Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: A couple Sunday ranting points

  1. #1

    A couple Sunday ranting points

    Nobody's posting anymore so I will.

    I see a bleak outlook. A lot of bug fixes, improved stability, flag spawns, new skirmish areas all help. The elephant in the room though is that basic infantry combat is a rather poor experience after the novelty of it wears off. I see no indication that this is going to change as the focus has moved to check-the-box completion of crowdfunding promises which do nothing to solve the underlying issues. The only major changes to infantry combat over 2.5 years of Alpha: role limits, flag spawns, larger servers caps, and suppression changes. And the regiments spawn separately. Did I miss anything?

    In normal video games, the killing power of the individual player is far greater and this can act as a substitute for true quality gameplay as each player pursues their own competitive enjoyment sometimes with loose cooperation of teammates. That's what most multiplayer shooters are like. You can reach a higher level of enjoyment with some organization in those games but your standard player enjoyment hinges on really basic privileges he enjoys in normal gameplay.

    WoR doesn't have that. The player has a slow-loading musket and a nerfed bayonet. You aren't really going to do your own thing and have a lot of fun or success competing like that, nor should you. So why play the game? Because the enjoyment is supposed to be in playing as part of a team, closely.

    If I had a nickel for every time a game talked up the 'teamwork' possible or the 'team-oriented' features of a game, I'd be able to buy someone another copy of WoR. Of course teamwork is possible. A game doesn't have to be complex to have teamwork, all it has to have are teams. This game does no favors to provoke teamwork beyond imperiling the success of the team based on the actions of individual players ('out of line' deaths). Anyone is free to work as a team, like in every other team game ever made, but for a game which really badly needs teamwork to be enjoyable the lack of focus and structure is frustrating and debilitating.

    I've played some stupid mainstream shooters and I know how to enjoy them. I just have a real tough time imagining anyone from any background buying a game like this and expecting anything else than formations and teamwork regardless of where they came from. So the lack of focus on this is strange given the desperate need in order to provide an experience worth enduring. Otherwise why the hell not settle for a game that gives me semi or fully automatic weapons?


    1. Players need more than just a team score to use a formation. I think it was imagined by many others beyond just me that there would be tangible punitive effects to the player killed 'out of line.' At the bare minimum, players who're getting killed out of line need to be known to their team. I am totally against a 'score' but I see nothing wrong with displaying to the team your 'death score' whether that takes the form of a ticket loss you incurr on your team or a literal count of your formation, skirmishing, and out of line deaths displayed and updated. This allows for transparency and admins to identify and remove players who're draining the team in an event whether they're deliberately F9ing or just playing on their own.

    It's awfully cruel to leave the fate of a team to individual players dying in stupid ways and give no way even to tell who's doing this without creating a surveillance state on the server. The greatest power of the individual player is to anonymously sink his own team and that needs to change.

    I always assumed that there would be punitive actions against players who die out of line as in: you can't spawn on a flag, you take longer to spawn (your death screen is longer than 20 seconds), or you take longer to spawn in or don't get priority. Why there aren't those steps two years into Team Morale is beyond me.

    2. Leadership cannot be grab-and-go and also create a successful team environment. You positively need to foster better and more accountable leadership. Public gameplay is a complete exercise in futility and the turnover is startling. The torch is getting passed off alarmingly fast between groups of players filling up open servers during non-event times. To fill the leadership void already the game is showing every sign of being event-only which is no different than it would have been had no effort to promote teamwork have been made in the first place. There's always plenty of people willing to try and reenact, not much is required for that attempt to be made.

    Curiously there are no easy tools to run events. [Server] messages are next-to-worthless. There's no serious provisions for communicating with players beyond a server name. No rule screen, no effective announcements. All this has to be done outside of game or with serious ground game on the fly. You need an organization infrastructure just to run events well and most are still messes on one team or the other. If the purpose of not developing those admin tools was to not be invasive to the player, I'd say changing the time of day on a whim is far more disruptive and you see that all the time and I see that happen at least every week. Admins can be held accountable by smart server hosts. Players who are clueless as to what's going on (because you have totally ineffective ways of communicating to them) are not.


    Cannons aren't going to do anything to improve this situation. scheval2.gif
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 10-27-2019 at 11:34 PM.
    Suggestion: Formations, Suppression, Spawning, Leadership https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqPsbvyD8s


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

  2. #2
    You always have a bleak outlook don't you?

    I for one am thankful for the direction of the game and am glad there are distinctions between relaxed public play and unit driven events.

