You are free to make this assumption but last time I checked it's not a requirement icon_smile.gifOriginally Posted by Sox
My main motivation in my various pushes is because I know the pursuit of closed-server 'realism' events are ultimately an exercise in futility if the game is not designed for what people are closing the servers for in the first place. I spent years trying to put square pegs in round holes in realism games and have the gray hairs to show for it. I'm all about closed server events because it makes a command structure more solid. The ideal circumstances however is that the game heavily compels player behavior in the first place. Because written rules are open to interpretation and people will always get away with what they can unless they have compelling reasons not to.
The team damage ban system is a good example of what works very well managing player behavior. It would be an entirely different story if it did not factor in wounding, as many other games don't.
Why people who are so involved are otherwise so disengaged or laissez-faire about leader selection and other mechanics of this game is a mystery to me when it matters enormously to the success and entertainment value of the game on all levels.
What's the difference between WoR and the mainstream games? I'd submit to you that the main difference is that a player in a mainstream shooter can go into almost any freakin' server in that game and get the style of gameplay he's expecting. Here it depends on who I'm playing with and what they're willing to do. The players shouldn't have to be carefully marshaled into formations for 20 minutes to get a few cinematic seconds of filming operational formations. That's not right. But then when in gameplay has a formation ever been competitively advanced in line of battle and not a column or a blob? There isn't any reason to. Without reinventing gameplay there won't ever be any reason or capacity to. Because the game mechanics are a hybrid of a standard shooter's way of doing things.
Some people want to frame realism as too restrictive. On the contrary it's entirely too mainstream to allow random players to literally jog alone from your front to your rear and start stabbing a mass of players in the side or rear. It's entirely too mainstream to allow players to meelee at all in that situation. It's preposterous and yet it happens all the time. "Look out there's a guy going around our left." A lot of good the team morale system does after the disruption they cause and after two guys run after him and one dies out of line before the other one gets him.
It's preposterous to pursue the historical situation without pursuing the historical situation. Are we gonna be a game where any single player can be a total pain in the ass at any given time? Or can we shoot a couple rounds his way and make him combat ineffective as he should be? Is that too niche? How much longer are we seriously going to have utterly random officers? Games that aren't niche can expect far better design. How exactly was that supposed to work when envisioned? Why are you gonna put an officer in the game and have zero plan to make the role mean anything?
Are we gonna forever have a game where a threshold score is hit and suddenly the rules which decide the outcome of the match don't matter anymore at all (last stand / final push)? It makes about as much sense as punishing the team for the style of death of lone players in the first place.
Reply With Quote
![[17thMI] J.Connelly's Avatar](image.php?s=ede1677b7a6a55b127593b637cf938ce&u=9842&dateline=1557779534 "[17thMI] J.Connelly's Avatar")
