Final Push & Last Stand.

[Sox]

War of Rights has always made sense to me. The civil war soldier had a breaking point, the Confederates at Malvern Hill & Picketts Charge, the Union at Fredericksburg & Chancellorsville being good examples. That point where the shock of battle became too much & he would fall back, temporarily beaten. So a system based upon morale, for a civil war game, is good because morale was usually a deciding factor on those battlefields.

Now I can understand Last Stand, the defenders morale is broken so all but the most stalwart of men fall back, leaving a few hardy souls behind until the attacker finally clears them out. Mechanics wise it also prevents defenders from pulling back to spawn, job done. It's a progression system still based on morale. Final Push, on the other hand, makes no sense to me. Having fought all match to wreck an attackers will to perform assaults, defenders then get to face an enemy who, all of a sudden, attack with wilder abandon than ever before?????

Imagine: Picketts men reach the wall atop Cemetary Ridge after an herculean effort to even get there, they fight for a desperate few minutes, but have to fall back after suffering shattering loses. They get halfway back down the hill and then think to themselves ''you know what, let's try that again'', that is basically Final Push.

It's cheap, it's arcade, and it doesn't fit in with the system that's already in place. Scrap Final Push, scrap both, do something that is not this system.

[EneCtin]

….that is basically Final Push. ....

Very picturesque. Yes, in that situation, one would expect "Regroup and prepare your last stand" or "Regroup and orderly retreat to better defensive position", only that would disengage the forces from the point of contention (the other side, presumably battered, would be happy to just wait for the timer to fill up and win).

There is this thing: the objective of the 2 forces was to wipe each other out. By chance, mishap or maneuvering they ended fighting somewhere, what the game calls the point of contention. It may well not have been the general's objective to hold, capture or fight in that position at the start of the battle.

I'd say, change the objective of the game to neutralizing the enemy. In that scenario, retreat, reform etc would be more realistic than sudden kamikaze charges after barely escaping with your life..

[Soulfly]

Next to "its not realistic" or "I dont like it" what would your suggestion be? no final push and then...what? just depleted reinforcements and the survivors trolling around a corn field?

[EneCtin]

Well, if you cannot take the enemy position with your available manpower, retreat to a more advantageous position and inflict maximum damage on the enemy before going down.

The game could set objectives according to various situations, ensuring contact of the 2 forces until one is defeated.

In the example above, let's assume defenders at "Taking Losses" while you are at "Breaking" or "Last Stand". In this situation, the defenders become attackers and vice versa. If the ones at "taking losses" do not attack, they start loosing the objective (objective being kill the enemy, not hold some predetermined point). The ones at breaking or last stand are ordered to defense, orderly retreat to a stronger defensive position and as long as they do that and are not obliterated by the enemy, they win, because it is the logical decision to preserve your force and not expend it in a futile effort.

Basically, the game sets a general attack order at the start of the game for each force, until that force is mowed down to taking losses. At that point, which ever has more troops left gets to attack while the other to defend. If the 2 forces are equally matched, general orders to attack the enemy for both. The more depleted troop may attack or defend but the stronger force is required to attack if it is not under attack itself, or it will start loosing the game. We can think of those orders being the general's orders, which are put into action by the player officers orders, transmitted through the NCOs to the troops .

Something like this...

P.S. this may also solve the very static gameplay issue discussed in other posts (multiple objectives, etc)

[Galahad]

Actually depleted reinforcements makes sense to me for both sides of the equation if you HAVE to use the current system. Just as defenders have a timer to get and stay on the point with each death further depleting their numbers then make it so for attackers although personally I would make their timer higher to form up and run to the point.

I don't like the last stand/final push system at all but again if it has to be used then that seems to be the fairest way. I've said in a previous post that Trusy had made a comment that the system was a way to bring closure to a team that played poorly throughout the match. I don't think giving the attacker unlimited spawns is a way to do it no matter how much you lower the overall game timer

[Ted E. Bear]

I mean if we wanted to be realistic there would be no substitute for Final Push. The Attackers morale would just break and so would their attack. the rallying stages should be before breaking or during breaking.

[Sox]

I mean if we wanted to be realistic there would be no substitute for Final Push. The Attackers morale would just break and so would their attack. the rallying stages should be before breaking or during breaking.

