Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 86

Thread: Dear developers. A collection of community suggestions

  1. #51
    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.

  2. #52
    Dane Karlsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    27
    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 12:04 PM.

  3. #53
    James Morgan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    26

    Response to Poor Lagged man Part III

    So? I am right? I don't understand what you want from the Devs. They are not gonna rework the whole public scene to suit your needs or the needs of the people who refuse to join units. They made a company tool for a reason to aid units in forming. This game is for organized groups. You do not have to join a unit but if you want the full WOR experience then I highly encourage you to do so. Fighting was done by large organized groups that drill and trained to together in the Civil War. You will never recreate that with only Pubs. The only time pub matches get organized is when Regimental members go on and make them organize. Even the groups that claim to not be regiments in which I refer to the Public clans are actually just non-historical regiments.

    You have spent so much time clamoring for reforms to public play when you are missing the point of the game. It is to recreate the feeling and spirit of the Civil war Through organized play. So if the public play will never be organized it is fairly obvious that the future of this game lies with the regimental players with the public games serving a midway point for new players to find regiments in action and for regimental players to play the game in a more relaxed fashion.

    In the time you have spent on these forums constantly on the Dev's to improve public play you could have started a successful regiment of which the union is in need of at this time. I personally have nothing against you besides the fact that when you constantly post on the forums it distracts the Devs from trying to make real progress with the game and honestly if you think everyone is against your opinion why bark up and bother everyone in the first place. It is like you enjoy causing arguments on the forums. I tend to not post on these forums and just read up on them. Due to the fact that I came into the game on steam release and needed to digest all of the history here. But, I can say with confidence that you seem like you care about the game but your effort is misguided. I will again suggest that you form a unit and get back into the organized scene of play and try to help the Devs make good progress instead of being the forum general you currently are.
    Last edited by James Morgan; 09-10-2019 at 04:54 PM.
    Longstreet's I Corps

    5th Texas Infantry CO

  4. #54
    LeFuret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    24
    I must agree with James Morgan here. It's like Poorlaggedman enjoys causing arguments: just look at his signature. 90% of the time, he just disagrees with everyone just for the sake of it.
    siiiiiip, yup.

  5. #55

  6. #56

    CSA Captain


    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by LeFuret View Post
    I must agree with James Morgan here. It's like Poorlaggedman enjoys causing arguments: just look at his signature. 90% of the time, he just disagrees with everyone just for the sake of it.
    His signature is the way it is because members of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Texas units don't often agree with him. PLM loves to say he's not anti-clan, but he's quick to try and generalize them simply for disagreeing.

    Anyways, back on topic: Most of these ideas are great, but I'm hoping most of their attention is on artillery and balance at this point.
    Currahee!

  7. #57

    USA General of the Army

    Oleander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    611
    No one, and I mean no one, in this forum has all the answers for how this game should be developed. Regardless of what he has in his signature, how many videos he's made or how long his posts are. It all sounds great on paper then you put it in the game and all of a sudden "I told you so. Why are you guys so dumb? Literally killed the game. Etc." The devs put in Picket Patrol because there was a vocal portion of the community that asked for, and yes I was in it, I know several people the like the mode though the vast majority don't. As far as I'm concerned that is the most close to reality and logical portion of this game that exists because of the random element and forcing a leader to think outside of the box and get creative. Guess what, they did that during the war too.

    I swear the people on here bitching about team play are the ones that backseat quarterback the officers. Don't say you haven't either, I've seen the videos. Then they come on the forums and say the rank system sucks. Well how are you gonna decide who gets what role if all you want to do is hop into a game with random people you know nothing about. And in the same breath they'll berate organized units for whatever reason. The war wasn't fought with random people coming together to fight an enemy, I don't know why in the hell people expect this game to play any differently. It revolves around organized combat, and I think those who continue to argue against the grain just aren't capable of being led and want to take it out on everyone else.

    Its like trying to wrangle a bunch of 5 year olds. Hide behind the white knight facade all you want, that exterior gets more cracks in it every time you post.

  8. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Oleander View Post
    No one, and I mean no one, in this forum has all the answers for how this game should be developed. Regardless of what he has in his signature, how many videos he's made or how long his posts are. It all sounds great on paper then you put it in the game and all of a sudden "I told you so. Why are you guys so dumb? Literally killed the game. Etc." The devs put in Picket Patrol because there was a vocal portion of the community that asked for, and yes I was in it, I know several people the like the mode though the vast majority don't. As far as I'm concerned that is the most close to reality and logical portion of this game that exists because of the random element and forcing a leader to think outside of the box and get creative. Guess what, they did that during the war too.

    I swear the people on here bitching about team play are the ones that backseat quarterback the officers. Don't say you haven't either, I've seen the videos. Then they come on the forums and say the rank system sucks. Well how are you gonna decide who gets what role if all you want to do is hop into a game with random people you know nothing about. And in the same breath they'll berate organized units for whatever reason. The war wasn't fought with random people coming together to fight an enemy, I don't know why in the hell people expect this game to play any differently. It revolves around organized combat, and I think those who continue to argue against the grain just aren't capable of being led and want to take it out on everyone else.

    Its like trying to wrangle a bunch of 5 year olds. Hide behind the white knight facade all you want, that exterior gets more cracks in it every time you post.
    Here here! Extremely well said!

