Last Stand

[SwingKid148]

We either need to have enough time to actually cap the point or the defenders need to be X feet within the cap point.

[Poorlaggedman]

A draw as a result might also help draw up some loose ends

[jwhal]

Maybe there should not be wins or loses.

We all can get participation ribbons instead.

[Saris]

We either need to have enough time to actually cap the point or the defenders need to be X feet within the cap point.

Having a limited time on final push makes sense but putting a time limit on last stand doesnt, especially if you only have 1 life after the final stand is initiated

[TrustyJam]

Thank you for the feedback guys!

Please keep it coming. :)

I think the idea with forcing the defenders to be on the actual point during last stand is a great one.

My suggestion would be to initiate a timer (which is based on the active skirmish area) when last stand starts - say a minute. Once that minute is up the defenders not inside the capture area will be considered deserters (the normal 20 second out of bounds timer will kick in).

- Trusty

[TrustyJam]

Oh I forgot to say - we are able to change up the final push time limit based on the size of the active skirmish area already, we just kept it at 3 minutes across the board for starters as it is easier to get balance feedback that way.

- Trusty

[SwingKid148]

I know 3 minutes would be impossible on some of the larger attacking maps unless we can instant spawn on flags.

I like the desertion kicker. If you want a true last stand and basing the rounds off the points, defenders should be made to stick to the point. Otherwise they could just run off out of bounds of the enemy and not get killed to win.

[Warboy]

Well seeing it's the losing side that is getting together in numbers to get changes made whether it be more morale, tickets, timers, battle situations, spawn points, restricted access to previous areas on maps etc, it will always never be good enough for the losing side, people have a natural tendency to complain even when they got it good. It's making the CSA side have to kill at least double the out of lines of enemy and have at least 100 more kills then union on some maps...just to squeak out a victory for CSA. Just been noticing a trend, more times the union losses then more they get together and 'demand' the devs do something about balance creating more and more buffs against CSA. This is not meant to target anyone company but i'm sure all the CSA groups can come together in numbers and demand changes too where 'we' see it being unfair. ex. lately pry grist mill access area for csa was removed because of complaints of us shooting in union spawn yet on Pry House the union does the same thing to us from the rocks shooting into us when we spawn.... do we take our protest signs out and go up in arms because a little thing/map/situation is not perfectly ideal for our side...no we don't we just practice/try harder which in turn makes your side more competitive. This is again reflects only my view and I don't speak for my regiment as a whole, this is just imo from what i've been seeing in the development/patch changes for the last 6 months.

P.S. Everyone feel free to chime in with your thoughts but please keep it respectful keep it to the point, don't need another thread closed if ya know what i'm saying.

[TrustyJam]

Please don’t turn this into a CSA vs USA thread. It is very counterproductive to any feedback.

I’m sure everyone can agree capping a capture area with no enemies protecting it is the opposite of what anyone thinks of as exciting end game gameplay - nor is it very fun to be the last defender alive and hiding for several minutes, waiting for the attacker to cap the zone, nor is it great to sit and wait for the amount of time when you have died - no matter what team you’re on. :)

At the same time I understand withdrawing as a defender (especially if you’re one of a few survivors) during last stand - you may not know that you are without a chance of winning (except to win on the timer) or you might just deny the enemy the last pleasure of killing you - the excellent thing is that you guys can’t do anything wrong. Play it as you deem fitting and we will react based on what we’re seeing and hearing: that is how testing works.

The design intention of last stand is, as the name suggests, a last stand fight at the capture area. We will make tweaks to ensure this is what will happen on a much more frequent basis.

- Trusty

[SwingKid148]

The design intention of last stand is, as the name suggests, a last stand fight at the capture area.

- Trusty

I just feel if we are calling it a last stand, you should have to defend the point.

[Redleader]

I think the idea with forcing the defenders to be on the actual point during last stand is a great one.

