Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 105

Thread: Morale and how to harness it.

  1. #91
    David Dire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    America
    Posts
    680
    Fair enough. And by no means do I expect anything more to melee with the alpha stage: Simply sharing my hopes on a beta or even full release version.
    http://i.imgur.com/STUHVb8.png

  2. #92

    CSA Captain

    Bivoj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post
    Of course.

    As I just wrote, nothing's changed in regards to our view of melee and what kind of system we want it to be eventually.

    What you're suggesting with morale on an individual basis is not something that is remotely possible in the near future. It requires quite a bit of programming work it also goes againt the free will of the players. Just as we're not overly fond of the idea of officers taking "charge" of a regiment, effectively controlling a bunch of players to mimic marching, we're also not overly fond of, say, an auto surrender feature.

    I'm not saying we'll never attempt something like it but if we will it will not be "soon" and it will have to be designed in such an excellent way that no player ever don't get why he can't aim right, run anymore or indeed why he surrenders.

    Please do keep your suggestions coming. We're reading them all as we too think there's too much melee at the moment.

    - Trusty
    In one hand, you are against limiting "free will" of players by introducing autosurrender, but on the other, you are more than happy to introduce autokill (and unrealistic one - shot by invisible officer), when players behave against your expectations - like treating CSA camping close to the bridge on the bridge map or as you announced your solution for lone flag bearers. That is even more strict limit of the "free will".
    To be honest, I really hate the unrealistic and arbitrary solutions like autokill - it limits the "free will" in bad way. The autosurrender is far better (with the same result at the end), because you can adjust your playstyle and it is valid anytime, not only on particular map. It would be better to have autosurrender near enemy spawn point just for immersion. It is more logical to surrender to enemy at their gathering site rather to be shot by invisible officers for being too bold and courageous...

    The complexity of implementation could be an issue. I can understand, that it would be difficult to code the morale system, treating the proximity of other players. But you already expect to implement features, which take proximity to other players into account - like the autokill of the "lone" flag bearer or spawn time punishment of lonewolf being killed (I pretty much dislike this solution). So, it should be feasible to implement morale, when it is feasible to implement what you mentioned...

    Please, reconsider the individual morale feature. I hope you will add it to your backlog and it will appear "soon". Without morale, the game won't be realistic. You may implement some arbitrary solutions to improve the result, but it will be more against "free will" than autosurrender.

  3. #93

    USA Lieutenant Colonel

    R21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    598
    TBH, autosurrender would just be a more cinematic version of the current 'you are deserting' out of bounds areas.

    Like, enemies get within range, your characters movement slows, Historical camera view of your guy putting his hands up and surrendering, cam goes skywards and takes you back to the regiments/class selection screen.

    IMO, this could actually achieve the desired effect as no one would want to auto-surrender, and it'd genuinely make people consider routing. It's a very hard one to get right and would require extensive testing to have done in a fair and Gameplay friendly way.

  4. #94

    CSA Captain

    Bivoj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    171
    I would be happy to have the very first "Alpha" autosurrender implemented as kind of "death" with ragdoll animation, just with explanation "You have surrendered". The eyecandy can arrive later, when the feature proves itself.

    The diference to the current autokill is, that it would be dynamic - caused by ingame effects (proximity to other players and the frequency of near hits on player), rather than simply moving to certain part of the map. And when the be Black-and-white screen with counter occurs (like it is now at "you are deserting" state), this would motivate players to voluntarily retreat to preserve themselves, to avoid autokill (autosurrender).

  5. #95
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Bivoj View Post
    In one hand, you are against limiting "free will" of players by introducing autosurrender, but on the other, you are more than happy to introduce autokill (and unrealistic one - shot by invisible officer), when players behave against your expectations - like treating CSA camping close to the bridge on the bridge map or as you announced your solution for lone flag bearers. That is even more strict limit of the "free will".
    To be honest, I really hate the unrealistic and arbitrary solutions like autokill - it limits the "free will" in bad way. The autosurrender is far better (with the same result at the end), because you can adjust your playstyle and it is valid anytime, not only on particular map. It would be better to have autosurrender near enemy spawn point just for immersion. It is more logical to surrender to enemy at their gathering site rather to be shot by invisible officers for being too bold and courageous...