That would be my take on it too.

[Oleander]

Making morale fluid is an interesting concept that I've been thinking over for a while now. I think the whole morale system shouldn't just be based off tickets and out of formation kills. I think there should be modifiers like having a flag or having a CO if a push was successful or if it fell. Like if you take a large number of casualties in a short amount of time not only should that be a huge morale hit it should also suppress them men. It would encourage more organized gameplay and make actions have better consequences.

That being said, Last Stand is so one sided its not even remotely fair. If Final Push is going to be a thing, considering all the arguments above, there should at least be a spawn limit. I'd say no more than 2 respawns before reinforcements are depleted.

[TrustyJam]

Making morale fluid is an interesting concept that I've been thinking over for a while now. I think the whole morale system shouldn't just be based off tickets and out of formation kills. I think there should be modifiers like having a flag or having a CO if a push was successful or if it fell. Like if you take a large number of casualties in a short amount of time not only should that be a huge morale hit it should also suppress them men. It would encourage more organized gameplay and make actions have better consequences.

That being said, Last Stand is so one sided its not even remotely fair. If Final Push is going to be a thing, considering all the arguments above, there should at least be a spawn limit. I'd say no more than 2 respawns before reinforcements are depleted.

Thanks for the feedback, please keep it coming. :)

Interestingly, the timer of final push is calculated based on distance to capture area (how long that distances takes to run), death screen timers/spawning queue times multiplied 2-3 times to give enough time for roughly 2 attacks.

- Trusty

[Oleander]

Interestingly, the timer of final push is calculated based on distance to capture area (how long that distances takes to run), death screen timers/spawning queue times multiplied 2-3 times to give enough time for roughly 2 attacks.

- Trusty

I had a suspicion that was the case, but that doesn't take into account flag spawns. Maybe eliminate flag spawns during Final Push?

And as far as morale goes, I think some sort of Rally mechanic where you can recover morale, to an extent, would be something cool to experiment with.

[Poorlaggedman]

When both mechanics fire at the end of a round it reminds me of these events I used to host where one team was essentially zombies that respawned quickly and the other defending team had one life and did not respawn. Matter of fact the event type I literally called "Last Stand" and there was no earthly way the defender could win, they just had to inflict as many losses as they could. That's what it feels like and that's the way the attackers inevitably behave except for the timer which dooms one team or another.

Final Push and Last Stand just highlight some holes under the surface in the Team Morale being the basis for score and thus player behavior in the game.


Making morale fluid is an interesting concept that I've been thinking over for a while now. I think the whole morale system shouldn't just be based off tickets and out of formation kills. I think there should be modifiers like having a flag or having a CO if a push was successful or if it fell. Like if you take a large number of casualties in a short amount of time not only should that be a huge morale hit it should also suppress them men. It would encourage more organized gameplay and make actions have better consequences.
Arbitrary bonuses also empower people to perform roles poorly and scuttle the whole team if you're relying on specific people in specific roles to be somewhere and be present or even alive. No specific role should make or break a team, that includes COs. Certainly not without a stellar selection system for those roles and even then I question special reverence given to any one player's actions just for being in a role and not by logical and direct contributions to the team.

Sure you can make a game where players will constantly have a clear basis for blaming performance of a team on the failures of other specific players, be they AFK or just performing poorly dying out of line or going down at times when you need them as a prop to fulfill some arbitrary team bonus, but why would you want to?

The benefits of an officer role should be just one: Because he's in the officer role you know he's some officer. The problem is that selection / election process isn't a thing yet. Other than that he should spawn slower than other players and IMO, be able to reload his piece a few times. Just tone down the killing power at range for it. The pistolball ammo is incredibly small to be dropping people at some of the ranges it does.

The benefits of having a flag bearer should ideally just be a spawn bonus like -50% so that it's still significant enough but not an absolute game-breaking necessity with existing formations reaching a set threshold of players and then being created, tracked, dissolved, merged, and available to deploy on at set increments based on their size and formation strength.

So the total benefits of being in some sort of formation should be: 1) major progressive increases in resilience from suppression which would completely nullify a player's effectiveness under fire at its worst. 2) progressively faster re-spawning and even spawning already loaded. The purpose of an elected officer would be to keep that cohesive in some way. If he died front and center using his pistol and doesn't respawn for two minutes players who gave him that role might pick someone else the next time they're deploying in.

