Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40

Thread: Endless Wait for Structural Change

  1. #1

    Endless Wait for Structural Change

    The game still has awesome potential and it’s great to see the 200 player stress test coming up and changes like new game modes.

    However, the game is crying out for more cohesion in it’s structure and by that I mean how we organise/coordinate and determine leadership in the game - for example things like pressing T should show where your CO/NCO (and maybe Flag Bearer) is and there should be a more coherent and structured way of determining who becomes the Officer.

    It all still feels a bit chaotic and too loose when you spawn in with everyone talking over each and confusion about where to go.

    Organisationally, the game hasn’t changed one iota since public release. It still feels too sparse with limited Officer commands and T showing too little useful information.

    I know some of this stuff is hinted at on the Road Map, but I would suggest it is needed sooner rather than later because the inconsistency of the public gaming experience as a result of the lack of structure is still the game’s #1 shortcoming.

    Good structure should feel intuitive for public players - you shouldn’t have to join a Company to compensate for the game’s lack of structure.
    Last edited by Quaker; 03-29-2019 at 10:50 AM.

  2. #2

    CSA Major

    McMuffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Reluctantly in Maryland
    Posts
    717
    I agree that once the major items that are being worked on are done (server expansion, artillery, and south mountain are all I know) the command system expansion should be a decent priority. As for general cohesion that’s really up to the people playing how organized they want to be.

    However, it shouldn’t be a surprise that a game meant for regiments and companies does not feel as organized without any parts of a regiment that aim to maintain cohesion and organization.
    The chances are by the time you have finished typing a long response to my post, I have changed half of the original post.

    Click above to join the 1st Texas!
    "Texans always move 'em!"- General Robert E. Lee

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Quaker View Post
    Organisationally, the game hasn’t changed one iota since public release. It still feels too sparse with limited Officer commands and T showing too little useful information.

    I know some of this stuff is hinted at on the Road Map, but I would suggest it is needed sooner rather than later because the inconsistency of the public gaming experience as a result of the lack of structure is still the game’s #1 shortcoming.
    I think the officer class has to mean something before it becomes critical to know where the officer is. Check out the video in my signature. No power-structure in the world (outside of gaming) operates on a first-come first-serve basis. That'd be insane. That's how the WoR officer class operates. That's who fills it. Until that changes, there's no reason to respect the role other than going along to get along. That's the root cause of the chaos. Less than half the time you get someone at least marginally respectable or better in the officer role. I definitely don't spawn in caring where the officer is and nobody else should either. A good officer should have a general strategy where you aren't spawning and wondering which edge of the map he's tip-toeing along this time.

    Quote Originally Posted by McMuffin View Post
    that a game meant for regiments and companies does not feel as organized without any parts of a regiment
    dog.gif
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 03-29-2019 at 05:04 PM.
    Suggestion: Formations, Suppression, Spawning, Leadership https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqPsbvyD8s


    Old Pennsylvania Discord: https://discord.gg/MjxfZ5nP

  4. #4
    Ted E. Bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    65
    I think 1 minute for team voting on leadership before a round starts and then a vote kick/ban for trolls at least on the official servers would do wonders. I personally like how most of it is set up now as far as the game mechanics itself regarding officers and what not, could definitely need some tweaking though to get it just right. Maybe some buffs for maintaining grouping with your IN GAME regiments so a multi regiment force on the field is a lil less effective. Maybe another formation buff system where the commander can use attack and defend orders visible to anyone then anyone inside a certain area would get a slight boost to suppression resistance while defending or movement speed/stamina improvement while attacking. Would definitely help in getting people to stick together through positive, not punitive means. Also would cut down on groups of 10 to 15 guys going off and doing their own thing away from the rest of the unit i think.


    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.

  5. #5
    Team voting might work, but it'd be the loudest man winning, 2 or more would be officers advertising themselves (follow me and i'll…), discussions, etc. Not sure I would like that.

    For accepting one of the players as officer between several candidates, the server would have to keep some statistics on each player (surely there are some metrics that differentiate those effective commanders from anyone else).
    I'm not saying the same best rated commander gets the job every time but he should have more than one tickets in the urn (so to speak). Random choosing amongst the candidates, with the players that have proved good leadership having progressively more chances. And for that, a upvote/downvote metric on the server could be the objective factor.

    Maybe on the team roster, the commander gets highlighted and an option to upvote or downvote is offered once per game per player. Optional. You can never touch the voting thing, unless you want to show (dis)approval. Maybe even a small text explaining the what and why that will be recorded to the officer's up and downvote history, together with your name, something that could appear on the server or on the game lobby (like best commanders etc).

    Example: 6 people offer themselves for officer position, 4 randoms (about equal up and down votes) , 1 with some small proven experience (let's say twice as many up than downvotes) and 1 experimented commander (4 times more upvotes than downvotes). So, 4 with 1 vote, 1 with 2 votes and 1 with 4 votes, 10 votes total, the "randoms" with 10% chance to get the job, the other guy with 20% and the experienced commander with 40%. The "randoms" still get a fair chance and a chance to improve their rating by being effective/charismatic/a damn hero

    To further refine this system, the server will consider for the officer position only the first 10 best upvoted players from all the candidates that chose to play officer.
    Even better, officer gets elected in the lull period while people first load their rifle (with the quirk that the player elected get's switched from private to officer once elected).

    Even so, ingame voting can demote an uneffective officer, and when this happens, the next best rated player gets the officer position, takes a turn at commanding and maybe he'll have the teams approval if he performs good enough. If not, out he goes and the next guy gets the job.
    Last edited by EneCtin; 03-31-2019 at 06:40 PM.

  6. #6

    USA Major

    Shiloh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Shepherdstown, WV
    Posts
    608
    Quote Originally Posted by Quaker View Post

    Good structure should feel intuitive for public players - you shouldn’t have to join a Company to compensate for the game’s lack of structure.
    No you don't but joining a company will provide some of the structure you're looking for.

  7. #7

    USA Captain

    SwingKid148's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Syracuse, NY
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiloh View Post
    No you don't but joining a company will provide some of the structure you're looking for.
    He's right ya know. I know, I know, public players are good on their own but what he is asking for is structure.

  8. #8
    There’s a stark difference between joining a company because you want camaraderie and to enhance your gameplay experience VS joining a company because a lot of the time WoR feels structurally inadequate.

    We only need a few more tools and tweaks to some existing features and it would enhance the public player experience (and hence the amount of people staying with the game) out of sight.
    Last edited by Quaker; 03-30-2019 at 11:17 PM.

  9. #9

  10. #10
    Moderator

    CSA Major

    Leifr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,180
    If 200 player servers are to become the norm, it's fairly evident that some form of VOIP filters are needed - whether that's player controlled or a server setting. There are too many players for it to work, it's a cacophony of repeated commands, folk spamming the microphones and aimless chit chat. I only want to hear the officers and NCOs, not the other ninety players.

Posting Permissions

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