Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 105

Thread: What changed?

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by O'Rourke View Post
    Server admins can change those settings via command variables in the server.cfg when you start-up a WoR server. You can change: how many people are needed for the In Formation buff; the distance between those individuals to be counted In Formation or Skirmishing Mode to allow scouting; the number of allotted tickets for each side; the number of lives in Picket Patrol; the time limit for desertion; the time limits for each area; disable the map boundaries, etc.

    Just spend an hour poking around the CFG and JSON files on your server and edit the contents using Notepad.
    Wow, you're a saviour!!!!
    Formation from 1 soldier (being in formation at all times), that will open up possibilities...also prolong the game but that can also be tweaked.

    Whoever makes the change on his server, give a hint somewhere. That server will fill up and stay filled!
    Last edited by EneCtin; 05-04-2019 at 05:34 PM.

  2. #42

    USA General of the Army

    calmmyst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post
    Because we saw kneeling being done almost exclusively in the early days of the alpha before any sort of penalty was tied to it.

    - Trusty
    Ok this was early game play, but it penalizes players in a 3 man row formation, front row kneeling 2nd row standing over the front row, and the 3rd row slightly offset to the second row, where upon command, all fire as 1 as and overwhelming fire power. any players killed in kneeling causes a higher kill PENALTY for the TEAM. at drill we practice this tactic, its a lot of lead going down range. please get rid of penalty tickets for kneeling. Then we use this tactic in in a fire an advance. LOAD, advance, reposition, fire, and repeat, and say screw the tickets for front row kneeling deaths. I dont care.

    When I get asked about this game, I say its one of those games, that has some impressive visuals, with a lot of potential, as it is still in development, that for now your Penalized for most of how you play the game, how the game constructs 1 style of game play, and can lead you being Yelled at, or booted from a private server, for not conforming. so play at your own risk, sure more penalty playing is coming. I use to love this game, now I like it, but im so looking forward to another game in development. I fear this will become one of those games that I occasionally play. how about letting both sides have the option of attacking, like it use to be, example, burnside bridge, when CSA could cross over that itty bitty bridge, not keep pulling back the desertion point, as it now, from where you could never cross, to going half way cross, till now you step on the road, your deserting. The penalties are getting to much to handle, so I dont highly recommend this game as I once did. Im wondering if the developers have a data spreadsheet of sorts, to reflect individual Players to game play time, to see how the bar graph falls and rises as the game is being introduced, per updates. from new players, and die hard players alike. as a graph as to how the game is going in the community.
    Last edited by calmmyst; 05-04-2019 at 05:44 PM.

  3. #43
    Maybe kneeling penalty can also be disabled .. together with those desertion boundaries (or at least increase desertion timer to 30 minutes and simply ignore it).

  4. #44
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,965
    Quote Originally Posted by calmmyst View Post
    Ok this was early game play, but it penalizes players in a 3 man row formation, front row kneeling 2nd row standing over the front row, and the 3rd row slightly offset to the second row, where upon command, all fire as 1 as and overwhelming fire power. any players killed in kneeling causes a higher kill PENALTY for the TEAM. at drill we practice this tactic, its a lot of lead going down range. please get rid of penalty tickets for kneeling.

    When I get asked about this game, I say its one of those games, that has some impressive visuals, with a lot of potential, as it is still in development, that for now your Penalized for most of how you play the game, how the game constructs 1 style of game play, and can lead you being Yelled at, or booted from a private server, for not conforming. so play at your own risk, sure more penalty playing is coming. I use to love this game, now I like it, but im so looking forward to another game in development. I fear this will become one of those games that I occasionally play. how about letting both sides have the option of attacking, like it use to be, example, burnside bridge, when CSA could cross over that itty bitty bridge, not keep pulling back the desertion point, as it now, from where you could never cross, to going half way cross, till now you step on the road, your deserting. The penalties are getting to much to handle, so I dont highly recommend this game as I once did. Im wondering if the developers have a data spreadsheet of sorts, to reflect individual Players to game play time, to see how the bar graph falls and rises as the game is being introduced, per updates. from new players, and die hard players alike. as a graph as to how the game is going in the community.
    Kneeling is not supposed to be the go-to option for everything as it was before we introduced penalties to it.

    It’s supposed to be a choice between a possible higher morale cost if hit and a slightly longer reload time when basically reducing your hitbox by 50% by kneeling or no morale penalty and a slightly quicker reload but have your hitbox be 100% by standing up.

    Restrictions/nudges/buffs/penalties, etc. have always been hugely important to WoR in order to make sure organized teamplay in as close a style to 19th century warfare as possible takes place outside of set up events with an agreed upon ruleset.

    There are several other games out there with much less of it - for better and for worse. We have no plans to join them.

