Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: A Vision for the Future (video)

  1. #1

    A Vision for the Future (video)

    I'm operating under the assumption that players want to play a certain style when they purchase this game whether they crowdfunded before it was a thing or bought it yesterday. We all have that thing we imagine gameplay being like and then the moments when we actually achieve it. In that situation nobody really wants to hurt that style of play. But they can, so they will.

    As much as I like operating in a formation I like shooting enemy like fish in a barrel much more than I like being a fish myself.

    When you have people clamoring for "Line battle maps," leader voice buffs, and so on it represents frustration about not being able to find the desired experience. You'll always have trolls and disorganization at times but I'm of the opinion that if the game builds a good platform then players will operate within those conditions the best they can.

    Formations, spawning, and suppression are three very powerful tools that can be utilized to push a certain way of playing.

    https://youtu.be/cZqPsbvyD8s


    Summary:
    Formations should directly tie to the spawnability of players without even requiring a flag bearer. In addition to the game tracking the individual players and their status the entire formation would be a status itself and be able to act as a spawn. Big and intact formations would be very fast. Players being killed or stepping out of the formation would degrade their own status but as long as the holes were filled the formation would continue to remain the same. In that situation a strong volley may serve a particular purpose in ruining formations by knocking out many members at once and not allowing them to be replaced piece-meal by a quick respawn. Admittedly that would be no easy task but perhaps some of the groundwork is already laid by the current formation and flag bearer spawn systems.

    Spawning would not allow you to simply jump straight into line for a spawn. First you would have a minimum death time which is only punishing you. It can be very short or quite a bit longer. If you're a leader the wait time is longer, especially when killed out of line. After your wait time you can jump into line for a spawn. This way players aren't unfairly waiting in line behind some guy with a long respawn time.

    I think making it seriously unpleasant and difficult to operate alone is pretty common sense. I would really like there to be no situation ever where a player on his own can come up and try to start stabbing formation members. I also don't think lone wolves or shattered formations should do anything but run to prevent themselves being autosurrendered. Tepid resistance is still resitance. One player can take a whole formation on a chase or run among them and cause collateral damage. I've seldom heard people bitch about being suppressed but it has happened. I've heard more people complain about the way they were killed. Suppression, like anything which hurts a player, will get that response at times.

    With increased importance on formations leadership becomes even more important which requires quality controls. The jist of what I propose to elect leaders would link every private to a leader. You would select one when you spawn. From there you can change it in that screen or you could go up to a force you're impressed with you want to 'join' and press a button. All that further empowers the person running it.


    Mutiny:
    I don't try to show it. But if one leader had a large group of followers and was not very good an effective mutiny would look like a cancer spreading as players swap to another leader, who might even be lurking among the same formation but making more sense operating as a different color. And thus when you toggle to see player names you'd see players gradually swapping to the better leader and increasing his rank while reducing their former leader's rank. Those ranks probably becoming effective on next spawn.

    Delegating ranks:
    The more a player gets promoted the more he can promote his followers. This could be as simple as going up to a player, pressing a button and picking what to promote him to based on what's available in similar fashion to the current admin/kick ban menu. In addition to the physical role they have (an officer with a pistol or a sergeant with stripes), they maybe have an icon over their head which indicates their current rank.


    I assume this is the general direction with regards to formations that the game is heading eventually as per the Update 77 Patch notes:

    Quote Originally Posted by Hinkel View Post
    - Added first version of the formation buff system. This system (to be expanded upon in the future) is part of our ongoing efforts at making tight group play a viable strategy and, hopefully, eventually the norm in-game. In order for the formation buff to kick in - players will have to gather in a tight group or formation. The specific numbers of players required to activate the formation buff and the area covered by the formation buff will be tweaked upon during the next several updates.
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 04-24-2019 at 05:26 AM.
    Suggestion: Formations, Suppression, Spawning, Leadership https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqPsbvyD8s


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

  2. #2
    Mark L. E. E. Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    38
    Excellent video sir.

    I particularly like the idea of auto-surrender. I would go further and tie it to proximity of enemy numbers - i.e. ruling out rambo charges by surrendering them as soon as they're nearer (significantly?) more enemies than friendlies, which could mean they wouldn't even get close to enemy lines. It could also put an end to the somewhat tiresome and unrealistic "let's charge" spam, by mass-surrendering outnumbered & disorganised charges.

    Tying spawn times to death-type is a great idea. Simple and promotes teamwork.

  3. #3
    Nearly ALL gameplay suggestions. WoR gameplay sorely needs a revamp like this.

    The accurate modelling, graphics and technical stability in WoR is all pretty good so that only leaves inadequate gameplay structure and features as the explanation for the lack of players. I really hope the devs take this on board because in their Roadmap pinned at the Steam forum gameplay doesn’t feature prominently enough IMO.

    Gameplay should be the priority before all else.

  4. #4

    USA General of the Army

    Bravescot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Perthshire, Scotland
    Posts
    2,962
    I like it, but do you not thing it is asking too much? It sounds like a situation we’re it is easier said than done.

  5. #5

    CSA Captain

    Charles Caldwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Across the Pond!
    Posts
    437
    I would back these changes 100%....small problem though, the Devs dont take too kindly to any form of criticism of their current system. In their defence though they have built a fantastic foundation, it just needs tweaking, hopefully in this direction.
    Last edited by Charles Caldwell; 04-24-2019 at 09:57 PM.

    Click banner to Sign up

  6. #6
    My humor is mostly tongue-in-cheek and over-exaggeration of the bread riots earlier this year over the lack of progress and passwords. 'Footprints are not viable updates" etc. It just took me too long to make the video to stay relevant icon_lol.gif


    The last clip is meant to represent what happens when fear is taken out of the equation (which it is in gaming). All the missing things when you translate from real-life to virtual reality come home to roost and create disorder and chaos. I just wanted to get the video done at that point.