You don't need to make it more complicated than that. Players will choose their level of poison and benefit without relying on peer pressure or unwritten code. The natural result of taking casualties too quickly would be that your formation strength would degrade. In those circumstances nothing would change in style of play when the attacking team reaches some threshold of losses to be put into Final Push. There may be a time crunch but it wouldn't be a free-for-all sprint in with musket butts like it can be now. Part of the reason it feels gamey right now also is because victory and defeat is always complete (cue headline reading the whole war is lost or total victory is achieved). Victory should factor in hard numbers of losses as well as dominance of the objective(s). A team shouldn't break and then snatch more than a Pyrrhic Victory out of the jaws of defeat on a technicality. Most people understand this now but it would help if the game acknowledges it seeing as how win/loss is the sole official measure of success.

[Oleander]

A CO should mean more to a team than someone that is able to drop a line on the ground and say "Go there." A flag bearer should be more than just a spawn point on the map. If you want this game to have any sort of meaning to teamwork, you have to make the roles more than just position on the field. Organized companies rally around their leaders, and flag bearers should be no different. I'm not saying these positions should be a make or break deal for a team, but they need to have more meaning than they do now.

Look at a game like War Thunder where bombers should be only thing players should be supporting. But, what ends up happening is everyone just wants to dogfight and the bombers get shot down so the team has to fight to the last man. I think this is the reason why pubbies have such a hard time following leaders in the game, other than there being some really terrible ones. They are more interested in what they are doing without a CO because there is absolutely no incentive for them to follow one.

[Poorlaggedman]

I wouldn't be opposed if it factored in to a more complex final score system for what duration of time you had a flag planted on the objective (as an attacker) or something that made sense like that. I don't know if it's necessary to make the roles mean more if they aren't big changes and big changes dip into that frustrating reality of relying on one person's performance. Yes we shouldn't have to worry about people's stupidity and the game can't be designed to be stupid-proof but you don't want to make stupidity bite too hard to other players. Think of a game like Battlefield 2 where the entire squad spawns on the NCO. The NCO becomes, not a leader, but a spawn point. He has to be protected so he's present to drop people in. When a role becomes a prop or a trophy to wave around the chance to represent the real purpose of the role can go by the wayside. Players in WoR give the Officer role a lot of credibility as it is. It'll be better when there's some logic behind who's in the roles.

If we're trying to represent reality to some extent I don't see much realism even in arbitrary morale radius bonuses, like in a lot of tactical games. The bonus of having a good leader around is in being led better. It doesn't take your heart rate down under fire or redirect the adrenaline in your body. Having the reassurance of more living, breathing comrades around you and less bullets coming towards you because you're being well-led can do that. The flag spawn indirectly raises the 'morale' of the people around it by serving some real beneficial purpose representing the staying power or the rallying power of having one through spawning on it. I definitely feel different when our flags are both laying on the grass at the site of the last grand flanking expedition compared to when they're present and in-use.

[Dangon5]

In truth, this system is broken.

I've played three matches with this new system and already I find it annoying and game breaking.

As an avid CSA player, I tend to defend a lot, but even when attacking I see the same problem. A hopeless game for the attacker turns into a cake walk as all forces on the attacking side are now concentrated and focused on the objective, along with the fact that attackers can still spawn. While defenders, once they reach "final stand" can no longer spawn.

I will detail each match.

First match, attacker CSA. Our team enters final push while the enemy is only "Taking Losses". This match had been a cluster and our officers wasn't very good. The team was unorganized and we'd been flanked multiple times and pushed back to spawn. With this we were forced to push for the enemy objective, our team focused and forced to do this. We forced the enemy off the point and were able to hold it until they hit "Final Stand". At which point, the enemy lost all cohesion and fell to pieces. It was a victory, a hard fought one, but I didn't feel satisfied for some reason. The enemy had lost, not because our team was good, rather we won because the game forced us to charge the point and because of our flags, we kept the spawn supplied with men. I didn't know what this new system meant yet, as I play War of Rights casually.

