Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 93

Thread: Dear developers. A collection of community suggestions

  1. #41

    USA General of the Army

    Oleander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    639
    I've mentioned flag bearers and officers becoming morale modifiers, not just costing more tickets if lost, for a while now. Also a successful attack or defend should also be rewarded even if it is based off numbers lost over a given period of time. Might put a strain on the engine since it would be polling data for the modifier fairly frequently.

  2. #42
    James Morgan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    27

    Response to Poor Lagged man

    I will start with the fact that I agree with you that officer trolls are a problem. But that's the only thing I agree with in this post. I can't help to get a real issue with authority vibe in your post. A officers and NCO's spawning in faster system would help avoid lines running around like chickens when a Rambo runs up and kills their officer. It is not fun to be in a line without and officer because public players do not understand the importance of letting them spawn in.

    Now on the matter of and officer election system that is utter nonsense. Do you really think the Dev team has time to code in a election system that would only be logically be used on the WOR official servers. This would not only mean handing the servers over to a mob mentality but also causing a server crash issue for private servers that disable the feature. The way this game engine works is if you disable anything on your server it starts gathering error reports and will crash. I understand you don't play with and organized group but that is your own decision. Public games will always be organized chaos. If anything WOR public play is leaps and bounds better with its Public play than other games in its genre.

    You can record Bad officers as much as you want. We all know people abuse the rank. Go read up on shit officer in the Civil war it happened. Not all officers where good some really sucked. You gripe on realism but only when it is convenient for you. I suggest that you actually just play game and stop constantly trying to change the game that people are more or less happy with. Sure we would like to see some changes as evident by the post above and I agree with some of their suggestions. But the majority of what you suggest is just nonsense and distract the devs from getting work done.
    Last edited by James Morgan; 09-09-2019 at 04:11 PM.
    Longstreet's I Corps

    5th Texas Infantry CO

  3. #43
    Beno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Britain
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by James Morgan View Post
    I will start with the fact that I agree with you that officer trolls are a problem. But that's the only thing I agree with in this post. I can't help to get a real issue with authority vibe in your post. A officers and NCO's spawning in faster system would help avoid lines running around like chickens when a Rambo runs up and kills their officer. It is not fun to be in a line without and officer because public players do not understand the importance of letting them spawn in.

    Now on the matter of and officer election system that is utter nonsense. Do you really think the Dev team has time to code in a election system that would only be logically be used on the WOR official servers. This would not only mean handing the servers over to a mob mentality but also causing a server crash issue for private servers that disable the feature. The way this game engine works is if you disable anything on your server it starts gathering error reports and will crash. I understand you don't play with and organized group but that is your own decision. Public games will always be organized chaos. If anything WOR public play is leaps and bounds better with its Public play than other games in its genre.

    You can record Bad officers as much as you want. We all know people abuse the rank. Go read up on shit officer in the Civil war it happened. Not all officers where good some really sucked. You gripe on realism but only when it is convenient for you. I suggest that you actually just play game and stop constantly trying to change the game that people are more or less happy with. Sure we would like to see some changes as evident by the post above and I agree with some of their suggestions. But the majority of what you suggest is just nonsense and distract the devs from getting work done.
    I think that you make a valid point and it is slightly true about what you said about the bad officers but most of the "bad officers" would in reality be demoted, killed in action or cause a mutiny - to simulate this I would propose the idea that the developers implement a vote kick option if this continues to be a serious issue, this could interrupt game play however I would prefer that over having a troll fill the officer slot and it would help with known teamkillers. This would have to be an option for private servers, but in public I believe it could help a lot.
    Irish Volunteer Brigade - 69thNY, 63rdNY Co. A, 88th NY Co. A, 89thNY Co. A, 2ndUS Batt. G
    Brigade CO
    Colonel Beno

  4. #44
    Totally disagree on the officer/NCO priority queues as well as about everything else just above. I've argued this many times and almost the entire forum is against me or doesn't care to comment. Not coincidentally most of the forum are company folks and aren't directly hampered by chaotic public gameplay from which to draw recruits from. There's an accepted norm of total and utter chaos being the norm in these types of ambitious games and that's the only reason it's the norm as bad as it is. Literally almost any introduction to this game requires the caveat "It can be real fun if you find a good unit." That is not the standard that should be sought in terms of gamepay. That's a route to disaster I've seen again and again in realism-based games. Realism-based games are difficult to play and need good organization. If you're not even going to try to build that game on a steady and logical platform and instead rely on sponsored and admined events or a pure happenstance of leaders occasionally being in a server then the public gameplay will wilt because of it far worse than it needs to and hurt everyone in the end.

