End of match report

[relichunter]

I'd just like to see how many people I killed.

I really want to know how my shooting was so a end of round summary would be great or a scoreboard that everyone could see would make it even more competitive.

[Hinkel]

The Interface is not final. Have a look at the Field Report about the Interface. There you see our ideas about the end score:

https://www.warofrights.com/Fieldreport34

It wont be player based, but based on the regiment/team performence :)

[relichunter]

I still want to see who shot who, like a scoreboard or at least who I shot.

There is no way to know who are the best players.

[Hinkel]

I still want to see who shot who, like a scoreboard or at least who I shot.

There is no way to know who are the best players.

The game is not about the best players, its about the best team / regiment.
The player is just an individuell, within the army ;)

[McMuffin]

I would really love to see this new UI implemented for the regiment and grade selection screen; it would be so great. Plus, if added, you could only limit SgtMajors and not the NCO class as a whole.

[Poorlaggedman]

Sid Meier's Gettysburg! had the score done right. Then again, the units on the scoreboard are not composed of real players.

[Mr.Moto]

Like the idea that it is team based!

[6thLouisianaTigers]

We appreciate the new stats, re: killed out of formation, etc.!

[NJ87Army]

If a scorecard came out allowing individual players to see there Kill to death ratio itll turn the game into what it should never be another call of duty esc game i love the idea to see how many kills and deaths a regiment suffered and dished out allowing for regimental and company bragging rights amongst the communities . Can you imagine a Unit X playing against Unit P and unit P is a good unit next time Unit X comes against Unit P , 1. the moral of its troops alone will be a unique issue a commander has to take into consideration before issueing a fix bayonet command. This is how most wars where fought where certain regiments hated to go up against other enemy units good job devs cant wait to see it implemented Let the best Regiment Reign

[Sox]

Please please, please, NEVER show individual scores :)

[McMuffin]

Please please, please, NEVER show individual scores :)

+1, it encourages people to try and show off and go purely for kills and discourages people from working as a unit.

[Bivoj]

I would really like to see my own individual “score” (only) at the end of the round to get the information if I am aiming and shooting right or not.

Definitely NO to showing other players’ results.

[Charles Caldwell]

I would really like to see my own individual “score” (only) at the end of the round to get the information if I am aiming and shooting right or not.

Definitely NO to showing other players’ results.

I agree, just a personal breakdown of wounding shots and kill shots would be nice.

[Poorlaggedman]

You still have video recording... you still have screenshots. Trust me, I'm a curious guy myself. All individual score does is change the dynamic from "we" to "me." There is a lot of value in the wonder that fills the vacuum of not knowing. There's a multiplying effect when you come across enemy that the team killed and any one of those could be your's you don't know. More people think they did more than they actually did. Individual kill counts especially push you back towards the standard shooter. If the game is good, you won't miss them. Resistance and Liberation never had any kill count and almost nobody ever asked for one. You forget such a thing exists because you're too focused on what's in front of you on the screen and figuring it out for yourself. Skill is proven by measurable effect and by personally demonstrating it and not by some icon flashing on the corner of the screen or tallied up at the end of a round for someone to notice you. Nobody notices you then unless you're number 1.

[Bivoj]

I agree with you, Poorlaggedman - never show any “score” during the round, never show others’ score, never show how good you are in comparison to others - BUT show how many hits (or kills) you have done in the last match - this simple message does not ruin anything you have written. I can even live with some approximate number (up to 5, 6-10, 11-15...). Just to let the player know if it is doing it right or not.

It is very different from ww2 shooter, where you see most of the kills yourself, because of close range shooting with accurate and mostly semi or full auto weapons AND mostly yourself alone shooting at single target (I am Red Orchestra veteran since RO mod times). The pixel hunting of this game is different - the line is shooting at another line. When the enemies are falling, I have no clue if it is also me causing casualties or the others only. The only way you can practice your marksmanship is Ramboing - being alone you can see the impact of your bullets.
If you see the performamce of your bullets at the end of the round, you can learn just out of this information.

As you mentioned meny times - this is not virtual reenactment, but competetive game. In roleplaying style of play, it does not matter if you know your personal results, in competetive - it does.

[John Cooley]

Please please, please, NEVER show individual scores :)

+1, it encourages people to try and show off and go purely for kills and discourages people from working as a unit.
Agreed ... Never!
There are enough solo narcissist centered games out there already.
Quality Team oriented games are way too hard to come across.

A Team score/breakdown that includes not just overall number of killed and wounded but also stats like Amount of Time Point was held ... number of Kills occurring out of Formation/skirming/solo ... would be helpful for teaching purposes, imo.

[TrustyJam]

Agreed ... Never!
There are enough solo narcissist centered games out there already.
Quality Team oriented games are way too hard to come across.