Second match, I found myself defending with my team. The battle was amazing with troops moving left and right, flank and counter flank, charge and counter charge. Both teams were doing their best and gave as good as they got. It was a game that War of Rights is one of my favorite for. However, then both sides entered their final phase. Once again, the defenders were swept from the point by a concerted enemy push and we lost man after man. Prior to this system, my team might've been able to gather forces and push the enemy from the point with each kill being important, but instead my team won, because an AFK player was in our spawn and ran down the clock. We won, after an amazing game that was nail bitingly close, this system ruined it for everyone. For the attackers who pushed so bravely and the defenders that fought to the last. What was a sweet match, turned sour and bitter for both sides.

Final match, I knew what the system was now and I felt dirty playing it, but this next match was on a map that's hard for the CSA to win, even before this new system, but our team was well organized. Men listened to their officers and sharpshooters were giving the enemy hell. It was clear the CSA had been organization skills over the USA, as we broke their charges pretty well and they'd opened themselves to concentrated fire multiple times. However, as I said, this map is hard for the CSA to win, as we are open to shot the entire time unless we hide behind a hill, tree, or one of the cluster of rocks. So each team was neck and neck with the CSA having a small lead over the USA, however that changed when "Final Push" came. The enemy charged the point and forced the CSA into "Final Stand". What was to be a CSA victory turned into a slaughter. Even though my team had fought well, we lost because of this system.

I understand why this system existed. It exists due to maps like Miller's Cornfield, a map I hate with a passion. Where the two sides don't have a clear line of site of one another until they are face to face. For this map, this new system works fine, but for every other map it makes being the defender an impossible task as "final push" forces the enemy to charge in a large cluster at the point.

I would suggest immediate removal of this system and a return to the former one, because what this system forces artificially is what a good commander on the offense would have to produce otherwise and it makes playing the defense, no fun at all, because you are bound to lose once the enemy hits "final push".

In fact, the only reason I made a profile on this website is to talk about this system. I enjoy War of Rights, but now I don't want to play anymore. If I win attacking, I feel like I cheated because the enemy was given a loosing hand from the start and when I lose defending, I knew it was coming all along and no matter what I did, no matter how many men I kill or what information I give to the commander, I know I will lose, my team will lose. Even if we did everything right and our enemy is completely incompetent. They will win because the game puts them in a position to win, not an opportunity, but a position.

[Sox]

A CO should mean more to a team than someone that is able to drop a line on the ground and say "Go there." A flag bearer should be more than just a spawn point on the map. If you want this game to have any sort of meaning to teamwork, you have to make the roles more than just position on the field. Organized companies rally around their leaders, and flag bearers should be no different. I'm not saying these positions should be a make or break deal for a team, but they need to have more meaning than they do now.

It's nigh on impossible to argue with this. Without the hated Last Stand/Final Push I like the morale system, but it would be a lot more interesting if you could regain lost morale, or at least have it boosted.

[LaBelle]

Regaining lost morale is one of the KEY things I'd like to see. If a team is breaking but suddenly manages to kill 50 men while only losing 2, or takes an objective(provided we ever get multiple cap points,)that should mean something.

[Dug Holes]

Love this game! Not a fan of "Last Stand" & "Final Push".

[Ted E. Bear]

I think this is the reason why pubbies have such a hard time following leaders in the game, other than there being some really terrible ones. They are more interested in what they are doing without a CO because there is absolutely no incentive for them to follow one.

Most of the Pubs ive commanded listen and work together better than most regiments. You just have to inspire them, not expect them to follow you just because you are barking orders. Whenever a group of regiments are in game and your leading you can kiss half your formation goodbye while they all go off and do their own thing and not stick with the rest of the team.

[Sox]

Whenever a group of regiments are in game and your leading you can kiss half your formation goodbye while they all go off and do their own thing and not stick with the rest of the team.

OR, maybe it's you and the pubs that go of and do your own thing and don't stick with the formed regiments. I mean, it's not like they all have their own Officers or anything :rolleyes:

[LaBelle]

Most of the Pubs ive commanded listen and work together better than most regiments.

Stop your bullshit.


Whenever a group of regiments are in game and your leading

If there are a group of regiments in game, you are not leading them unless they want you too.


you can kiss half your formation goodbye while they all go off and do their own thing and not stick with the rest of the team.