    - Trusty

  5. #45

    USA General of the Army

    calmmyst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by O'Rourke View Post
    Server admins can change those settings via command variables in the server.cfg when you start-up a WoR server. You can change: how many people are needed for the In Formation buff; the distance between those individuals to be counted In Formation or Skirmishing Mode to allow scouting; the number of allotted tickets for each side; the number of lives in Picket Patrol; the time limit for desertion; the time limits for each area; disable the map boundaries, etc.

    Just spend an hour poking around the CFG and JSON files on your server and edit the contents using Notepad.
    CAN YOU DO IT?, They will COME, lol I so wish we could select an on off switch, for all the penalties, now and FUTURE ones. even then the devs would see what servers people are on, and not on.

  6. #46

    USA General of the Army

    calmmyst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post
    Kneeling is not supposed to be the go-to option for everything as it was before we introduced penalties to it.

    It’s supposed to be a choice between a possible higher morale cost if hit and a slightly longer reload time when basically reducing your hitbox by 50% by kneeling or no morale penalty and a slightly quicker reload but have your hitbox be 100% by standing up.

    Restrictions/nudges/buffs/penalties, etc. have always been hugely important to WoR in order to make sure organized teamplay in as close a style to 19th century warfare as possible takes place outside of set up events with an agreed upon ruleset.

    There are several other games out there with much less of it - for better and for worse. We have no plans to join them.

    - Trusty
    I see this, as developers, its your way, Rigid as a stick, that can snap in high winds, instead of being a reed that bends in high winds, seems to me should have been developed as a Napoleonic War. Just asking. its the stead fastness thats going to cause people to say Its an ok game, versus its a fantastic game. leaving people like myself who truly believed in this game, to go else where. why not take a poll from the people, what they want? a Vote for this or that, you say you want to set your game apart from all others, then a peoples vote, would set this game from all other games out there. Ive yet to see a game in development that will allow that approach. but its your game, its going to be the rules you set fourth, but its the people your selling this game to. Its the people who will ultimately decide if a ok, good, fantastic game or one for the wayside. Im still hopeful that playing WOR gets better, as its still in development. The steadfastness thats set fourth is going to be a game breaker. I Honestly Appreciate the fact, that as developers, you respond to peoples posts, good, bad alike, that alone sets you apart from all other game forums.

    I see you tweaked the in game shields, nice, but is it so hard to add inside the shields, the individual company regiments that join a particular server? as to the company commander can place a shield down for those that are forced to try and reconnect from spawn where to get to, ex, like seeing 8th AL, inside that shield, 7th TN, and let the officers choose from individual company tags to the 2 in game regimental shields?

  7. #47
    Didn't know about the customization of the map cycle. I just assumed someone would post about such things if they were discovered so I haven't looked. I'll have to change the map rotation. I figured it was chronological order... I'd much prefer it made sense to the region of Antietam it was in instead of leaping all about.

    Preferably a larger game mode would look a lot like a chess game, still restricting the width of the playable area but in a more fluid way. It's crazy to me that people think opening the map up is somehow going to greatly improve tactical gameplay any time soon. gaga.gif

    By and large teams do the same tactics each round because they're mimicking what they saw done before and because they're in a constant power struggle for respect and doing the same thing everyone else has watched play out on the same skirmish areas is a sure way to hold some minimal level of respect as an officer.

    Here I made a reasonably accurate flowchart of tactical decisions in WoR. Looks like Photobucket sold out on the free hosting finally so I'll have to link it:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s04...ew?usp=sharing

    I could not find two minutes of footage from recording 700 hours of gameplay which encapsulates a good projection of the gameplay as I'd like to see it. I don't really think I'm that big of a dreamer though what we have is pretty consistent with M&B Napoleonic warfare aside from the score system. If people are gonna spend so long in the community and just sprint to one flank or the other and call skirmish the pinnacle of that game mode's development and so badly desire things which will compound that greatly... I don't have any thing in common with that mindset
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 05-05-2019 at 01:36 AM.
    Suggestion: Formations, Suppression, Spawning, Leadership https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqPsbvyD8s


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

  8. #48

    CSA Captain

    Sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    380
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post
    Hello,

    Thank you for the feedback.

    Iím sorry to hear you think our game shallow.

    Iím not sure I completely follow your point regarding knowing how to win maps (especially picket Patrol maps as all spawnpoints are randomized).

    - Trusty
    I said your game modes are shallow. Skirmish Mode - we've played in those boxed off pieces of the battlefield so many times now that you very rarely see anything done outside of the tried and tested routes to a win, how can you not know this??? Picket Patrol is glorified Team Death Match, nothing more. What in gods name happened to this:?