My suggestion would be to initiate a timer (which is based on the active skirmish area) when last stand starts - say a minute. Once that minute is up the defenders not inside the capture area will be considered deserters (the normal 20 second out of bounds timer will kick in).
- Trusty

@Trusty
On some maps 'the cap point' is a death trap, this for multiple reasons -> it's in the open or is in a bad spot, the enemy knows exactly where you are (unless you have scouts you don't know where they are).
I'm not a fan of further encouraging the so called 'ticket game' where on some maps it comes down to as attacking force have a superior position to dwindle down defending morale …. and by charging cap flushing them out into an unfavorable position.

PS : Last stand & final push is a great addition to the game

But the issue is here when the timer is almost depleted, the defenders on last stand can just hide and wait it out (so 1 person could win a game if there is no time to cap) -< when on last stand maybe lower the cap time ?

@O'rourke
On last stand you technically can't spawn anymore, for those who spawned just before on spawn point Â…. that's unfortunate and again proves the value of a flag bearer. -< have to give it some thoughts.

@Warboy
Agreed that some maps are prone to 'spawn camping' which is especially effective in draining morale (getting some out of line tickets) and sure while there are flags Â… traditional spawn is still used (flags can be out of line or it will take to much time).
Might be a good exercise to review the boundaries for both factions at one time.

[Krieger]

I like the idea of making the defenders stay in the cap area or desert, It is a known issue where people fall back to spawn so as to not lose on tickets, when they know we can't cap fast enough. I fear it will be an even more easily exploited issue now that all defenders must be killed. With that said, would we be able to make sure spawn camping as the defender isn't a valid tactic on last stand? Make it so you need to defend or point, or you die would be an easy and very effective remedy.

As for the last push- I like the idea, but the timer needs to be increased to least 5 minutes as we often can't cap nearly fast enough to make 3 minutes worthwhile.

[MajesticBiscuit]

I like the Last Stand, it adds a desperation to the combat that is similar to Civil War era warfare. I was with my Battalion in the event yesterday, and my entire company got wiped out except for me, so I had to link up with the New Jersey company and fight with them during the Last Stand. It really had this feeling of desperation and loneliness as you are the last ones left fighting until your last breath.

The fact that it is unforgiving means that companies are forced to cooperate and play smarter to insure they are not forced into Final Stand. Just like in real life, when the battle is lost, getting a second wind is about as rare as finding a unicorn in space.

[McMuffin]

Making people stay on the point and actually fight is a good one. A minute or minute and a half, maybe change it up each map, is good. I would also say make sure there is a UI announcement that people have X amount of time to haul ass back to the point. Although make sure to not make the area too constricting.

[Poorlaggedman]

You don't need to force defenders to be on the point, just make the point cap several times faster or better yet freeze the timer when the attacker is capping it. What of a map with a huge cap area (as they should have) like Maryland Heights? Do you have to chase down every last enemy?

Physical possession of the cap zone should matter at the end of the round if the time limit comes into play. The full cap ends the map mid-round but possessing it should count as well. The point being officially possessed by a team should be very fast, 'securing' and ending the round should take longer.

It's kind of ridiculous to have either the defender or attacker 'win' when they've been utterly crushed, regardless of the literal possession of the point after 45 minutes. Grades of victory Major - Minor - Inconclusive would be nice instead of the "Won the whole battle/campaign" message at the end of each round. There's a lot of folks who take winning seriously, myself included, but there are others who become lawyers trying (and often succeeding) in seizing total victory out of the jaws of defeat using delaying methods. You can argue that delaying can be winning but when capturing an objective in 44 minutes and 55 seconds is a victory and capturing it at 45 minutes and ten seconds is a defeat it's kind of silly. I never liked static time limits outside of sports. I'd argue that the defender literally packing up and running away and hiding behind a farm house at 43 minutes is a victory in any sense.


I had trouble understanding last night why it took so long to cap the point. I always understood that you cap faster with more players on the point but less enemy. It seems that any enemy on the cap zone however close severely retards the capping progress to the point you have little-to-no chance. Two minutes is not enough time to capture an undefended point.

https://youtu.be/yulAMAMqdBE

https://youtu.be/yulAMAMqdBE

[SwingKid148]

freeze the timer

Supposedly we have heard from Trusty that they want to implement an overtime feature. So if the point is being capped, the round won't end when the timer ends.