Negative, as those regiments are absolutely, 100% of the time doing what they're supposed to be doing and either defending an area or attacking an area. If you're forcing the entire team to be together at all times, that's a tactical error on your part. It's not up to them to bend to your rules just as much as it's not up to you to bend to their's. I want you to look at this game, and look at it's Company Tool; do you think this game was meant to be played by "pubbies," and not by groups of people joining Companies? Remember that every pubbie is a company member in training, and every company member is a pubbie who figured out how the game is meant to be played.

[TrustyJam]

Stop your bullshit.



If there are a group of regiments in game, you are not leading them unless they want you too.



Negative, as those regiments are absolutely, 100% of the time doing what they're supposed to be doing and either defending an area or attacking an area. If you're forcing the entire team to be together at all times, that's a tactical error on your part. It's not up to them to bend to your rules just as much as it's not up to you to bend to their's. I want you to look at this game, and look at it's Company Tool; do you think this game was meant to be played by "pubbies," and not by groups of people joining Companies? Remember that every pubbie is a company member in training, and every company member is a pubbie who figured out how the game is meant to be played.

The game is meant to be played by company members as well as non company members.

- Trusty

[LaBelle]

I should have typed "meant to be played *solely* by pubbies." My bad.

[LordAlistair]

Here's the thing, I believe in some cases it is okay for regiments to go on their own away from the main group when there is a large amount of them like 13 or so. In my experience, they aren't dicks by taking flag bearer or officer/nco roles so it doesn't greatly affect the pubbies. To Ted's defense, the most annoying thing to see when you are commanding is 3-4 regiment guys going off on their own. There is not enough of them to make a difference and sway the balance in their teams favor, but when 2 die, the rest are out of line and lose even more tickets for their team. In that case, I believe the 4 guys should default move with the rest of the pubbies like most regiments do in that case.

[LaBelle]

Well that's a little bit different and I would agree with you in that regard. Nobody needs to be going off in groups of 2 or 3. What can you accomplish?

[Soulfly]

Little example from playing skirmish on Monday, CSA was lead by a regiment and on every map the tactic was "fix bayonet and charge right away" so every map was won within minutes and they celebrated themselves non-stop.....was it fun? no. As the poor Pubbie that I enjoy officers knowing what they are doing and players sticking to orders, the best officer I had was NOT from a regiment, so I dont get the point of this discussion here.

I would appreciate if the regiments would act as veterans basically leading the new players and "pubbies", not rule them out......

[LaBelle]

Name a regiment that doesn't actively try and include pubbies in everything it does. Nobody in a regiment is "ruling you guys out," because that would quickly kill a regiment. Good pubbie relations is a key to recruitment, so I'm curious as to who would be stupid enough to commit regimental suicide in the way you guys keep talking about.

Also, unless you were playing on Picket Patrol, blame the map meta for the constant charging, not the regiments. Some people want to win because that's fun to them. Not a whole lot want to lose, which is what will happen if you try to go muzzle to muzzle with an entrenched enemy.

[Ted E. Bear]

Alright, so this is my experience from the union side of things as I have never played on the CSA side. First off there are a lot of excellent pub players and officers that have no intention of ever joining a regiment for any reason. Not all pubs are regimental guys in training, that is an inherently wrong blanket statement. I could make a very long youtube video compiled of twitch clips of Union regimental officers treating pub officers like garbage even when they are better than most of the regimental officers Ive encountered. I do not because it does nothing but stir the shit pot even more, not to mention all the petty high school BS that goes on with all the regiments at least from my perspective. When I have a collection of regiments with multiple regimental Commanders on my team and im leading I can pretty much always bet on loosing. Everyone wants to be head honcho and basically you just have men scattered all over the battlefield doing their own thing with no cohesion. Now unless im mistaken with how skirmish is setup currently with 2 regiments with 2 maybe 3 COs and the goal of the game is to get everyone to stick together I would argue that they are not playing the game "as Intended" but are doing the same thing that everyone talks down to the pubs for. Its Ironic as all hell in a sad way. I know several pubs thats used to love the game but got tired of regiments coming in and shitting all over everything. This is of course not all regiments but is definitely something that needs to be adressed. The overall environment for your average player who has no desire to get with a clan is getting less and less stellar as time goes on. The mentality that this game was also made for regiments is also very misguided and ill thought out in my opinion. A lot of (not all) regimental gameplay ive seen goes against how the game is setup in its current state time and time again (at least in skirmish, i dont play pickett patrol personally). Also regiments will not build this game, they may be a dedicated part of it but they cant grow it without pubs. - Just my thoughts and opinions

[Poorlaggedman]

Yes, the game needs to have it's own way of assigning ranks separate from an illusion of bracketed names.

