Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Melee improvement - displacement by discipline

  1. #21

    USA Captain

    Pvt. Dane Karlsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark L. E. E. Smith View Post
    Actually, I think you're right - "skirmishing" should get a radius in this system, primarily to deter John Rambo approaching a skirmish group. It would make sense if it wasn't as strong as the main "in formation" power - i.e. a group in "skirmishing" would always lack the power to dislodge another "skirmishing" or "in formation" group, but it would have enough of an effect as to prevent it being approached and melee'd by a disorganised force.

    The whole system could lead to more interesting gameplay - for example, a large group kneeling behind a stone wall (or over the crest of a hill) waiting until the enemy is upon them before suddenly standing and activating its bonus, surprising and disorienting the opposition.
    I don't know. I like it as a way to prevent rambo players. I don't like the part where it restrain freedom to aproach a situation in the order you see fit. Or in general restrain the freedom of moving around and about.

  2. #22

    USA Captain

    Pvt. Dane Karlsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Sox View Post
    Another thing is that they talked about 'finishing moves' that were going to improve melee, but we've heard nothing about that for months. I do understand the fruestration with melee, I even hate it myself, it's extremely immersion breaking for one thing, for another it's almost never a conclusive action, in that both sides get virtually wiped out every time.

    A word from Campfire Games on the actual state/plans for melee combat might be useful at this point.
    new melee system is mentioned in this video from June 30th. Can't remember if some sort of estimate about date is made in this video though

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8SW...mEkn1C7MKsZn90

  3. #23
    Every time some guy runs up and banzai skewers three guys in my formation in the back it breaks the FPS genre. That probably never happened in the history of the Civil War and yet it's the sole playing style of a certain percentage of players who constantly need to be accounted for in light of their pointless suicide attacks preying on tightly packed players. It's like I'm on an effing aircraft carrier in WWII trying to account for a low-flying kamikaze pilot trying to get below our AA guns and come up in a blind spot. So, what? Let's just make a game where the only way to avoid that kind of crap is to play in locked events? Like every other realism-based game becomes? Why not just make the game so that wildly unrealistic bullshit is correctly difficult to accomplish in the first place?

    Why is it seen as so radical to give lone players in a game based on a war where soldiers never fought alone and were never expected to fight alone a real reason to not fight alone? I'd say having near zero chance of accomplishing anything a great reason to not fight alone. And it's high time that soldiers out of line engaging players in formation have zero chance at doing anything beyond taking a parting shot. What's so radical about representing the very real and debilitating shock to your nervous system that you're going to get when you're isolated behind a rock in a field getting blasted by 25 enemies? Why's it recover in 30 seconds, last I counted?

    People forget all this works both ways. Both teams work on the same playing field. If you want equal results as the enemy then put yourself in equal circumstances. Don't insist the game gives a skirmisher the same visual clarity and weapon steadiness as a player opposing him in a line of battle. Don't tell me there's any reason for a lone player to do anything other than a) run or b) surrender if he's let himself come into point blank competition with 5+ enemy players.

    He aughta be running anyway but very few do. Most would rather get a stab or three in. If he's good he just runs in among the enemy and they'll practically stab each other. They might be even more of a disruption once parrying is in and there's some skill involved in meelee other than just stabbing.
    Suggestion: Formations, Suppression, Spawning, Leadership https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqPsbvyD8s


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

  4. #24
    Mark L. E. E. Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Poorlaggedman View Post
    Every time some guy runs up and banzai skewers three guys in my formation in the back it breaks the FPS genre. That probably never happened in the history of the Civil War and yet it's the sole playing style of a certain percentage of players who constantly need to be accounted for in light of their pointless suicide attacks preying on tightly packed players. It's like I'm on an effing aircraft carrier in WWII trying to account for a low-flying kamikaze pilot trying to get below our AA guns and come up in a blind spot. So, what? Let's just make a game where the only way to avoid that kind of crap is to play in locked events? Like every other realism-based game becomes? Why not just make the game so that wildly unrealistic bullshit is correctly difficult to accomplish in the first place?

    Why is it seen as so radical to give lone players in a game based on a war where soldiers never fought alone and were never expected to fight alone a real reason to not fight alone? I'd say having near zero chance of accomplishing anything a great reason to not fight alone. And it's high time that soldiers out of line engaging players in formation have zero chance at doing anything beyond taking a parting shot. What's so radical about representing the very real and debilitating shock to your nervous system that you're going to get when you're isolated behind a rock in a field getting blasted by 25 enemies? Why's it recover in 30 seconds, last I counted?

