Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Map borders and playable regiments per map

  1. #1
    Tobi1202's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Cologne, Germany
    Posts
    145

    Map borders and playable regiments per map

    Hey guys,

    I had some ideas that i wanted to share with you, because maybe they are actionable.

    First of all, i think we shouldn‘t aim for the target to have more players than 150 on one server. The current servers aren‘t that stable with so many players on it and it often gets really laggy.
    Neverthenless to give the players some "new" experiences without having to add more maps would be (at least in my opinion) to open up the map borders a bit more. So you would have more options to engage the enemy what would benefit new tactics and movements. We have currently the same movements every time on the most maps because any other would be suicidal or just impossible because of the desertion zone. I think this could have a really great impact, but correct me if you think otherwise.
    For example i am also a huge fan of the map "Hooker's Push", it gives you more options because of the map size (it could use a little more room in width though). I would like to see more maps like this (for example if you put Piper Farm and Bloody/Sunken Lane together or Dunker Church and Cooke‘s Countercharge). But this is only my opinion. The maps don‘t need to have that size, I know most guys don‘t like the long way to the action, but some more space would be cool like described above.

    My suggestion could also be combined well with my second point, having more regiments to choose from per map.
    I think, there are only two because of the number of players being able to play on one server. Even if it would be really cool being able to choose like on the drill camp which unit you want to play or to set all up with admin tools, it just would help for now if we have one regiment more to choose from than just two (especially on maps where you have one unit with limited breech loadern). I am helping to organize events with the United European Community but i think every event host can comprehend that with three instead of two regiments per map it would be a lot easier to set up the organized battles. Like mentioned before, if there is on one map a breech loader unit with limited men it gets difficult to set up the companies for this side. Bigger companies will have to share one regiment and this is always tough. I also think that the public player base could benefit from this, because one more regiment gives more tacitcal options to flank the enemy succesfully. We have currently two regiments per side, so 75/2 = 37,5 men per regiment. Not counting in the officer, who has only the pistol and the flag that would make 35,5 men with rifles to follow (more or less) one officer. You all know that this is almost never the case but still, thats what the numbers say. If you now would have 3 instead of 2 regiments per side you would have 25 men per regiment and again without the officer and the flag still 23 soldiers. That is a more than 10 men difference, yes, but it could make the life of event hosts a lot easier, provide more tactical options and making the game a bit more dynamic because of 3 flag bearers.

    Together with a bit bigger maps this could be a very cool thing in my opinion, let me know if i am dreaming to much here or if it really could be possible.

  2. #2

    CSA Captain

    Saris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    South East Texas
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Tobi1202 View Post
    Hey guys,

    I had some ideas that i wanted to share with you, because maybe they are actionable.

    First of all, i think we shouldn‘t aim for the target to have more players than 150 on one server. The current servers aren‘t that stable with so many players on it and it often gets really laggy.
    Neverthenless to give the players some "new" experiences without having to add more maps would be (at least in my opinion) to open up the map borders a bit more. So you would have more options to engage the enemy what would benefit new tactics and movements. We have currently the same movements every time on the most maps because any other would be suicidal or just impossible because of the desertion zone. I think this could have a really great impact, but correct me if you think otherwise.
    For example i am also a huge fan of the map "Hooker's Push", it gives you more options because of the map size (it could use a little more room in width though). I would like to see more maps like this (for example if you put Piper Farm and Bloody/Sunken Lane together or Dunker Church and Cooke‘s Countercharge). But this is only my opinion. The maps don‘t need to have that size, I know most guys don‘t like the long way to the action, but some more space would be cool like described above.