A Team score/breakdown that includes not just overall number of killed and wounded but also stats like Amount of Time Point was held ... number of Kills occurring out of Formation/skirming/solo ... would be helpful for teaching purposes, imo.


A few updates ago the score screen was updated to show killed in formation, skirmishing and out of line. :)

- Trusty

[Charles Caldwell]

There is a lot of value in the wonder that fills the vacuum of not knowing.

Profound! +1 ;)

[Cyph3r]

Ive never thought that it needs to be like "ding, you got a kill" but seeing you kills at the end might be cool...or depressing in my case, lol.

[Jagdmann]

I am absolutely cool with the idea, that not the indivudual but a certain given unit should be considered in the End of Match report and I strongly support this. Although I admit that sometimes I would really like to have at least a hit count at the end; just to be able to see how (in)efficient my shots have been.

Maybe worth considering?!

[McMuffin]

https://warofrights.com/Content/Images/FieldReport/FieldReport34/Won_Screen.jpg
This is the most post-game score we should get as to prevent people from going just for kills but will still say, "Hey, these guys did pretty well" when deserved.

[McMuffin]

I like that idea a great deal, McMuffin. Something akin to actual after action reports where the muster rolls would show each company's Wounded, Dead, and Missing (crashes to desktop? Haha).

After action reports we have now combined with individual unit reports and that's all we need.

[Bivoj]

I do not see any harm in knowing my hitcount only without any reference to any others’ hitcount.

[Hinkel]

I like that idea a great deal, McMuffin. Something akin to actual after action reports where the muster rolls would show each company's Wounded, Dead, and Missing (crashes to desktop? Haha).

The screenshot McMuffin showed is actually part of our fieldreport, about the Interface :)
So its actually a real thing, which is planned.

[McMuffin]

The screenshot McMuffin showed is actually part of our fieldreport, about the Interface :)
So its actually a real thing, which is planned.

Which is why I used it.

[Takerith]

This has been discussed before, but I still think Squad's system is a good idea. Provide no feedback in the round, then give individual and regimental scores at the end of the round.

[McMuffin]

This has been discussed before, but I still think Squad's system is a good idea. Provide no feedback in the round, then give individual and regimental scores at the end of the round.

Pretty sure that's what's gonna happen.

[Poorlaggedman]

No individual scores. Never, ever, ever, ever. Horrible, horrible idea and will fundamentally alter the experience of players so as to remove the imagination as a factor. Good heavens, imagine the screenshots. The player's imagination is a force-multiplier for their own effect, and thus their own enjoyment. Being part of a team who had good effect should suffice unless you personally witness your effect--that should be an occasional treat confirmed by your own observations and never known for certain anyway.

I hope leaving out death messages and individual score was by design, I'd be horrified if it was put in. Nobody ever asked for individual scores in Resistance and Liberation. Still some servers put in plugins that counted rank and let you know your kills:deaths. It radically changed the way players played on those servers, most definitely including myself. Damn the team if I can just get some more kills and move up in rank. I can visualize the screenshots of a 'good game' all over the place, even if it was private to the individual. And for what? To feed curiosity? Not worth the damage to teamwork. Leave players to find their own enjoyment as a team without being slave to numbers like so many other games are inevitably dominated by when they allow them.

As for the 'regiment' scores, specific numbers should stay out of it. There's also the trouble with when a regiment starts and stops and resumes.

[Bivoj]

You are still mixing two different approaches:
1) every player can see a score of everyone = wrong
2) each player can see its own killcount by the end of match only = good

Imagine the battle ends, total enemy casualties are 100+ and you see, that you have delivered 8 hits (not knowing how many hits resulted in actual casualty). Is the 8 low or high? Are you below avarage or better marksman? You do not know, you cannot compare with others. But it is useful to know how efficient your actual shooting was and if you get the proper idea how the engine, game rules and mechanics work and that you are doing it wrong or right.

As your Resistence&Liberation argument - I played Red Orchestra a lot and it never hurt to see the actual score at the end of the match:)

[Poorlaggedman]

A player will get a good frame of reference as to what's good and what isn't. Imagine working as part of a team and thinking you're having an effect and at the end you find out you were getting 0 kills. There's just no reason to add that dimension. It adds nothing to gameplay whatsoever, it only detracts. I'm a normal gamer kill-ratio monger and I don't want it in the game because it's a totally unnecessary measure that players come to depend on. Teamwork is hard--don't buy into the mirage of Alpha events as the future of gameplay.

RO really had little in common with RnL. A core feature of RnL was no individual score at all. It leaves players with nothing else to do but work as a team to win. There's most definitely still individualism but it didn't begin and end with a death message. It meant a lot more when someone compliments you in a game on your killing ability because that means they saw it, a totally different dynamic than someone complimenting a streak of death messages or a score. It makes you much more aware of your environment without death messages either. It takes the emphasis off of merely killing and shifts it to winning.