[TrustyJam]

Supposedly we have heard from Trusty that they want to implement an overtime feature. So if the point is being capped, the round won't end when the timer ends.

Yes, an overtime function will be making its way into the alpha in the future.

- Trusty

[McMuffin]

You don't need to force defenders to be on the point, just make the point cap several times faster or better yet freeze the timer when the attacker is capping it. What of a map with a huge cap area (as they should have) like Maryland Heights? Do you have to chase down every last enemy?

Physical possession of the cap zone should matter at the end of the round if the time limit comes into play. The full cap ends the map mid-round but possessing it should count as well. The point being officially possessed by a team should be very fast, 'securing' and ending the round should take longer.

It's kind of ridiculous to have either the defender or attacker 'win' when they've been utterly crushed, regardless of the literal possession of the point after 45 minutes. Grades of victory Major - Minor - Inconclusive would be nice instead of the "Won the whole battle/campaign" message at the end of each round. There's a lot of folks who take winning seriously, myself included, but there are others who become lawyers trying (and often succeeding) in seizing total victory out of the jaws of defeat using delaying methods. You can argue that delaying can be winning but when capturing an objective in 44 minutes and 55 seconds is a victory and capturing it at 45 minutes and ten seconds is a defeat it's kind of silly. I never liked static time limits outside of sports. I'd argue that the defender literally packing up and running away and hiding behind a farm house at 43 minutes is a victory in any sense.


I had trouble understanding last night why it took so long to cap the point. I always understood that you cap faster with more players on the point but less enemy. It seems that any enemy on the cap zone however close severely retards the capping progress to the point you have little-to-no chance. Two minutes is not enough time to capture an undefended point.

https://youtu.be/yulAMAMqdBE

https://youtu.be/yulAMAMqdBE


Nothing is more frustrating in-game than thoroughly beating down an opposing team to breaking, only to have the time run out and they just end up winning because of how the capture point system works. Adding a major/minor victory/defeat would be a welcome addition.

[[1st Cav] Shifty]

I like it but,i on a match we couldn't win cause the enemy was on last stand and one guy was AFK at spawn so we couldn't kill him nor win and i'm sure someone will use this to their advantage by sending a troop bak to spawn just so we cant touch them or win.

[sal_tuskin]

some of this is called tactics why should i send troops to cap to die when i know the union cant cap the pt, just play defense and we win that is called tactics forcing players to have to die to win really doesnt make a lot of sense lives should be worth something and game is starting to make lives feel worthless, running across a bridge to die over and over seems silly to me
and on maps like warboy has said the csa has to kill at least 3 if not 4 union per csa death to even have a chance of winning kind of makes those maps not fun either i do like the timers and last stand but no way should a team who got crushed win maybe like someone said more victory conditions

[Krieger]

some of this is called tactics why should i send troops to cap to die when i know the union cant cap the pt, just play defense and we win that is called tactics forcing players to have to die to win really doesnt make a lot of sense lives should be worth something and game is starting to make lives feel worthless, running across a bridge to die over and over seems silly to me
and on maps like warboy has said the csa has to kill at least 3 if not 4 union per csa death to even have a chance of winning kind of makes those maps not fun either i do like the timers and last stand but no way should a team who got crushed win maybe like someone said more victory conditions

Following that same logic, there is no point playing, whatsoever. Why should we attack a certain point over and over, but we can't just go around you, or follow you in to your spawn while you wait out the timer?

There is a difference between being tactical, and exploiting game mechanics.

[Dman979]

In regards to victory messages, the Combat Mission series of games does those well. IIRC, it goes A Major Victory > A Minor Victory > A Tactical Victory > Draw > B Tactical Victory > B Minor Victory > B Major Victory.
That degree of precision probably isn't needed for this game, but the degree of victory is helpful, at least to see how well your team did.