    My suggestion could also be combined well with my second point, having more regiments to choose from per map.
    I think, there are only two because of the number of players being able to play on one server. Even if it would be really cool being able to choose like on the drill camp which unit you want to play or to set all up with admin tools, it just would help for now if we have one regiment more to choose from than just two (especially on maps where you have one unit with limited breech loadern). I am helping to organize events with the United European Community but i think every event host can comprehend that with three instead of two regiments per map it would be a lot easier to set up the organized battles. Like mentioned before, if there is on one map a breech loader unit with limited men it gets difficult to set up the companies for this side. Bigger companies will have to share one regiment and this is always tough. I also think that the public player base could benefit from this, because one more regiment gives more tacitcal options to flank the enemy succesfully. We have currently two regiments per side, so 75/2 = 37,5 men per regiment. Not counting in the officer, who has only the pistol and the flag that would make 35,5 men with rifles to follow (more or less) one officer. You all know that this is almost never the case but still, thats what the numbers say. If you now would have 3 instead of 2 regiments per side you would have 25 men per regiment and again without the officer and the flag still 23 soldiers. That is a more than 10 men difference, yes, but it could make the life of event hosts a lot easier, provide more tactical options and making the game a bit more dynamic because of 3 flag bearers.

    Together with a bit bigger maps this could be a very cool thing in my opinion, let me know if i am dreaming to much here or if it really could be possible.
    Ill support this, I've been arguing for this for months.
    Texas Poppin B
    My Youtube:https://www.youtube.com/c/SarisTX

  3. #3
    Jigsaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Beeville, TX
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Tobi1202 View Post
    Hey guys,

    I had some ideas that i wanted to share with you, because maybe they are actionable.

    First of all, i think we shouldn‘t aim for the target to have more players than 150 on one server. The current servers aren‘t that stable with so many players on it and it often gets really laggy.
    Neverthenless to give the players some "new" experiences without having to add more maps would be (at least in my opinion) to open up the map borders a bit more. So you would have more options to engage the enemy what would benefit new tactics and movements. We have currently the same movements every time on the most maps because any other would be suicidal or just impossible because of the desertion zone. I think this could have a really great impact, but correct me if you think otherwise.
    For example i am also a huge fan of the map "Hooker's Push", it gives you more options because of the map size (it could use a little more room in width though). I would like to see more maps like this (for example if you put Piper Farm and Bloody/Sunken Lane together or Dunker Church and Cooke‘s Countercharge). But this is only my opinion. The maps don‘t need to have that size, I know most guys don‘t like the long way to the action, but some more space would be cool like described above.

    My suggestion could also be combined well with my second point, having more regiments to choose from per map.
    I think, there are only two because of the number of players being able to play on one server. Even if it would be really cool being able to choose like on the drill camp which unit you want to play or to set all up with admin tools, it just would help for now if we have one regiment more to choose from than just two (especially on maps where you have one unit with limited breech loadern). I am helping to organize events with the United European Community but i think every event host can comprehend that with three instead of two regiments per map it would be a lot easier to set up the organized battles. Like mentioned before, if there is on one map a breech loader unit with limited men it gets difficult to set up the companies for this side. Bigger companies will have to share one regiment and this is always tough. I also think that the public player base could benefit from this, because one more regiment gives more tacitcal options to flank the enemy succesfully. We have currently two regiments per side, so 75/2 = 37,5 men per regiment. Not counting in the officer, who has only the pistol and the flag that would make 35,5 men with rifles to follow (more or less) one officer. You all know that this is almost never the case but still, thats what the numbers say. If you now would have 3 instead of 2 regiments per side you would have 25 men per regiment and again without the officer and the flag still 23 soldiers. That is a more than 10 men difference, yes, but it could make the life of event hosts a lot easier, provide more tactical options and making the game a bit more dynamic because of 3 flag bearers.

    Together with a bit bigger maps this could be a very cool thing in my opinion, let me know if i am dreaming to much here or if it really could be possible.
    Hear, hear!
    Do what you love and you'll never work a day in your life. Because that field is not hiring. ~1st Jiggalations 4:20


  4. #4
    ...
    Last edited by Tiberius; 05-09-2021 at 10:40 AM.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Tobi1202 View Post
    Hey guys,

    I had some ideas that i wanted to share with you, because maybe they are actionable.