The two things that organizations tend to universally fail at is their top guys never know when to move on or who to pass command to and they forget that professional organizations make their members second-class citizens to the public. I'm very happy to start recognizing more and more players in-game who're regulars who are not associated. I look forward to attempting clan vs pub battles one day however there's a plethora of shortcomings in admin controls and transparency (people will accuse others of cheating). Also steam completely neutered my way of organizing about 18 months ago and until I lobby them to fix that mess community organization looks grim AF.

[Matt(Fridge)]

Yes, the game needs to have it's own way of assigning ranks separate from an illusion of bracketed names.

The two things that organizations tend to universally fail at is their top guys never know when to move on or who to pass command to and they forget that professional organizations make their members second-class citizens to the public. I'm very happy to start recognizing more and more players in-game who're regulars who are not associated. I look forward to attempting clan vs pub battles one day however there's a plethora of shortcomings in admin controls and transparency (people will accuse others of cheating). Also steam completely neutered my way of organizing about 18 months ago and until I lobby them to fix that mess community organization looks grim AF.

Clan vs Pub? Are you referring to the good old pub stomps that happen when its clan vs pub.

[Ted E. Bear]

Id be more than happy to lead a group of union pubs against the 1st texas in an event.

[LaBelle]

First off, any time.

Second off, stay on topic y'all.

[Sox]

Alright, so this is my experience from the union side of things as I have never played on the CSA side. First off there are a lot of excellent pub players and officers that have no intention of ever joining a regiment for any reason. Not all pubs are regimental guys in training, that is an inherently wrong blanket statement. I could make a very long youtube video compiled of twitch clips of Union regimental officers treating pub officers like garbage even when they are better than most of the regimental officers Ive encountered. I do not because it does nothing but stir the shit pot even more, not to mention all the petty high school BS that goes on with all the regiments at least from my perspective. When I have a collection of regiments with multiple regimental Commanders on my team and im leading I can pretty much always bet on loosing. Everyone wants to be head honcho and basically you just have men scattered all over the battlefield doing their own thing with no cohesion. Now unless im mistaken with how skirmish is setup currently with 2 regiments with 2 maybe 3 COs and the goal of the game is to get everyone to stick together I would argue that they are not playing the game "as Intended" but are doing the same thing that everyone talks down to the pubs for. Its Ironic as all hell in a sad way. I know several pubs thats used to love the game but got tired of regiments coming in and shitting all over everything. This is of course not all regiments but is definitely something that needs to be adressed. The overall environment for your average player who has no desire to get with a clan is getting less and less stellar as time goes on. The mentality that this game was also made for regiments is also very misguided and ill thought out in my opinion. A lot of (not all) regimental gameplay ive seen goes against how the game is setup in its current state time and time again (at least in skirmish, i dont play pickett patrol personally). Also regiments will not build this game, they may be a dedicated part of it but they cant grow it without pubs. - Just my thoughts and opinions

Here are a few facts for you because, to be frank, I'm fed up of seeing you misrepresent something that you are not even a part of.

1. To my knowledge, every formed Company that owns a server host public events & does nothing but encourage public players.
2. You have NO idea what goes on within formed regiments, because you are not actually in one, the ''petty high school bullshit'' you reflect on, is a figment of your imagination.
3. You keep reffering to ''the team that I am leading''....well no offence here, but who put you in command of the entire team Teddy? Companies are led by people who have worked their backsides off to actually form up & organise, I can't even begin to imagine why you think they have to follow you, in the same way that we do not expect those not IN our Companies to follow us.
4. We don't have ''men scattered all over the battlefield doing their own thing with no cohesion'', this may come as a shock to you, but we're in teamspeak, and are fully aware of what our orders are, which companies are holding which sectors etc etc. Company Officers even *shock horror* talk to each other and work out a plan.
5.''Also regiments will not build this game'' I look forward to you eating those words in six months time. Once again you have no idea, 1st Texas, 1st Georgia and 6thLA, ALONE, can easily fill a server Teddy.