    Longstreet's I Corps
    1st Brigade Commanding Officer

  9. #59
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sox View Post
    You have to hand it to James, he's 100% right there.
    Business as usual for this type of game is a low population event-driven game. That's very bad. I'm tired of having to deal within the confines of that due to a lack of both ambition and imagination among the masses. Nobody in this community benefits in any way from a game which requires a unit to join or a passworded server to play in and yet this is the gold standard and it's a personal affront to the unit community to challenge this norm according to a handful of vocal players.

    Let's make public gameplay work better. wacko.gif
    "Stone him!!!"

    I don't want to hear any more retorts without substance just attacking motivations or throwing the whole discussion off-topic. It's all been said before. Vlads the only guy who ever pretended to formulate a real retort and I'm still waiting on his 100 reasons why leader election is a bad idea IIRC.


    There will be player count bumps with updates but you need non-committal, public-friendly gameplay. That has nothing to do with watering down a game's mechanics and turning it into something mainstream and it has everything to do with incentivizing each player to work towards a common goal of formulating the gameplay they came to play in the first place. That isn't happening. It's very difficult to have a good base of players when you don't provide what players want when they decide to purchase the game.

    Gameplay has nothing to do with how pretty a game is. It has to do with a player saying "I want to play Civil War combat" and they logon and they join a server and a certain high percentage of the time they get what they're looking for. The percentage is very poor right now.

    This is where some of you hold narrow visions and think you can lecture me about "this isn't that type of game" and it can never be public-friendly. Yet almost no 'pubber' buys this game to deal with messy gameplay, which is the average gameplay you can go on and record in a server (usually only half full lately). What a Youtube video would disclaimer as "actual gameplay." That's not a general condemnation of the game so far, but you need more than realistic weaponry, kill-multipliers deciding round outcomes, and 'balanced' maps. That's not what people are coming into the game for. That's not what the trailers show. That's not the Civil War combat people want to play. By failure to more aggressively mold that experience into the gameplay, the game is being set up for an event-driven future.

    Players want formation usage. Acceptable leadership. Flags that are waved proudly not hidden behind a tree. They don't want random guys running up behind them alone and stabbing at him and his buddies while he reloads. They don't want totally random guys leading them and no way whatsoever to choose someone else.

    Examples:
    The suppression I think works very well for out of line players in a gunfight. It does nothing for players who go in with a bayonet.

    The team morale system literally only determines who wins or loses the round and has little to do with the experience of the player outside of the end-of-round events. Why not make formations themselves more useful by expanding the system and tying it to faster respawns? That way we can potentially fight in formation and not all hugging a worm fence or hiding in a long single-file line behind one tree. If certain formations had benefits which countered their obvious negatives then this would help.

    The flag role should change so it's not a hidden respawn point as it is. Either add more grace periods to when the flag bearer is killed or change the whole system. Make a 'squad' system within the game. A player joins one... he forms up with one... when the formation is intact - he even respawns into one, no flag bearer needed. Rather than making the flag bearer an asset that needs to be protected make the active flag bearers help with zone control or speed up respawning, being most effective at the center of larger formations and less effective when other places within it. It's either that or flags will always be just a spawn point meant to be kept out of view. People don't come to War of Rights to see a flag always cowering in the rear as a strategy.

    Hey, tie the squads to leader chains. Leadership is a continuous crisis. We've had lots of good public leaders. It's not hard to tell the difference between a guy who sounds reasonable and a cinematic officer or an idiot who'll get us all killed. You learn their voices and their names and you play with the same players night after night at times. Officers have no authority right now and they can't delegate authority (it takes a miracle to have both a good officer and NCOs). Right now leaders have to both try to lead and also manage and maintain power over players who are under no obligation to follow him and had no say in his appointment. They have no real authority because they were never given authority by anybody because there's no system in place and I seriously have to put up with these people saying over and over again that the idea of fixing that is stupid and a waste of time.

    I'd be banned from this forum many times over if I hadn't been within these types of communities for ~20 years already.
    hat.gif


    Quote Originally Posted by LaBelle View Post
    His signature is the way it is because members of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Texas units don't often agree with him. PLM loves to say he's not anti-clan, but he's quick to try and generalize them simply for disagreeing.
    I didn't even know there was a 5th TX TBH (looking around I see some signatures now that I think on it) and I'm pretty sure the signature predates any knowledge of mine for the 4th. No. My signature actually came about exactly when the crapstorm of a thread demanding server passwords came out. I keep it because it was funny to most everybody who saw the reference and I don't have anything better to replace it with. Though yes, you Texas boys seem to be personally affronted by a loud independent voice on the forums. Usually I can't decipher exactly what the exact points of disagreement are though because they stay in character so well on the forums.

    Quote Originally Posted by James Morgan View Post
    In the time you have spent on these forums constantly on the Dev's to improve public play you could have started a successful regiment of which the union is in need of at this time.
    You're telling me that this game should continue to be designed for the convenience of regiments while at the same time the regiment scene itself has glaring vacancies that aren't being filled already?

    Nothing that helps public play is going to hurt regiments. It would in fact make forming a regiment easier if the gameplay had squad chain systems in place to network and appoint leaders based on your actual numbers.
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 09-12-2019 at 02:49 AM.
    Suggestion: Formations, Suppression, Spawning, Leadership https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqPsbvyD8s


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

  10. #60

    USA General of the Army

    A. P. Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    In Maryland State Near to both Antietam and Gettysburg, Harper's Ferry et al.
    Posts
    3,199
    It's still Alpha.

    2/3rds of the issues.

    <Edit: issues was problem >

Posting Permissions

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