Another thing that might be nice is to keep the Last Stand state blind to the other team. I don't know if that's possible in the game engine, but it would be a good way to make sure that the attackers continue playing in the same way they had for most of the game, instead of letting up on the pressure on the defenders and trying to pick them off.

I'd like if the Final Push mechanic was able to work in the same way, but obviously with the change in the round timer, that won't be possible.

Best,
Dman979

[Poorlaggedman]

You can change the timer just so the attacking team see's the true timer in Final Push. The new changes are definitely looking to be an improvement from the matches suddenly ending like they did but I'd still prefer a different victory system and make the formation statuses of players at death not the driving factor behind it.

Combat Mission is my standard for realistic war games and it's my inspiration for individual morale.

[Cairnsy44]

Following that same logic, there is no point playing, whatsoever. Why should we attack a certain point over and over, but we can't just go around you, or follow you in to your spawn while you wait out the timer?

There is a difference between being tactical, and exploiting game mechanics.

It definitely feels like a game exploit. A bit like using the aerial camera upon dying to scout the whole map and see where the enemy is located.

[rapier17]

Nothing is more frustrating in-game than thoroughly beating down an opposing team to breaking, only to have the time run out and they just end up winning because of how the capture point system works. Adding a major/minor victory/defeat would be a welcome addition.As an aside from the meat of the topic, it strikes me that that frustration could be historically accurate. In these skirmish maps we're only fighting over a small section of a much larger battlefield; circumstances change that could prevent breaking a pinned foe. The relevant example I can think of is 30 August 1862, the last day of the Second Manassas, where Longstreet's massed assault prevented Jackson's men from being broken completely as they were either low on, or out of, ammunition, and strained to breaking point after their rapid advance and the days of fighting.

There are other reasons why attacks or defences fail even if the opponent might seem broken. The men might not wish to advance over their fallen comrades yet again, or take fright at the continuing assaults and want to get away. The commanders may deem the assault a failure and pull their men back, even if they're on the brink of victory. It might possibly be explained by the men being too tired to go forward or hold their ground; they don't have the energy to make that last effort.

In terms of game mechanics, perhaps our knowing the state of the opposing side feeds this frustration. If we only knew how our side was coping, I wonder if it would change mindsets at all in how we play. Or if it must be telegraphed how the other side are doing, whether there could be another way of showing it rather than a direct display of "this is the level of the other side's tickets".

[Maximus Decimus Meridius]

Interesting Idea to not show the moral of the other site....

I like the Idea

[Cheeto]

Hmm if the either side is forced to hold the point at the end, then the tickets should not count. Because at this point it is all a ticket game, who cares about the point if you win on tickets or if you get the point or not. If either side holds the point it should be a win no matter what. The map is a attack or defend, if attacking and get the point you win if you defend the point you win. the the ticket system should not factor at that point. If your down to final 5 or 3 min and whatever side is holding and they make it or it still capped at the end then they should win and do not count the tickets into it. if it only 30 minutes in and you kill all the the tickets then yeah go for it but not at the very end.

Maybe even do away with the tickets all together and make it where you have to attake or defend the point no matter what, because how many times have we played and the attackers just sit behind some stone wall or fence and don't even move to the point and just hold for the ticket win. Burnside bridge is a great example we have literally sat there the whole dang match and have had only one charge and that's it, it boggles the mind the you are the attacker but don't attack even with a crazy ticket bump total crazy. Like I said early, maybe get rid of tickets and make it where you can take or defend the point to win.

[Dman979]

Interesting Idea to not show the moral of the other site....

I like the Idea

I am very much in favor of a "blind" morale state. If it's possible to set up the UI that way, it would be my preference.
One issue I see, though, is that the Final Push will sometimes end games for the defender very abruptly. If the timer changes from 20 minutes to 4 left, but still shows 20 for the defenders, the timer running out will be a major shock to the defenders, and might not make for a very fun gameplay experience.

Best,
Dman979

[Poorlaggedman]

Make the final push depend solely on the progress made for the point. If 30-40 minutes have gone by and the attacker hasn't began capping at any point, then 'final push' triggers. If the attackers begin to cap within the specified time of 'final push' and continues to make progress then the final push ends and 10-15 minutes is added to the round, after which final push starts again. If they succeed again to make progress then 5-10 more minutes is added.