    People forget all this works both ways. Both teams work on the same playing field. If you want equal results as the enemy then put yourself in equal circumstances. Don't insist the game gives a skirmisher the same visual clarity and weapon steadiness as a player opposing him in a line of battle. Don't tell me there's any reason for a lone player to do anything other than a) run or b) surrender if he's let himself come into point blank competition with 5+ enemy players.

    He aughta be running anyway but very few do. Most would rather get a stab or three in. If he's good he just runs in among the enemy and they'll practically stab each other. They might be even more of a disruption once parrying is in and there's some skill involved in meelee other than just stabbing.
    hallelujah

  5. #25

    CSA Captain

    Sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    366
    Quote Originally Posted by Poorlaggedman View Post
    If he's good he just runs in among the enemy and they'll practically stab each other. They might be even more of a disruption once parrying is in and there's some skill involved in meelee other than just stabbing.
    You'd be pretty hard pressed to find a single melee fight, in the entire history of this game, where friendlies did not kill each other. The OP is trying to fix the problem after the horse has bolted, because the real problem here lies with a very poorly designed melee system, the actual action of attacking with a bayonet. Melee in WoR does NOT represent the chaos of melee, it represents a really poor system where the act of shoving a 12 inch piece of steel through your enemy, often results in you killing your comrades. Not once, in over thirty years of researching this war, have I ever come across a single instance of a man stabbing a comrade with a bayonnet 'by accident'.

    I find the melee system, as it stands now, to be ludicrous. Before we talk about anything else related to melee, the actual act of stabbing an enemy with a bayonet needs to be fixed. As for the rest? I'm sorry but there is no code that can fix 'stupid', you'll never stop Rambo gameplay, no matter what you do.
    ''I'm here to play an American Civil War era combat game, not Call of Duty with muskets.''.

  6. #26
    No but you can stop effective rambo gameplay and that's just as good. The team morale system isn't fair to both parties. It's always hurting someone else and the one person it hurts the least is the individual screwing off. You can't force a player to work with his teammates but you can make the circumstances in which he can operate successfully alone much more narrow.

    Just make a new formation status called Isolated which is more vulnerable to suppression, recovers slower, can't melee or can't melee effectively, and surrenders 50% of the time when touched by enemy formations.


    While they're at there should be various types of formation statuses tied to suppression resistance and spawn time.


    That screen where it says "you were killed" can be of varying lengths as a punitive action for how you were killed. Shorter the more compact of a formation you died in, not the least of which because you will die more in a compact formation. And someone who breaks away to make himself impervious to fire behind cover is not likely to get shot without meticulous effort.


    Viola. Totally different results. Formations have more focus on remaining cohesive since that effects how quickly they can spawn in players and isolated players can only act as snipers who strive not to be discovered at all. Not a difficult concept but not one that will ever be implemented by catering to some imaginary right of gamers to just do whatever the hell they want at everyone else's expense.
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 07-11-2019 at 06:52 PM.
    Suggestion: Formations, Suppression, Spawning, Leadership https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqPsbvyD8s


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

  7. #27

    CSA Captain

    Sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    366
    It's a catch 22. The present system is good in theory, BUT, it works on the premise that the lone player actually cares about 'hurting his team', which of course he does not because he's not really part of a team. It works better with players who are in formed companies because they are, of course, actually part of a team, but it's still not infalable. I like the idea of an 'isolated' formation but, like every other system designed to punish poor play, how do you account for accidental moments? That's why most games will not punish a teamkill, because it can happen by accident.

    How 'we' actually play WoR has a huge impact on these systems. A longer re-spawn time for being out of formation, like you suggest, would cure the running from spawn alone to get back to the front for example, because you can of course be killed by a stray bullet or shell....and thus be counted as out of formation, or 'isolated' as you suggest. I know you're a big beleiver in public servers, hence most of your suggestions tend to focus on 'fixing' people who are just NOT team players, you cannot force players to care.
    ''I'm here to play an American Civil War era combat game, not Call of Duty with muskets.''.

  8. #28
    [17thMI] J.Connelly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark L. E. E. Smith View Post
    Here’s something that I think would reduce the melee madness to a more realistic level (i.e. very little) while in keeping with current game mechanics.

    It would also prevent rambo’s approaching enemy lines while still allowing smaller melee skirmishes and chasing down lone wolves.

    Current system: anything goes, really. Rambo is free to approach a huge enemy force and stab them in the back, without even a nod towards authenticity. The penalties (extra ticket losses) aren’t enough to deter such behaviour. Bayonets are often equipped at the start of the round with no tangible penalties for doing so. Not a round goes by without unrealistic charges to remove the enemy from a point.