We need this game to be playable by everyone, but your constant misrepresentation of formed Companies is getting really old. We were public players, don't forget that, so we are well aware of what happens on public servers. On another note, really looking forward to your video when 1st Texas stomp you :p

[Matt(Fridge)]

Most of the Pubs ive commanded listen and work together better than most regiments. You just have to inspire them, not expect them to follow you just because you are barking orders. Whenever a group of regiments are in game and your leading you can kiss half your formation goodbye while they all go off and do their own thing and not stick with the rest of the team.

This ridiculous romanticization of not joining a company is getting out of hand. No one is grabbing you by the ear and forcing you to join one or trying to get any unaffiliated player purged from War of Rights. However it does not take a detective to figure out that the game is heavily geared toward company level (and even higher) organization. Almost everything you say about organized companies / regiments / brigades is a severe misrepresentation of facts. I love how you presuppose that when things are scattered its the regiments fault and has nothing at all to do with the fact that most of the team has little sense of communication (likely to do with having no standardized leadership due to not being organized). You can't possibly make a case that a well disciplined regiment who understands authority and has a thorough understanding of the metagame is more chaotic then a pubbie team where everyone and there mother wants to bark orders and where at least a fifth of the team thinks the only way to have fun is to troll and blast music eardrum shattering loud.

[Vulcarin]

Id be more than happy to lead a group of union pubs against the 1st texas in an event.

Teddy Bear, 1st Ga will take you on as well. After 1st Texas is done moping the floor with you and your unorganized approach, we will do the same. We have a private server as well and we can even let you set your team however you see fit. Find me on steam - Vulcarin

[Soulfly]

Great...could you stop right away?

[Oleander]

Organized units are what will keep this game going in the long run. Don't come out and bash us because you and some others don't want to join. And when you're playing on a server owned by a unit, don't assume you can come on and just start commanding everyone. There are at least 3 "pub commanders" we have to deal with on a regular basis because they feel like its their right to assume command and pull pubbies away from us. Or, lead them on some half-assed charge that does nothing but waste tickets.

[Hienzman]

I don't see what any of this has to do with last stand and final push, however I am getting a little sick of seeing people being attacked for being in companies. I personally formed my company with a few friends because it brings a more enjoyable experience playing with an organized group who can communicate. I don't understand why a "pub" would berate some one for being in a company and then turn around and expect no rebuttal. I figure if you don't want to be in a company kindly decline and get on with the game do not focus on blaming the men with higher organizational standards for your own faults.

[Poorlaggedman]

There's definitely still people being AFK in spawn and not being auto-killed after Last Stand is activated. Forcing us all to watch for several minutes while the enemy caps.

[TrustyJam]

There's definitely still people being AFK in spawn and not being auto-killed after Last Stand is activated. Forcing us all to watch for several minutes while the enemy caps.

The timer is at 140 seconds which is several minutes (to allow the defenders enough time to get to the point when spawned in).

Please let us know if you have experienced “afk waits” longer than that (when not timing something you will often tend to think you’ve waited for longer than you actually have).

- Trusty

[Redleader]

The timer is at 140 seconds which is several minutes (to allow the defenders enough time to get to the point when spawned in).

Please let us know if you have experienced “afk waits” longer than that (when not timing something you will often tend to think you’ve waited for longer than you actually have).

- Trusty

How 'last stand usually goes down' for me :

- The message pops up.
- We keep doing what we are doing (we reform and try to get somewhere closer to point)
- After some time the 'timer' will effectively show up (for me it's usually starting at 139)
- If the timer gets really low we push on to cap (say we are close by, somewhat like 20 secs)

Main goal is trying to 'break' the enemy into final push and then it's a 'time & survive' game.

@Trusty

Can you please explain in full detail (in some sort of schedule) in how 'last stand' & 'final push' are implemented, this way the mechanics are clear for everyone so we can make some valid suggestions.

[Vankovski]

Were the ticket counts on skirmish maps touched at all after the implementation of Final Push/Last Stand?