive. No specific role should make or break a team, that includes COs. Certainly not without a stellar selection system for those roles and even then I question special reverence given to any one player's actions just for being in a role and not by logical and direct contributions to the team.

    Sure you can make a game where players will constantly have a clear basis for blaming performance of a team on the failures of other specific players, be they AFK or just performing poorly dying out of line or going down at times when you need them as a prop to fulfill some arbitrary team bonus, but why would you want to?

    The benefits of an officer role should be just one: Because he's in the officer role you know he's some officer. The problem is that selection / election process isn't a thing yet. Other than that he should spawn slower than other players and IMO, be able to reload his piece a few times. Just tone down the killing power at range for it. The pistolball ammo is incredibly small to be dropping people at some of the ranges it does.

    The benefits of having a flag bearer should ideally just be a spawn bonus like -50% so that it's still significant enough but not an absolute game-breaking necessity with existing formations reaching a set threshold of players and then being created, tracked, dissolved, merged, and available to deploy on at set increments based on their size and formation strength.

    So the total benefits of being in some sort of formation should be: 1) major progressive increases in resilience from suppression which would completely nullify a player's effectiveness under fire at its worst. 2) progressively faster re-spawning and even spawning already loaded. The purpose of an elected officer would be to keep that cohesive in some way. If he died front and center using his pistol and doesn't respawn for two minutes players who gave him that role might pick someone else the next time they're deploying in.

    You don't need to make it more complicated than that. Players will choose their level of poison and benefit without relying on peer pressure or unwritten code. The natural result of taking casualties too quickly would be that your formation strength would degrade. In those circumstances nothing would change in style of play when the attacking team reaches some threshold of losses to be put into Final Push. There may be a time crunch but it wouldn't be a free-for-all sprint in with musket butts like it can be now. Part of the reason it feels gamey right now also is because victory and defeat is always complete (cue headline reading the whole war is lost or total victory is achieved). Victory should factor in hard numbers of losses as well as dominance of the objective(s). A team shouldn't break and then snatch more than a Pyrrhic Victory out of the jaws of defeat on a technicality. Most people understand this now but it would help if the game acknowledges it seeing as how win/loss is the sole official measure of success.
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 03-01-2019 at 07:39 PM.
    Gameplay Suggestions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjUuaVXTJsY


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

  2. #12

    USA General of the Army

    Oleander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    646
    A CO should mean more to a team than someone that is able to drop a line on the ground and say "Go there." A flag bearer should be more than just a spawn point on the map. If you want this game to have any sort of meaning to teamwork, you have to make the roles more than just position on the field. Organized companies rally around their leaders, and flag bearers should be no different. I'm not saying these positions should be a make or break deal for a team, but they need to have more meaning than they do now.

    Look at a game like War Thunder where bombers should be only thing players should be supporting. But, what ends up happening is everyone just wants to dogfight and the bombers get shot down so the team has to fight to the last man. I think this is the reason why pubbies have such a hard time following leaders in the game, other than there being some really terrible ones. They are more interested in what they are doing without a CO because there is absolutely no incentive for them to follow one.

  3. #13
    I wouldn't be opposed if it factored in to a more complex final score system for what duration of time you had a flag planted on the objective (as an attacker) or something that made sense like that. I don't know if it's necessary to make the roles mean more if they aren't big changes and big changes dip into that frustrating reality of relying on one person's performance. Yes we shouldn't have to worry about people's stupidity and the game can't be designed to be stupid-proof but you don't want to make stupidity bite too hard to other players. Think of a game like Battlefield 2 where the entire squad spawns on the NCO. The NCO becomes, not a leader, but a spawn point. He has to be protected so he's present to drop people in. When a role becomes a prop or a trophy to wave around the chance to represent the real purpose of the role can go by the wayside. Players in WoR give the Officer role a lot of credibility as it is. It'll be better when there's some logic behind who's in the roles.

    If we're trying to represent reality to some extent I don't see much realism even in arbitrary morale radius bonuses, like in a lot of tactical games. The bonus of having a good leader around is in being led better. It doesn't take your heart rate down under fire or redirect the adrenaline in your body. Having the reassurance of more living, breathing comrades around you and less bullets coming towards you because you're being well-led can do that. The flag spawn indirectly raises the 'morale' of the people around it by serving some real beneficial purpose representing the staying power or the rallying power of having one through spawning on it. I definitely feel different when our flags are both laying on the grass at the site of the last grand flanking expedition compared to when they're present and in-use.
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 03-02-2019 at 01:05 AM.
    Gameplay Suggestions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjUuaVXTJsY


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

  4. #14
    In truth, this system is broken.

    I've played three matches with this new system and already I find it annoying and game breaking.

    As an avid CSA player, I tend to defend a lot, but even when attacking I see the same problem. A hopeless game for the attacker turns into a cake walk as all forces on the attacking side are now concentrated and focused on the objective, along with the fact that attackers can still spawn. While defenders, once they reach "final stand" can no longer spawn.

    I will detail each match.

    First match, attacker CSA. Our team enters final push while the enemy is only "Taking Losses". This match had been a cluster and our officers wasn't very good. The team was unorganized and we'd been flanked multiple times and pushed back to spawn. With this we were forced to push for the enemy objective, our team focused and forced to do this. We forced the enemy off the point and were able to hold it until they hit "Final Stand". At which point, the enemy lost all cohesion and fell to pieces. It was a victory, a hard fought one, but I didn't feel satisfied for some reason. The enemy had lost, not because our team was good, rather we won because the game forced us to charge the point and because of our flags, we kept the spawn supplied with men. I didn't know what this new system meant yet, as I play War of Rights casually.