    Spawn priority for certain ranks is nonsensical. It's going at the symptom of the problem rather than the problem. Don't want rambos running up behind? Do something about it (I have a video in my signature on this). Why should key leaders be rapidly replaced? Key leaders get killed, that's reality. Shall we have them able to be as reckless as they want with no repercussions because some people think the gameplay is so fragile that we need to? Has anyone promoting this idea accounted for rambo officers or suggested adding a penalty to that? So why the hell wouldn't an officer just run forward, kill, die, respawn priority, and repeat? And who supports what I've proposed on stopping rambos? Who gives a crap when the basis of the game is seen as an admin-enforced environment in the first place. There should be more leader roles in general and the ranks should mean something, which they don't. The ratios are not adequate in the first place nor does the actual ranks make sense (4 First Sergeants and zero Corporals or Sergeants, etc on team with 75 players).

    Would it be months of development to make them mean something? Yes. It's badly needed above all else. And not really that hard or radical of a concept though to create a tree of players in a 'squad' system. You literally just join one, fight with one, and respawn on one when they're properly formed. In doing so you indirectly empower whichever person created and ran that 'squad' in the first place. And with each additional member who voluntarily joins that group which he chooses enables more rank and structure within it. In that situation leaders have every reason to do a good job, the sergeants and corporals he promotes have every reason to obey him, and privates have every reason to willingly follow the leaders they selected.

    Literally all you're doing is giving players options and letting the players play the game. You're not giving anyone an option when ranks are selected by who seizes them first like happens now. How are you going to do any form of linear warfare in whatever sort of formation with totally random officers? How's a server owner even going to select ranks during an event without micromanaging "[Server] Pvt. Fluffy please kill yourself and change roles from officer to a private." One solution largely solves the other one. But doing nothing makes this all much harder than it needs to be.

    My solutions are all by options. You play in a bigger, better formation - you spawn faster. You run off alone at an enemy formation; then you can't melee, you get suppressed badly, and take a long time to recover, and a longer respawn. If enemy in-formation players touch you and you're out of line/isolated, you autosurrender. You play in a smaller formation, you spawn slower. You play with a crappy leader then you walk over to a better-led group and join them by pressing a couple buttons.

    I'm absolutely not anti-clan and I give zero rips how it's perceived. I've seen this all before. Event-based games die prematurely. Very few players come to this game to play in the cluster**** that is often the standard current public gameplay and a whole lot of them aren't going to keep returning to play again and again with the issues never being confronted. Streams of players come to a game like this because they want a certain experience. The easier it is to reach that the better we'll all be off.
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 09-09-2019 at 07:36 PM.
    Suggestion: Formations, Suppression, Spawning, Leadership https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqPsbvyD8s


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

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Poorlaggedman View Post
    I've argued this many times and almost the entire forum is against me or doesn't care to comment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Poorlaggedman View Post
    I'm absolutely not anti-clan
    Nice signature bro

  6. #46
    James Morgan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    27

    Response to Poor Lagged man Part II

    Man you don't know when to quit. "How's a server owner even going to select ranks during an event without micromanaging "[Server] Pvt. Fluffy please kill yourself and change roles from officer to a private." One solution largely solves the other one. But doing nothing makes this all much harder than it needs to be." We have a magical thing called a password now and most events are password locked. If you want to play in large organized battles join or make a unit not that hard of a concept. Also FYI it is very easy for us to kick bad officers and trolls if they are fucking off on our servers during public hours and most trouble makers get banned off of all private servers.

    Pub games will always be a bit of a mess because of new people and the inherent nature of public play where anyone can lead. Public play is for players who choose not to join regiments and or are new to the game. Linear warfare and the general fighting of this time required a very high level of communication and effort. So the people who want to do that join regiments and play the game in a more organized manner. While those intent with the pubby experience don't join regiments.

    Your issue is that you are a public player who wants all the games to run like events and that defeats the purpose of forming companies, regiments, brigades etc. I have read up on most of your ideas and they all seem like a major waste of the Dev's teams already Non existent time. They have a road map for the game and will make small additions to it as needed. But every thing extra they do takes a lot of time and more importantly money they don't have. Reworking the way all the ranks work for skirmish would take a lot of time and effort away from them actually finishing arty and getting historical out the door.
    Longstreet's I Corps

    5th Texas Infantry CO

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by James Morgan View Post
    If you want to play in large organized battles join or make a unit not that hard of a concept.
    Quote Originally Posted by James Morgan View Post
    Pub games will always be a bit of a mess because of new people and the inherent nature of public play where anyone can lead.
    Quote Originally Posted by James Morgan View Post
    Public play is for players who choose not to join regiments and or are new to the game.
    Quote Originally Posted by James Morgan View Post
    Linear warfare and the general fighting of this time required a very high level of communication and effort.