If the round is a legitimate seesaw slugfest then it won't end until one team or the other can't dominate the capture area long enough to meet the narrowing time constraints.

While this is going on the deployment times are increasing slightly based on the team morale of each team (personally I think spawn times should start much lower in certain circumstances but more on that another time). So eventually attacks will be slower to materialize as the teams break and one side or the other will not be able to meet the requirements of 'final push' and the team that still holds it will be the winner, to what extent is determined by the time it took (for the attacker) and the casualties taken and given.


Even if the attackers captures the objective all the way, the defenders can still counterattack and may face their own 'final push.' The final push is just an ultimatum that the round is going to conclude if you can't outmatch the enemy on the objective even for a moment. In short final push is just a warning to the team that doesn't hold the objective that they need to get back on it or the round will end.


I don't care for Last Stand because it can result in players unable to spawn in for an undetermined amount of time. Rather than that the base level deployment times should just increase the more a team breaks - it'll have a similar effect if there exists a disparity between the two team's morale.

[Sox]

Hiding the moral status of the enemy would fix all these problems. However, I feel that the current system is skewed. If an attacker is given an objective to take, and they fail to take it, then surely they loose? Should it even be possible for a defender to loose in skirmish mode based on the amount of casualties they take?

[Warboy]

Hiding the moral status of the enemy would fix all these problems.

Agreed ^^^^^

[Dman979]

However, I feel that the current system is skewed. If an attacker is given an objective to take, and they fail to take it, then surely they loose? Should it even be possible for a defender to loose in skirmish mode based on the amount of casualties they take?

Well, that depends. In real life if all but one defender is killed, that's a total destruction of the enemy forces which counts as a win in my book. The defenders wouldn't be able to effectively screen the main force, or hold the point against a follow-up, or what have you.
Conversely, if all but two attackers are killed, I'd consider that a win for the defenders, for some of the same reasons.

Really, it's a grey area with boundaries defined by the operation at hand- which is why I'm fine with (and support) having multiple victory conditions.

Best,
Dman979

[Shiloh]

We had a last stand scenario today where the Confederates were on the Last Stand on Bloody Lane. We pushed and killed everyone except the flag bearer who escaped into the corn where we couldn't go. Despite winning considerably on tickets and as the attacker we lost due to one flag bearer still alive.

That didn't feel right.

[SwingKid148]

That map was just painful waiting 4 minutes to find the last remaining reb. :(

[Shiloh]

That map was just painful waiting 4 minutes to find the last remaining reb. :(

How did we lose that one? We wiped everyone out except for one guy hiding in spawn who we couldn't get to, we had 35-40 guys still alive and we lost.

I think either I don't get how last stand works or it's glitched and needs to be fixed somehow.

[TrustyJam]

I think either I don't get how last stand works or it's glitched and needs to be fixed somehow.

Glitched.

- Trusty

[Sox]

Well, that depends. In real life if all but one defender is killed, that's a total destruction of the enemy forces which counts as a win in my book. The defenders wouldn't be able to effectively screen the main force, or hold the point against a follow-up, or what have you.
Conversely, if all but two attackers are killed, I'd consider that a win for the defenders, for some of the same reasons.

Really, it's a grey area with boundaries defined by the operation at hand- which is why I'm fine with (and support) having multiple victory conditions.

Best,
Dman979

But in 'reality' ALL the men would not be killed, in the game it's hypothetical. We're working on the basis of acceptable losses here, once a certain point is reached, i.e. too many losses have been taken, then the attack stops. Our own confusion points out the flaw in the system, the system is hypothetical. So when defenders loose a map based on moral, it's because their side retreated 'hypothetically' and not because the players actually lost the point. So 'last stand' should really be called 'Prepare to Retreat'.

[Shiloh]

Glitched.

- Trusty

Thanks! I'm glad it's that and wasn't designed that way.