    Things have gone better than I expected so far especially with regards to trolls. The team morale system I've criticized before. It's not game-breaking or anything. It could even be useful far down the road as a way to mercy-kill teams that are discombobulated. I just don't think it's ideal. I'm super competitive in gaming but I don't feel it influencing my decision-making the way it's intended. There are ways to rationalize losing points for your team. It's harder to rationalize screwing yourself over. Thirty seconds of suppression after I take a 40 man volley isn't screwing myself over in a game where it takes 20 seconds to load. Final Push and Last Stand end up like humans vs zombies. Final Push is swarms of attackers coming in like mad for a few minutes. The primary tool for win/loss being the team morale becomes null and void when the end-round events trigger which seems kind of silly. More emphasis on individual player performance would give different results even if final push and last stand functionally remained unchanged.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark L. E. E. Smith View Post
    I particularly like the idea of auto-surrender. I would go further and tie it to proximity of enemy numbers - i.e. ruling out rambo charges by surrendering them as soon as they're nearer (significantly?) more enemies than friendlies, which could mean they wouldn't even get close to enemy lines. It could also put an end to the somewhat tiresome and unrealistic "let's charge" spam, by mass-surrendering outnumbered & disorganised charges.
    That's what I pushed originally somewhere on these forums. One big concern raised was how the game would determine when an appropriate time to surrender would be. For example a player hidden and undetected suddenly being surrendered to unsuspecting enemies. That's why I think touching/stab/smack would be a good initial trigger. You see it referenced a lot in the history, the idea of physically grabbing enemy prisoners. The logical defense against this is to run like hell, a realistic response.

    Just as important as autosurrender is making meelee impossible for an out-of-line when near an enemy formation. I think it would also end some of the all-or-nothing charges. Players would see the writing on the wall and fall back before it gets to that point of hopelessness. I'd love to see autosurrender some day. It's been a suggestion in games for a long time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bravescot View Post
    I like it, but do you not thing it is asking too much?
    Perhaps. That's why I try to visualize it so hard before new systems get set in stone. I figure some of the framework already exists.

    I imagine the formation buff system we have could easily enough be given new sets of criteria for new formation types.

    The flag bearer spawn only came out last fall. Flag bearers currently seem to poop out a spawn to their immediate front most of the time. I'd think it would be easy enough to make it the rear instead. . Tracking each formation for spawning, yes, that's a little excessive. Especially when you consider they will realistically be reforming and being recreated and combined. I don't think it's too outlandish to have a larger formation exist at a moment in time and be able to poop out players. In the short term a flag could remain necessary and you could just add more formation types (instead of them ending with five players) which all effect that spawn time. I'd like to see the flag bearer not be a sheer necessity simply because it gives way too much power to one player to stop a whole advance by running off with a flag. While a significant bonus (like -50% spawn time) would still make them crucial. I'm sure they plan on eventually separating the regimental spawns in some way, or having the option of which flag to spawn on. I personally thought the flag bearer system was a waste of time while we were waiting for it but a well-done expansion of that field-spawning would do wonders to empower formations.

    For suppression the game already has effective suppression. I'd just like to see it get worse faster and recover much slower for players who are without support and be a little more complex than black and white with a focus on visual distortion and trembling to really hurt the players ability to aim and shoot. There's already blurring of the depth perspective when reloading and I have experienced some level of trembling when suppressed. Some people get uncomfortable about that but it's such an effective tool to manipulate player behavior. Who really cares about out-of-line players anyway? They shouldn't bite off more than they can chew in the first place in my opinion.

    The leadership stuff obviously doesn't exist at all but I think it'd be a worthy investment at some point. A planning phase in the near term and something rudimentary allowing that sort of association could build some momentum on the concept if it checks out.

    Attachment 10893
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 04-25-2019 at 01:20 AM.
    Suggestion: Formations, Suppression, Spawning, Leadership https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqPsbvyD8s


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

  7. #7
    Superb video. Not only well edited stuff but you also took the time to enhance sequences to show how those ideas would complement the existing gameplay. For that, sir, I salute you. Also extremely polite, even pleading, way of presenting the case (except the closing sequence where you lost it but that's okay).

    I would say most suggestions in the video are sorely needed to enhance infantry gameplay, which represents the basis of the game. If that gameplay is not enhanced, there's little good adding stuff like artillery or cavalry (from a player retention point of view)

    Lastly, not one of the proposals rubbed the wrong way, all are in line with decent expectations for this type of entertainment.
    Last edited by EneCtin; 04-25-2019 at 02:26 AM.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Poorlaggedman View Post
    I'm operating under the assumption that players want to play a certain style when they purchase this game whether they crowdfunded before it was a thing or bought it yesterday. We all have that thing we imagine gameplay being like and then the moments when we actually achieve it. In that situation nobody really wants to hurt that style of play. But they can, so they will.

    As much as I like operating in a formation I like shooting enemy like fish in a barrel much more than I like being a fish myself.
    Loved the video, great job. Also, "saw" you last night playing, we lost the cornfield but on a public server, it had rarely gone better for the Union in my limited experience.

  9. #9
    Thanks.

    You might like the one I tried to make on tactics last year as one map I use as an example is the Cornfield:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2n3CfrYX2c
    Suggestion: Formations, Suppression, Spawning, Leadership https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqPsbvyD8s


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

  10. #10

    USA Major

    RhettVito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    855
    I really like this idea!
    -Vito Cpt of the 72ndPA

Posting Permissions

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