    Quote Originally Posted by James Morgan View Post
    Your issue is that you are a public player who wants all the games to run like events and that defeats the purpose of forming companies, regiments, brigades etc.

    Mr Morgan If you sir don't agree with everything I say, you do a most excellent job at demonstrating exactly what I say. ja.gif




    Quote Originally Posted by Vankovski View Post
    Nice signature bro
    I can add the tears back in if you'd like. I haven't had the time to make a new one but it's on my list of things to do.
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 09-10-2019 at 03:17 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
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by James Morgan View Post
    Your issue is that you are a public player who wants all the games to run like events and that defeats the purpose of forming companies, regiments, brigades etc.
    You have to hand it to James, he's 100% right there.
    ''I'm here to play an American Civil War era combat game, not Call of Duty with muskets.''.

  9. #49
    Mark L. E. E. Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Poorlaggedman View Post
    Totally disagree on the officer/NCO priority queues as well as about everything else just above. I've argued this many times and almost the entire forum is against me or doesn't care to comment. Not coincidentally most of the forum are company folks and aren't directly hampered by chaotic public gameplay from which to draw recruits from. There's an accepted norm of total and utter chaos being the norm in these types of ambitious games and that's the only reason it's the norm as bad as it is. Literally almost any introduction to this game requires the caveat "It can be real fun if you find a good unit." That is not the standard that should be sought in terms of gamepay. That's a route to disaster I've seen again and again in realism-based games. Realism-based games are difficult to play and need good organization. If you're not even going to try to build that game on a steady and logical platform and instead rely on sponsored and admined events or a pure happenstance of leaders occasionally being in a server then the public gameplay will wilt because of it far worse than it needs to and hurt everyone in the end.

    Spawn priority for certain ranks is nonsensical. It's going at the symptom of the problem rather than the problem. Don't want rambos running up behind? Do something about it (I have a video in my signature on this). Why should key leaders be rapidly replaced? Key leaders get killed, that's reality. Shall we have them able to be as reckless as they want with no repercussions because some people think the gameplay is so fragile that we need to? Has anyone promoting this idea accounted for rambo officers or suggested adding a penalty to that? So why the hell wouldn't an officer just run forward, kill, die, respawn priority, and repeat? And who supports what I've proposed on stopping rambos? Who gives a crap when the basis of the game is seen as an admin-enforced environment in the first place. There should be more leader roles in general and the ranks should mean something, which they don't. The ratios are not adequate in the first place nor does the actual ranks make sense (4 First Sergeants and zero Corporals or Sergeants, etc on team with 75 players).

    Would it be months of development to make them mean something? Yes. It's badly needed above all else. And not really that hard or radical of a concept though to create a tree of players in a 'squad' system. You literally just join one, fight with one, and respawn on one when they're properly formed. In doing so you indirectly empower whichever person created and ran that 'squad' in the first place. And with each additional member who voluntarily joins that group which he chooses enables more rank and structure within it. In that situation leaders have every reason to do a good job, the sergeants and corporals he promotes have every reason to obey him, and privates have every reason to willingly follow the leaders they selected.

    Literally all you're doing is giving players options and letting the players play the game. You're not giving anyone an option when ranks are selected by who seizes them first like happens now. How are you going to do any form of linear warfare in whatever sort of formation with totally random officers? How's a server owner even going to select ranks during an event without micromanaging "[Server] Pvt. Fluffy please kill yourself and change roles from officer to a private." One solution largely solves the other one. But doing nothing makes this all much harder than it needs to be.

    My solutions are all by options. You play in a bigger, better formation - you spawn faster. You run off alone at an enemy formation; then you can't melee, you get suppressed badly, and take a long time to recover, and a longer respawn. If enemy in-formation players touch you and you're out of line/isolated, you autosurrender. You play in a smaller formation, you spawn slower. You play with a crappy leader then you walk over to a better-led group and join them by pressing a couple buttons.

    I'm absolutely not anti-clan and I give zero rips how it's perceived. I've seen this all before. Event-based games die prematurely. Very few players come to this game to play in the cluster**** that is often the standard current public gameplay and a whole lot of them aren't going to keep returning to play again and again with the issues never being confronted. Streams of players come to a game like this because they want a certain experience. The easier it is to reach that the better we'll all be off.
    Thanks man, it's important that voices from across the community are heard. No idea why the above posters would want to stifle that.