    I am looking forward to the overtime and changes to end of match mechanics outline by the devs and look forward to their release of artillery for a more combined arms aspect of the game even if some people aren't...

    Longstreet's I Corps
    1st Brigade Commanding Officer

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Drax View Post
    You always have a bleak outlook don't you?

    I for one am thankful for the direction of the game and am glad there are distinctions between relaxed public play and unit driven events.

    I am looking forward to the overtime and changes to end of match mechanics outline by the devs and look forward to their release of artillery for a more combined arms aspect of the game even if some people aren't...
    I've been playing regularly since about February, and I've never had such fun in a multi-player before. In fact, it's gotten better and with artillery coming, I'm more geeked than I've ever been.

    Making a game a simulation and fun to play is a tough balance. I think the devs have done a good job.

  4. #4

    USA General of the Army

    Oleander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    622
    There isn't much point in a big change for infantry until artillery is put in.

  5. #5

    CSA Captain

    Sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    379
    I'm not seeing anything there that you have not 'ranted' about in a hundred different threads already. Everyone knows that punishing the team, because individuals play as lone wolves, is idiotic......but CFG are not going to do anything about it. The simple truth about this game is, that by the time that they've actually finished everything such as Artillery, Cavalry, a melee system that doesn't make you want to scream......AND finally (IF they even still mean to do this) gotten around to making 'Historical Mode'......everyone will be so sick of the 'mini' game (skirmish mode) that they'll have long since given up on WoR.
    ''I'm here to play an American Civil War era combat game, not Call of Duty with muskets.''.

  6. #6

    USA Major

    O'Rourke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Fort Apache
    Posts
    220
    Quote Originally Posted by Poorlaggedman View Post
    Cannons aren't going to do anything to improve this situation.
    Based on numerous conversations, many people in the community do not expect artillery or cavalry to be a panacea for War of Rights' issues.

    The one major update that I believe could shake things up is revamping the net code and increasing the player slots to 300 per server. This would enable the entire community to play together in the same events. That would be a game changer. You could have 1stTX, 1stGA, 6thLA, 5thVA, etc., all on CSA, versus 9thNY, 14th Brooklyn, 2ndUSSS, 17thMI, etc., all on Union. It would bring the community together in a single virtual space.
    Last edited by O'Rourke; 10-28-2019 at 08:33 PM.

  7. #7

    CSA Major

    Warboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by O'Rourke View Post
    Based on numerous conversations, many people in the community do not expect artillery or cavalry to be a panacea for War of Rights' problems.

    The one major update that I believe could shake things up is revamping the net code and increasing the player slots to 300 per server. This would allow the entire community to play together in the same event every weekend. That would be a game changer. You could have 1stTX, 1stGA, 6thLA, 5thVA, etc., all on CSA, and 9thNY, 14th Brooklyn, 2ndUSSS, 17thMI, etc., all on Union. It would bring the community together.
    I solidly agree with this but yet CFG is limited to the game engine and currently can't handle or not optimized to handle that many not yet anyways. They had test 200 man servers that i'm sure your aware of but what seemed to run smoothly for us a lot of error codes came in on their side of things and they felt they weren't ready for 200 man servers then let alone 300!!!
    Napoleon Total War American Civil War Multiplayer Mod Discord Community - https://discord.gg/J3xJ4DU

    TUNNELLS ARE USELESS....so why bother anyway - Henry Wirz (Andersonville film quote)

  8. #8

    USA General of the Army

    Oleander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    622
    I've been a proponent for being able to recover morale during a match, either through having an officer present or repelling a charge etc. Having morale only go one way, down, isn't really doing anything to help gameplay. Once artillery gets put in I can see it magnifying the problems with the morale system. That's why I think they may be waiting to get it in game before looking at a major change to anything. Not saying they will but it makes sense to me for them to wait.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Oleander View Post
    I've been a proponent for being able to recover morale during a match, either through having an officer present or repelling a charge etc. Having morale only go one way, down, isn't really doing anything to help gameplay. Once artillery gets put in I can see it magnifying the problems with the morale system. That's why I think they may be waiting to get it in game before looking at a major change to anything. Not saying they will but it makes sense to me for them to wait.
    I believe recovering morale will be featured in the aforementioned changes the devs plan to make regarding end of match mechanics.

    Longstreet's I Corps
    1st Brigade Commanding Officer

  10. #10

    USA General of the Army

    Bravescot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Perthshire, Scotland
    Posts
    3,002
    Make melee good.

Posting Permissions

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