    Second match, I found myself defending with my team. The battle was amazing with troops moving left and right, flank and counter flank, charge and counter charge. Both teams were doing their best and gave as good as they got. It was a game that War of Rights is one of my favorite for. However, then both sides entered their final phase. Once again, the defenders were swept from the point by a concerted enemy push and we lost man after man. Prior to this system, my team might've been able to gather forces and push the enemy from the point with each kill being important, but instead my team won, because an AFK player was in our spawn and ran down the clock. We won, after an amazing game that was nail bitingly close, this system ruined it for everyone. For the attackers who pushed so bravely and the defenders that fought to the last. What was a sweet match, turned sour and bitter for both sides.

    Final match, I knew what the system was now and I felt dirty playing it, but this next match was on a map that's hard for the CSA to win, even before this new system, but our team was well organized. Men listened to their officers and sharpshooters were giving the enemy hell. It was clear the CSA had been organization skills over the USA, as we broke their charges pretty well and they'd opened themselves to concentrated fire multiple times. However, as I said, this map is hard for the CSA to win, as we are open to shot the entire time unless we hide behind a hill, tree, or one of the cluster of rocks. So each team was neck and neck with the CSA having a small lead over the USA, however that changed when "Final Push" came. The enemy charged the point and forced the CSA into "Final Stand". What was to be a CSA victory turned into a slaughter. Even though my team had fought well, we lost because of this system.

    I understand why this system existed. It exists due to maps like Miller's Cornfield, a map I hate with a passion. Where the two sides don't have a clear line of site of one another until they are face to face. For this map, this new system works fine, but for every other map it makes being the defender an impossible task as "final push" forces the enemy to charge in a large cluster at the point.

    I would suggest immediate removal of this system and a return to the former one, because what this system forces artificially is what a good commander on the offense would have to produce otherwise and it makes playing the defense, no fun at all, because you are bound to lose once the enemy hits "final push".

    In fact, the only reason I made a profile on this website is to talk about this system. I enjoy War of Rights, but now I don't want to play anymore. If I win attacking, I feel like I cheated because the enemy was given a loosing hand from the start and when I lose defending, I knew it was coming all along and no matter what I did, no matter how many men I kill or what information I give to the commander, I know I will lose, my team will lose. Even if we did everything right and our enemy is completely incompetent. They will win because the game puts them in a position to win, not an opportunity, but a position.
    Last edited by Dangon5; 03-04-2019 at 01:42 AM. Reason: Adding on a final note.

  5. #15

    CSA Captain

    Sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by Oleander View Post
    A CO should mean more to a team than someone that is able to drop a line on the ground and say "Go there." A flag bearer should be more than just a spawn point on the map. If you want this game to have any sort of meaning to teamwork, you have to make the roles more than just position on the field. Organized companies rally around their leaders, and flag bearers should be no different. I'm not saying these positions should be a make or break deal for a team, but they need to have more meaning than they do now.
    It's nigh on impossible to argue with this. Without the hated Last Stand/Final Push I like the morale system, but it would be a lot more interesting if you could regain lost morale, or at least have it boosted.
    ''I'm here to play an American Civil War era combat game, not Call of Duty with muskets.''.

  6. #16

    CSA Captain


    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    592
    Regaining lost morale is one of the KEY things I'd like to see. If a team is breaking but suddenly manages to kill 50 men while only losing 2, or takes an objective(provided we ever get multiple cap points,)that should mean something.
    Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in!

  7. #17
    Love this game! Not a fan of "Last Stand" & "Final Push".

  8. #18
    Ted E. Bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Oleander View Post
    I think this is the reason why pubbies have such a hard time following leaders in the game, other than there being some really terrible ones. They are more interested in what they are doing without a CO because there is absolutely no incentive for them to follow one.
    Most of the Pubs ive commanded listen and work together better than most regiments. You just have to inspire them, not expect them to follow you just because you are barking orders. Whenever a group of regiments are in game and your leading you can kiss half your formation goodbye while they all go off and do their own thing and not stick with the rest of the team.


    https://www.twitch.tv/captainteddybear - My twitch channel

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCY8...CiFAYlhMjuDgRw - CaptainTeddybear's Youtube

    https://discord.gg/5yK5hDS - Big Iron Gaming Discord.

    https://steamcommunity.com/groups/BigIronGames - Big Iron Gaming Steam group.

  9. #19

    CSA Captain

    Sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted E. Bear View Post
    Whenever a group of regiments are in game and your leading you can kiss half your formation goodbye while they all go off and do their own thing and not stick with the rest of the team.
    OR, maybe it's you and the pubs that go of and do your own thing and don't stick with the formed regiments. I mean, it's not like they all have their own Officers or anything
    ''I'm here to play an American Civil War era combat game, not Call of Duty with muskets.''.

  10. #20

    CSA Captain


    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    592
    Most of the Pubs ive commanded listen and work together better than most regiments.
    Stop your bullshit.

    Whenever a group of regiments are in game and your leading
    If there are a group of regiments in game, you are not leading them unless they want you too.

    you can kiss half your formation goodbye while they all go off and do their own thing and not stick with the rest of the team.
    Negative, as those regiments are absolutely, 100% of the time doing what they're supposed to be doing and either defending an area or attacking an area. If you're forcing the entire team to be together at all times, that's a tactical error on your part. It's not up to them to bend to your rules just as much as it's not up to you to bend to their's. I want you to look at this game, and look at it's Company Tool; do you think this game was meant to be played by "pubbies," and not by groups of people joining Companies? Remember that every pubbie is a company member in training, and every company member is a pubbie who figured out how the game is meant to be played.
    Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in!

Posting Permissions

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