    First of all, i think we shouldn‘t aim for the target to have more players than 150 on one server. The current servers aren‘t that stable with so many players on it and it often gets really laggy.
    Neverthenless to give the players some "new" experiences without having to add more maps would be (at least in my opinion) to open up the map borders a bit more. So you would have more options to engage the enemy what would benefit new tactics and movements. We have currently the same movements every time on the most maps because any other would be suicidal or just impossible because of the desertion zone. I think this could have a really great impact, but correct me if you think otherwise.
    For example i am also a huge fan of the map "Hooker's Push", it gives you more options because of the map size (it could use a little more room in width though). I would like to see more maps like this (for example if you put Piper Farm and Bloody/Sunken Lane together or Dunker Church and Cooke‘s Countercharge). But this is only my opinion. The maps don‘t need to have that size, I know most guys don‘t like the long way to the action, but some more space would be cool like described above.

    My suggestion could also be combined well with my second point, having more regiments to choose from per map.
    I think, there are only two because of the number of players being able to play on one server. Even if it would be really cool being able to choose like on the drill camp which unit you want to play or to set all up with admin tools, it just would help for now if we have one regiment more to choose from than just two (especially on maps where you have one unit with limited breech loadern). I am helping to organize events with the United European Community but i think every event host can comprehend that with three instead of two regiments per map it would be a lot easier to set up the organized battles. Like mentioned before, if there is on one map a breech loader unit with limited men it gets difficult to set up the companies for this side. Bigger companies will have to share one regiment and this is always tough. I also think that the public player base could benefit from this, because one more regiment gives more tacitcal options to flank the enemy succesfully. We have currently two regiments per side, so 75/2 = 37,5 men per regiment. Not counting in the officer, who has only the pistol and the flag that would make 35,5 men with rifles to follow (more or less) one officer. You all know that this is almost never the case but still, thats what the numbers say. If you now would have 3 instead of 2 regiments per side you would have 25 men per regiment and again without the officer and the flag still 23 soldiers. That is a more than 10 men difference, yes, but it could make the life of event hosts a lot easier, provide more tactical options and making the game a bit more dynamic because of 3 flag bearers.

    Together with a bit bigger maps this could be a very cool thing in my opinion, let me know if i am dreaming to much here or if it really could be possible.
    I couldn't agree more!

  6. #6

    USA Brigadier General

    Maximus Decimus Meridius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,694
    wow. so much dev reply

    http://www.warofrightsforum.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=522&dateline=14500460  02


  7. #7
    I don't think opening up the map borders would change the gameplay for the better. It would just amplify the same redundant flank-and-spank mentality.


    Perhaps it could be done but with some penalties for wandering outside the zones. For example, you don't spawn reinforcements in certain areas that you're not supposed to be in or when you cut yourself off behind enemy lines. That might mitigate the utterly moronic group-thought of "Hey -- let's go around the enemy full 180 degrees and that somehow will be better for us 'cause heaven forbid we get in a frontal attack with our main spawn to our rear" as the teams are predictably cut off and lose their flags half the time and all sorts of guys out of line in their flying columns of grand maneuver Keep it simple - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2n3CfrYX2c

    The fundamentals of the game should revolve around keeping proper formations when appropriate and incentivizing players to do so while disincentivizing players to run off on their own repeatedly. This doesn't mean you shouldn't skirmish and stuff, but it should be situation appropriate. For damn sure the main tactic should not be running in a stringy column to one flank of the map or the other. That's why I don't play anymore. I could be immensely more scathing in my analysis of WoR gameplay than that. The devs should really focus on working on finding a good balance but entire iterations of players are going through their life cycle in the game without much change in those mechanics. If you open the maps up all you're going to get is further retreat into closed server events and impartially enforced rules on lone wolves who'll be nipping at the sides and backs of the teams continuously.

    It's hard to believe we're closing in on two years since 200 man servers were coming out 'soon'?
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 05-17-2021 at 08:22 PM.
    Suggestion: Formations, Suppression, Spawning, Leadership https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqPsbvyD8s


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

  8. #8
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Poorlaggedman View Post
    It's hard to believe we're closing in on two years since 200 man servers were coming out 'soon'?
    Just to clarify, we made it clear that the 200 player test was a weekend test event and not a feature set to be coming out, let alone "soon".