    The complexity of implementation could be an issue. I can understand, that it would be difficult to code the morale system, treating the proximity of other players. But you already expect to implement features, which take proximity to other players into account - like the autokill of the "lone" flag bearer or spawn time punishment of lonewolf being killed (I pretty much dislike this solution). So, it should be feasible to implement morale, when it is feasible to implement what you mentioned...

    Please, reconsider the individual morale feature. I hope you will add it to your backlog and it will appear "soon". Without morale, the game won't be realistic. You may implement some arbitrary solutions to improve the result, but it will be more against "free will" than autosurrender.
    Except one is a static system with the same lines drawn and the proposed one is a dynamic one effectively opening up for surrendering, say, the moment you spawn if you're the only one killed.

    It has a lot of challenges to get it to work perfectly, and it needs to work perfectly in order to not impose on the free will of the players.

    We are always open for suggestions and I'm not saying it'll never be tested. I can promise you it won't be "soon" though.

    - Trusty

  6. #96

    CSA Captain

    Bivoj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    171
    And what about the autokill of the line flag bearer as you announced? He would die in the moment of lone respawn.

  7. #97
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Bivoj View Post
    And what about the autokill of the line flag bearer as you announced? He would die in the moment of lone respawn.
    I didn't "announce" it. I brought a number of ideas to a discussion. If seperating the two is difficult I probably should avoid joining in on these brainstorm sessions.

    You don't spawn alone with the flag. When you die, you drop it on the ground and respawn as a private was the gist of it.

    - Trusty

  8. #98

    CSA Captain

    Bivoj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post
    I didn't "announce" it.
    Than my apology - I understood it as announced solution for treating lonewolfing with flag. It is difficult to separate your decision from just an idea, but I believe it is valuable when you are in these brainstorm sessions nevertheless.

  9. #99
    Well... if we're gonna talk about 'free will' of players I'd be hard pressed not to bring up the obnoxious random bursting shells, occasionally coming in a massive barrage of 12 or more. We certainly never know when that's coming and yet it's there. It definitely tramples on my free will to not get my head rocked a half dozen times a map.

    Morale or its autosurrender companion doesn't 'force' players to do anything really. You're never going to 'incentivize' people to surrender. Make no mistake, you will have players surrendering in this game among other derpy things. And i'm not talking on rare occasions. But a competitive player doing the right thing isn't going to surrender. And yet it's a realistic concept, regardless of what some say.

    It's possible to survive some nasty wounds in the Civil War and keep on fighting. Yet it's expected among most in a realistic game that a debilitating shot should send you to the spawn instead of leaving you limping around carrying on the fight. Is that unfair? If you want a game where players are playing as a Civil War robot with a camera mounted on it that blood occasionally splatters on, that's what you can easily have. You can have 32 bots roaming around on a team doing what they please without hindrance.

    If you want a game where the player assumes the frame of mind of the soldier and has reason to take the same actions that those soldiers may have taken, you can do that too. Just like the wounded soldier in the ACW wasn't dragging himself around slashing the ankles of his foes, prisoners could be taken much easier than say.... Japanese in the Pacific theater in WWII. This is the ACW... fighting to the last man isn't a thing. If you're wounded and an enemy officer orders you to go to see yourself to an aid station you're going to do it 4/5 times. Not throw your musket at him like a javelin. There's different thresholds for when you're 'done' here and one of those could easily be autosurrender. We should just call it 'surrender' to make it sound less violating of 'free will.' I'm sorry but when someone points a bayonet at you and you're spent and your buddies all ran off, you're usually gonna take the olive branch. A truly effective bayonet thrust should be a shock to the thruster as well. The rarity and the lack of expectation of doing that deserves some more respect before every Tom, Dick, and other Tom getting into this game grows to expect easy bayonet kills like some are already growing to. Without morale, without getting into the psychie of why soldiers stand and fight then it's a totally different road to getting the desired effects.

    Another good example among many of 'real' hand-to-hand combat in the Civil War from this documentary at 24 minutes in and talks about it for a good 2-3 minutes
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90JxrRbsdFk&t=24m6s
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 09-06-2017 at 03:20 AM.

  10. #100

    USA Lieutenant Colonel

    R21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    598
    I think shells autospawn, it always seems to happen if a team is bunched up and they're kicking the arse of the other team to throw them off a bit.

    People roleplaying surrenders happened in RNL all the time, weren't there some custom Maps dedicated to this, lol.

Posting Permissions

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