    Players in the game will be able to play on multiple battlefields of the campaign, from the confluence of the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers where the Siege of Harper's Ferry took place, to the ridgelines of South Mountain, and to the meandering waters of Antietam Creek at the Battle of Antietam. Additionally, players will also be able to choose from a list of regiments that fought in each battle as well as what rank to fight as, whether they want to slog it out as a lowly private, or if you want to orchestrate the carnage and mayhem as a major general.

    Uniforms and bodily features will all be customizable for other players to see as you march and fight in the lines of battle according to the tactics of the period. As a General, you will operate in your headquarters equipped with a map of the battlefield and constantly receiving reports of friendly and enemy positions. Send out new orders to the regiments to move forward, or fall back - all in real time. The orders will move down the chain of command, to the Colonels, Majors, down to the Captains in charge of the individual regiments, all of whom have the option to follow the orders of their trusted commander, or rebel against his wishes and fight as you see fit.

    You're light years from that. Maps this size are all well and good for games based upon modern era warfare, but here you've got a hundred men per team trying to out think their enemy on maps where almost their every move is visable. In my humble opinion the actual game mechanics are right on the money, you've come up with a good system to ensure team play in line formation, your uniforms are great & so are the weapons, the maps are gorgeous, the effects are very good....hell you can almost smell the smoke! I honestly do understand that it's a gradual process, but the empty servers go a long way to showing you that your current games modes will not sustain a sufficiant player base for the length of time it's obviously going to take your tiny team to get there. I really do hope you prove us all wrong, because this is the game I've waited for all my life.

    Quote Originally Posted by calmmyst View Post
    Ok this was early game play, but it penalizes players in a 3 man row formation, front row kneeling 2nd row standing over the front row, and the 3rd row slightly offset to the second row, where upon command, all fire as 1 as and overwhelming fire power. any players killed in kneeling causes a higher kill PENALTY for the TEAM. at drill we practice this tactic, its a lot of lead going down range. please get rid of penalty tickets for kneeling. Then we use this tactic in in a fire an advance. LOAD, advance, reposition, fire, and repeat, and say screw the tickets for front row kneeling deaths. I dont care.
    To be fair to the Devs, they've always said they wanted historical accuracy, Civil War troops fought in two ranks, not three (Napoleonic) nor did they use the obsolete Fire & Advance (again Napoleonic). So 'by the book' they're right to see kneeling as a skirmish stance. So you basically told them they might as well make a Napoleonic game because WoR is too restricting....and then you chastise them because you can't use Napoleonic tactics
    ''I'm here to play an American Civil War era combat game, not Call of Duty with muskets.''.

  9. #49

    USA General of the Army

    calmmyst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Sox View Post
    I said your game modes are shallow. Skirmish Mode - we've played in those boxed off pieces of the battlefield so many times now that you very rarely see anything done outside of the tried and tested routes to a win, how can you not know this??? Picket Patrol is glorified Team Death Match, nothing more. What in gods name happened to this:?

    Players in the game will be able to play on multiple battlefields of the campaign, from the confluence of the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers where the Siege of Harper's Ferry took place, to the ridgelines of South Mountain, and to the meandering waters of Antietam Creek at the Battle of Antietam. Additionally, players will also be able to choose from a list of regiments that fought in each battle as well as what rank to fight as, whether they want to slog it out as a lowly private, or if you want to orchestrate the carnage and mayhem as a major general.

    Uniforms and bodily features will all be customizable for other players to see as you march and fight in the lines of battle according to the tactics of the period. As a General, you will operate in your headquarters equipped with a map of the battlefield and constantly receiving reports of friendly and enemy positions. Send out new orders to the regiments to move forward, or fall back - all in real time. The orders will move down the chain of command, to the Colonels, Majors, down to the Captains in charge of the individual regiments, all of whom have the option to follow the orders of their trusted commander, or rebel against his wishes and fight as you see fit.

    You're light years from that. Maps this size are all well and good for games based upon modern era warfare, but here you've got a hundred men per team trying to out think their enemy on maps where almost their every move is visable. In my humble opinion the actual game mechanics are right on the money, you've come up with a good system to ensure team play in line formation, your uniforms are great & so are the weapons, the maps are gorgeous, the effects are very good....hell you can almost smell the smoke! I honestly do understand that it's a gradual process, but the empty servers go a long way to showing you that your current games modes will not sustain a sufficiant player base for the length of time it's obviously going to take your tiny team to get there. I really do hope you prove us all wrong, because this is the game I've waited for all my life.