  10. #50
    Dane Karlsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Poorlaggedman View Post
    Totally disagree on the officer/NCO priority queues as well as about everything else just above. I've argued this many times and almost the entire forum is against me or doesn't care to comment. Not coincidentally most of the forum are company folks and aren't directly hampered by chaotic public gameplay from which to draw recruits from. There's an accepted norm of total and utter chaos being the norm in these types of ambitious games and that's the only reason it's the norm as bad as it is. Literally almost any introduction to this game requires the caveat "It can be real fun if you find a good unit." That is not the standard that should be sought in terms of gamepay. That's a route to disaster I've seen again and again in realism-based games. Realism-based games are difficult to play and need good organization. If you're not even going to try to build that game on a steady and logical platform and instead rely on sponsored and admined events or a pure happenstance of leaders occasionally being in a server then the public gameplay will wilt because of it far worse than it needs to and hurt everyone in the end.

    Spawn priority for certain ranks is nonsensical. It's going at the symptom of the problem rather than the problem. Don't want rambos running up behind? Do something about it (I have a video in my signature on this). Why should key leaders be rapidly replaced? Key leaders get killed, that's reality. Shall we have them able to be as reckless as they want with no repercussions because some people think the gameplay is so fragile that we need to? Has anyone promoting this idea accounted for rambo officers or suggested adding a penalty to that? So why the hell wouldn't an officer just run forward, kill, die, respawn priority, and repeat? And who supports what I've proposed on stopping rambos? Who gives a crap when the basis of the game is seen as an admin-enforced environment in the first place. There should be more leader roles in general and the ranks should mean something, which they don't. The ratios are not adequate in the first place nor does the actual ranks make sense (4 First Sergeants and zero Corporals or Sergeants, etc on team with 75 players).

    Would it be months of development to make them mean something? Yes. It's badly needed above all else. And not really that hard or radical of a concept though to create a tree of players in a 'squad' system. You literally just join one, fight with one, and respawn on one when they're properly formed. In doing so you indirectly empower whichever person created and ran that 'squad' in the first place. And with each additional member who voluntarily joins that group which he chooses enables more rank and structure within it. In that situation leaders have every reason to do a good job, the sergeants and corporals he promotes have every reason to obey him, and privates have every reason to willingly follow the leaders they selected.

    Literally all you're doing is giving players options and letting the players play the game. You're not giving anyone an option when ranks are selected by who seizes them first like happens now. How are you going to do any form of linear warfare in whatever sort of formation with totally random officers? How's a server owner even going to select ranks during an event without micromanaging "[Server] Pvt. Fluffy please kill yourself and change roles from officer to a private." One solution largely solves the other one. But doing nothing makes this all much harder than it needs to be.

    My solutions are all by options. You play in a bigger, better formation - you spawn faster. You run off alone at an enemy formation; then you can't melee, you get suppressed badly, and take a long time to recover, and a longer respawn. If enemy in-formation players touch you and you're out of line/isolated, you autosurrender. You play in a smaller formation, you spawn slower. You play with a crappy leader then you walk over to a better-led group and join them by pressing a couple buttons.

    I'm absolutely not anti-clan and I give zero rips how it's perceived. I've seen this all before. Event-based games die prematurely. Very few players come to this game to play in the cluster**** that is often the standard current public gameplay and a whole lot of them aren't going to keep returning to play again and again with the issues never being confronted. Streams of players come to a game like this because they want a certain experience. The easier it is to reach that the better we'll all be off.
    you have some good ideas. And it is admirable that you keep on being a champion for the independent players in this game.
    But you must admit that changing all of these things are not top priority at this moment, as James Morgan points out WOR dev team are very small and on a very small bugdet compared to the ambitions for this lovely game. And therefore the roadmap takes top priority. Arty alone will bring in way more players than any rank selection would. Not that I doubt it would help the public matches, with a more specific rank system but it's just not urgent.
    We would allso have to expect that most people that choose to play outside companies and regiments doesn't prioritize tactics and organisation as much as having a fun and fast action packed round, evident by the most used tactics in public matches. In addition I know from my own experience as one trying to recruit players for my company that most players that are not allready in a group doesn't want to be in a group for various reasons, why it is somewhat naive to expect super organised battles amongst people that don't really prioritise that. I mean players like you are sadly a minority in public mathes.

    Again I support some of you'r ideas as one that otherwise believe that organising in groups are the only way to get organised battles mind you. And as I said admire your ongoing battle. But I allso support the argument that these ideas for changes, no matter how good, takes second place to the focus on the roadmap.
    Last edited by Dane Karlsen; 09-10-2019 at 11:04 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
  •