    That being said, we'll probably look into testing a higher player cap again once the next update has been released as it is set to contain major performance improvements.

    - Trusty

  9. #9
    Tobi1202's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Cologne, Germany
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Poorlaggedman View Post
    I don't think opening up the map borders would change the gameplay for the better. It would just amplify the same redundant flank-and-spank mentality.

    Perhaps it could be done but with some penalties for wandering outside the zones. For example, you don't spawn reinforcements in certain areas that you're not supposed to be in or when you cut yourself off behind enemy lines. That might mitigate the utterly moronic group-thought of "Hey -- let's go around the enemy full 180 degrees and that somehow will be better for us 'cause heaven forbid we get in a frontal attack with our main spawn to our rear" as the teams are predictably cut off and lose their flags half the time and all sorts of guys out of line in their flying columns of grand maneuver
    To flank the enemy is essential to have a good advantage. A frontal assault is also possible but at much higher cost. To have a better battle immersion it's enough to have one or two companies doing that and trying to get smaller units in the enemy's flanks. I also don't think that it would change much on most maps on how the company leaders would move their lines, it would just give you more possibilities on how to engage with the enemy line or to proceed to the point of contention. It wouldn't change the gameplay itself. I just had the idea of opening up the maps a bit because you can get (at least in my opinion) more tactical depth for not much effort, but about how much effort it would be is up for the devs to decide.
    It's at least one of my personal wishes and i heard here and there that company commanders would like to have more room to operate with their units.
    I also assume my playstyle and the style of many other units in the United European Community is a bit different. We really like holding tight formations and manouver around the map. I think I understand your point, but I also think 'simple' could work aswell on those maps if you just decide on not to go 'that far' off. (I highlighted 'that far' because I really don't have that larger maps in mind. They don't have to be twice as big or something. One fence, stonewall, building, hill or row of trees more that wasn't reachable before could really make a difference i think.)
    I also believe on if the players 'go around the enemy full 180 degrees' should be up to the commanding officer. If he decides that this is the best idea (and it's already on every map possible), the players will/should follow and if it doesn't pay off and the flag is laying on the ground to far away the officers will eventually learn of their mistakes and don't take the colours there again (the same would count for far flanking manouvers).


    Quote Originally Posted by Poorlaggedman View Post
    The fundamentals of the game should revolve around keeping proper formations when appropriate and incentivizing players to do so while disincentivizing players to run off on their own repeatedly. This doesn't mean you shouldn't skirmish and stuff, but it should be situation appropriate. For damn sure the main tactic should not be running in a stringy column to one flank of the map or the other. That's why I don't play anymore. I could be immensely more scathing in my analysis of WoR gameplay than that. The devs should really focus on working on finding a good balance but entire iterations of players are going through their life cycle in the game without much change in those mechanics. If you open the maps up all you're going to get is further retreat into closed server events and impartially enforced rules on lone wolves who'll be nipping at the sides and backs of the teams continuously.
    The game is already trying really good to hold the people closer together because of the losing morale system. To restrict the players even more to hold that formation would in my eyes revoke the players free will on moving where he wants or shall to. I do think the mechanics are fine the way they are, but please explain more if you think otherwise. I would really like to hear your thoughts!

    Quote Originally Posted by Poorlaggedman View Post
    It's hard to believe we're closing in on two years since 200 man servers were coming out 'soon'?
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post
    we'll probably look into testing a higher player cap again once the next update has been released as it is set to contain major performance improvements.
    Glad to hear it Trusty! I really hope the performance improvements will work for the current 150 man servers, because sometimes it gets really messy with desync, lags or gamecrashes. A few of my guys sometimes have to pause the game because of performance issues.
    I would also be interested to hear what your thoughts are on open up the maps a bit. With even more players per server one day this will also be a thing in my opinion.

  10. #10

    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
    3,343
    The Battle of Sharpsburg, Antietam, if you prefer, was initiated as a flanking maneuver, McClellan attempting to prohibit Lee to continue his northwestern movement into Pennsylvania, and stop the Confederate incursion into the North.

Posting Permissions

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