    To be fair to the Devs, they've always said they wanted historical accuracy, Civil War troops fought in two ranks, not three (Napoleonic) nor did they use the obsolete Fire & Advance (again Napoleonic). So 'by the book' they're right to see kneeling as a skirmish stance. So you basically told them they might as well make a Napoleonic game because WoR is too restricting....and then you chastise them because you can't use Napoleonic tactics
    SOX, I use a 3 man rank to get more lead in a concentrated area, like the corn field, it works rather well, and we advance after reload, with bayonets on this way we are ready for any counter charge. move up 10-15 feet and do it again. cant see nothing but the flag, so we aim left and right center of flag, instead of being one long huge line, that disappears into the corn.

    No, I said Naploinic would have been a better fit, for the style of game play they want. LINE BATTLE only tactics, still have cannons and calvary. The rifles used had to be in line battles, due to the inaccuracy of the weapons used, and effective range, and bayonets could still be mounted. furthermore, most often than not, I have my 3rd rank stand with rifles ready, and never fire, but ready too, to fill the gaps in front of them, and or shoot at any charging enemy, as my 2 front ranks are reloading, but all have bayonets on. and the flag behind the 3rd rank, so a meat shield is protecting the flag, as those respawn in, hopefully not in front of the firing line. and my 3rd rank can aim left or right for a flanking maneuver by the enemy. but as it is now, all the players that use to play this game are no longer playing, WHY? i can only guess its all the penalties NOW set forth. So I hardly see the fields with regiments of the same gamer tags, like i use to, when I once saw 30 plus of the same group on the field, to now i see maybe 5. To now I see majority of New guys now.

    An if we are going to go realistic, then the CSA will field more obsolete weapons then compared to the Union Forces. The union will have the better weapons, with better effective ranges. The csa best way to deal with this, was to give only the sharp shooters the better weapons, as there were to few to field a full regiment to do so. The North Truly fought the south with 1 hand Tied behind its back.
    Last edited by calmmyst; 05-05-2019 at 07:46 PM.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post
    Thanks for the suggestions.

    We never marketed WoR as a persistent experience with races for capitals in a giant open world - or as any kind of open world game for that matter. While very core of WoR is based on historically structured game mechanics (accurate areas, correct capture objectives, formation mechanics, etc.) we did see the need to introduce much less structure (at least in regards to objectives, spawn locations and areas) via the picket Patrol game mode - and you are correct, very few opt to play this mode which we think is a shame but also a testament to the structured nature of the skirmish game mode.

    Much of what you write in regards to string of areas is already in-game. The skirmish areas (on Antietam especially) are all in the correct order of battle.

    Adding the ability to stop skirmish area progression if the defending side wins may be an interesting idea at first glance. The main issues with it are:

    1: You run the risk of introducing the same select few skirmish areas being played over and over again because the push/retreat nature of the campaign, thus introducing map fatigue.

    2: it is already possible for server admins to set up such a campaign should they so desire via the admin tools (back to previous skirmish area/forward to next one, etc.)

    - Trusty
    Thanks for your view on things.

    On map fatigue, you are already experiencing that and its effects, because you get to fight the same repetitive map the same most effective way for each location (with one exception, that forest map that is gloriously unpredictable). Instead, have the maps be available for generic terrains along the proposed campaign locations. You can also make them interchangable (still a corn map but not the same, for example, as you did not retreat exactly through the battlefield fought a few days/hours back).

    As for the maps being in the correct order for the battle in Antietam area, that is not the case here. Those battles had one outcome (one side winning). Depending on the side you chose, even if you've won you get to retreat as if you'd have lost that fight.
    We are fighting in those locations and in similar ways but the outcomes are random. Make the maps order reflect that, at least.

    As for the server admins manually changing the maps, are you serious, sir? Is that your answer, that the server admins can do for the players manually what the game could do by default? What if the admins have no inclination or simply aren't there or cannot be bothered?

    What is so difficult to get a google map of the area, identify and mark a series of locations, assign them one default map and one or more switch-to maps, establish the starting position and let the "campaign" simulation going? It should have several successions of plain, forrest, town, corn, river crossing maps, so it will not be as repetitive as you think, even without switching to alternative maps.

    That you've not advertised your product as a giant open world thing is understandable, it'd have been too very soon. What was out of bounds then may not be so now. You can try this minimalistic campaign, with a nice graphical screen showing the situation as it unfolds. Something to get the players engaged (hey we've pushed from here to here, that's great, let's meet tonight and push further kind of thing).

    It may fail but at least you'd have tried. I guarantee you'd not loose points on that. Also it cannot take more that one week's hard coding and maybe 2 weeks to get the kinks out. But if it proves okay, you can refine, add more campaign paths, maybe even simultaneous and interactable on the same world map. That is still not open-world, is just a sketchy simulation but you'd have the basis to build upon for many years to come.
    Last edited by EneCtin; 05-06-2019 at 04:43 AM.

Posting Permissions

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