    Displacement by discipline


    As it stands, each soldier has an invisible radius:


    "x" is the individual soldier, with the blue circle his formation radius. He's currently "out of line"

    When enough come together, they combine into a formation...


    now he's "in formation", where he should be

    These could be extended when the formation criteria is met (“in formation”), to a much larger distance – say 50ft.


    woah. Only two buffed radii are shown, for clarity

    The radius could then be effectively impenetrable for (non-formationed) enemy troops by perhaps extreme unrecoverable suppression which gets worse the closer they get, perhaps accompanied by panicked screams and shouts to alert the formation, thereby preventing them from doing damage:




    This radius could then be utilised to move a lesser force off a point – displacing them via suppression and fear of overwhelming numbers rather than a stab fest, and forcing them to retreat off the point or have their character pretty much rendered useless by the effects of suppression. If a formation is approaching another, the formation with the greater suppressive radius (with the value determined by the number of men in each formation) doesn’t suffer the suppressive effect of the enemy radius (enemy formation radius not displayed for clarity purposes):



    This means a well-ordered force could advance at the quicktime, maintaining their formation, and force a lesser-disciplined enemy to retreat without it coming down to a melee. The current undisciplined sprinting melee charges would be rendered useless and would be replaced by a tactical system favouring teamwork and organisation - displacing the enemy by discipline. Bayonets would rarely need to be equipped, aside from perhaps chasing down stragglers.

    Shoot it down, chaps.
    I wholly endorse this idea. For whatever that's worth.

  9. #29
    People keep bringing up this idea of being separated. How does this happen? I'm eventually going to make a video (not soon) on tactics again and highlight the pros and cons of various common ones. Very often separation is due to poor tactics and a cumbersome spawn system incentizing players to spawn in the rear and wander their way back into the action alone. One of the most fashionable offensive tactics is to try to get your team isolated behind enemy lines on a flank to approach the enemy from a different angle. Rarely in these situations do people consider the pace of movements and casualties and the inevitable drag on your team from confused players. Not to mention the high risk of losing your flags. By 'drag' I mean from all the out-of-lines you've just created in separate areas of the map unable to easily locate or approach friendlies. You have to account for that. Nix the over-elaborate madness and super-avoidance of frontal attacks and you're now taking a much lower percentage of out-of-lines.

    Unfortunately for some reason the mappers tend to put the spawn areas in a non-central location to the path of attack. Pry Grist Mill is a great example. As the Union team I dont want people to assault the mill, the objective isn't there, I feel it's a waste of effort and yet you're 100% guaranteed to lose people attacking it (including players just being sniped coming from spawn) because your base spawn is firmly anchored on that flank of the map to your rear. bang.gif

    People sometimes go AFK and get left behind in precarious situations and you always have one guy crouching in a corner reloading who never seems to heed any commands to move out only to die cut off from everyone else. So? Maybe he should get good. There's nothing wrong with a player who's carrying a message or anything to start tunnel visioning out or facing imminent danger should he wander into enemy hands. That's why players shouldn't do that just like the real-life combatants wouldn't do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sox View Post
    I know you're a big beleiver in public servers, hence most of your suggestions tend to focus on 'fixing' people who are just NOT team players, you cannot force players to care.
    Right. That's why you don't design the game around coddling those people.

    Ironically I pretty much live for the day when events will be feasible but I know full well the danger chasing after a mirage of gameplay. If things work well in public play then events will be much, much, much better and easier and less stressful to manage. I'd like to see the regular gameplay look more like events. That would benefit everybody.
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 07-11-2019 at 10:31 PM.
    Suggestion: Formations, Suppression, Spawning, Leadership https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqPsbvyD8s


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

  10. #30

    CSA Captain

    Sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    366
    Quote Originally Posted by Poorlaggedman View Post
    One of the most fashionable offensive tactics is to try to get your team isolated behind enemy lines on a flank to approach the enemy from a different angle. Rarely in these situations do people consider the pace of movements and casualties and the inevitable drag on your team from confused players. Not to mention the high risk of losing your flags. By 'drag' I mean from all the out-of-lines you've just created in separate areas of the map unable to easily locate or approach friendlies. You have to account for that. Nix the over-elaborate madness and super-avoidance of frontal attacks and you're now taking a much lower percentage of out-of-lines.
    That's a fair comment, but it's problematical of the modern mindset trying to play a game set in the 1800's is it not? Players are prone to fixating, in particular, on one thing that was never a part of a typical civil war battle, speedy manoeuvre. The objective of those manoeuvers is always to get out of the way of the enemy line of fire....but as we all know civil war troops walked into the most withering gunfire that any soldier, up until World War One, would experience. You're quite right PLM, in WoR games more times is spent trying to avoid the enemy than is spent actually facing him.
    ''I'm here to play an American Civil War era combat game, not Call of Duty with muskets.''.

Posting Permissions

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