100% I'll be counting bodies drop if I get an end of round stat, there isn't even a question to this. A whole collective of players will do the same. It's perhaps the best measure of your effectiveness and it needs to not exist for the sake of gameplay. There was always an undercurrent of 'who killed who?', 'how many did I get' in RnL but it was never answered without forensic examination or directly spectating it. That's the way it should be. Last thing I did before the server was shuttered we did a one-life campaign where if you died you were literally out for the remainder of Saturday events - to this day largely nobody knows who killed who even though it's technically logged somewhere on the server. Players aught to wonder. It adds value to the experience.

[A. P. Hill]

I am, as several have mentioned, against personal kill counts. Even if it is displayed privately to the player after the round.

I support the team effort, as intended.

What I fear will happen if individuals are allowed to see their kills, is personality wars will rise on the forums and in steam accounts where players will make public that which was intended to be private. Human nature will not allow the provision of knowledge of certain things without someone thinking they're better than someone else and they need the "headiness" (adrenalin rush,) of letting other players know they think they're better than others.

With the intent of company scores, it allows the team spirit to overreach the individual which, yes, there will be some of the above mentioned foolishness, but it can't be narrowed down to one individual. Units will have to train better, and drill more to improve their standings among the other units. That by itself can be way more healthy for the community at large, than the individual pissing matches that could arise by informing individual players of their kill count.

No. End game information should never include an individual's count.

That said, players can keep their own score if they like, many times I find myself taking deliberate aim at a group or an individual and as the smoke clears, that individual is down, or the group appears smaller by one, then I know my shot made its target. That's all I need.

Even as it is as such, I still see in the chat box, players shouting their imagined or real kills as if it was a thing to boast about.

The intent of the developers of this game from the beginning has always been about the body of players not individuals. The developers need to stay true to that.

[Dman979]

Kill counts for anything smaller than the team are a no go for me. Ultimately, it's the team that matters, not the individual regiments, companies, or men.

Best,
Dman979

[Takerith]

People are acting like having individual kill counts will literally transform this game into Call of Duty: Antietam. It won't. The developers have made numerous design decisions (and have committed themselves to many more in the future) that will prevent this game from ever being open to a market outside of a specific, niche group. The only question is how niche the group is going to be.

The movement is clunky and rigid, which discourages free movement and forces most players into formations. The models' animations and poses are equally rigid to preserve an image of disciplined soldiers. The team's tickets take a serious penalty when people are out of formation. There's absolutely no feedback (other than visual) when you get a ranged kill in order to maintain immersion and prevent glory hunting. There's no way to tell one team from another at a distance without the use of a flagbearer, again to promote formations, teamwork and to discourage lone wolves.

Poorlaggedman, you gave an example of a person playing a round as a team, thinking they were having an effect, but weren't actually getting any kills. You're saying that the feedback would discourage them from continuing to play as a team. However, I would argue that a game can still provide feedback to a player as well as forcing/encouraging them to work as a team. Like I said, WoR already has a bunch of mechanics which do this, and making a change as simple as providing end-of-round feedback just couldn't undo this.

Squad is a game very similar to War of Rights, just in a different setting. It also requires teamwork and unit cohesion, and it does not provide supernatural feedback when someone gets a kill. However, it does tell you how many kills you got at the end of the round, so you have an idea of whether your general approach to combat actually works. You know if you're aiming accurately, you know if it's more effective to fire full-auto, in bursts or semi-auto and in which situations. Despite this horrific heresy, Squad still revolves entirely around intra- and inter-unit teamwork. Lone wolves and glory hunters are usually scorned and asked to PTFO, and aren't given the assistance squadmates and SLs usually offer if they don't. In other words, the game's mechanics and the community's mindset actually prevent gloryhunting from being viable or particularly fun.

Squad is obviously a game meant for team-based, realistic modern combat. WoR is obviously a game meant for team-based, authentic American Civil War combat. For people who just want to shoot things, there is already a plethora of games available which offer far better experiences. The people who just want to shoot things play Battlefield, CoD, CS:GO and a bunch of other games with far better shooting than Squad or WoR. The people who want a game which rewards teamwork achieved through collectivised individuals play Squad and WoR. Why punish those people by stripping them of any sense of personal accomplishment? It's not that challenging to make a group of people form a line and fire a volley, and if that's all people want to do then the devs needn't have even gone past the Drill Camps. But it is challenging to get a group to form a line, fire a volley, and actually perform better than the other guys. By not having any real feedback, you're basically removing any chance of people being able to find out if their shooting is actually effective. It's easy to tell whether a line fired a good volley; you can just look at them while they're firing. It's relatively difficult to tell whether a line fired a volley which did any damage, so providing people with kill counts at the end of the round will show them whether or not they need to change something.