Picket patrol

[EneCtin]

First: very nice job! I like the randomness of the situations, the "do your duty but try to stay alive" feeling, the cinematic spectating.

One drawback, imho, is that bunkering down in a building is pretty much a win-win scenario. On one side you've got high ground, cover, tight avenues that need defending and on the other you have none of those but lack the manpower to push the assault. In most picket matches so far, one side choses to occupy a building and starts making noise to draw the enemies in the killing zone. No way to approach that situation but to do what the enemy expects you to do (bad idea).
- nothing wrong with pressing the attack in the face of stiff enemy defence, it is fun and engaging, but said tactic of hunkering down in a building even if no enemy is around is already being exploited. This being a game, people want to shoot something and will do ultimately what the "exploiters" want them to do. You search until you find the enemy and then may hunker down somewhere (not before, forcing the attack to come to you).
- but, if the attack is deemed too risky, the team may choose to deny battle and withdraw out of range of effective fire from the building. In this situation, would be nice to have a mandatory moving on order (exiting the structure, on pain of desertion) if the building has not been contested for 2 minutes. Thus the 2 sides battle it out on even terms for the rest of the round. Maybe a cooldown to be able to re-enter the building if situation changes.
- either this or remove buildings all together (would be a shame, though)

A bit more room to scout and come back safely to formation (up that ridge and look in the next valley, up that house and look around). Basically it's search and destroy mode, let the people search individually if they feel like it but fight as a unit.
The desertion timer would be triggered by any form of attack (after discharging the rifle or stabbing someone, you need to regroup promptly). Sure, a certain reasonable maximum distance from the unit must be enforced, so walk too far out of sight and you'd trigger the desertion timer.

[Poorlaggedman]

Anything one-life is kind of a clear-cut avenue to a camp-fest, doubly so if there's no objective but search and destroy.

I love the idea of dynamic gameplay though. So many games just leave that option off the table and keep everything fixed and predictable. I'm diametrically opposed to desertion timers for privates. I'd prefer it weren't in for officers. 10662

Buildings are a tricky thing since they're essentially fortified blockhouses - though there are many real life of examples of structures that weren't bullet proof to minie balls. So what would the real troops do if they had enemy pickets in buildings? The pattern I've always read is they were isolated and forced to surrender. Guys would generally egress a structure pretty fast when the enemy started closing in. In game players are pretty okay with being surrounded as long as they have a building. They don't have to deal with end conditions. Structures would also be burned once they were taken, particularly by a side in hostile territory as reasonably-justified retribution for it being used like that.

Just to throw something at the wall, maybe create parameters where players who are surrounded by enemy on 4 sides within 50 meters are status "surrounded" and counted as surrendered at the end of the round?

[Oleander]

Either buildings need to be off limits or the skirmish areas need to be moved away from them. Right now its a rush to a building then 10 minutes worth of nothing. Whichever side decides to attack the other gets wiped out.

Also, there's no real reason to have flag bearers in this mode since there are no spawns. Other than turning into a camp fest the mode isn't bad.

[LaBelle]

Once people learn they can shoot through the walls now, things will change. Expect volleys into the broadside of a barn ;)

[Saris]

First: very nice job! I like the randomness of the situations, the "do your duty but try to stay alive" feeling, the cinematic spectating.

One drawback, imho, is that bunkering down in a building is pretty much a win-win scenario. On one side you've got high ground, cover, tight avenues that need defending and on the other you have none of those but lack the manpower to push the assault. In most picket matches so far, one side choses to occupy a building and starts making noise to draw the enemies in the killing zone. No way to approach that situation but to do what the enemy expects you to do (bad idea).
- nothing wrong with pressing the attack in the face of stiff enemy defence, it is fun and engaging, but said tactic of hunkering down in a building even if no enemy is around is already being exploited. This being a game, people want to shoot something and will do ultimately what the "exploiters" want them to do. You search until you find the enemy and then may hunker down somewhere (not before, forcing the attack to come to you).
- but, if the attack is deemed too risky, the team may choose to deny battle and withdraw out of range of effective fire from the building. In this situation, would be nice to have a mandatory moving on order (exiting the structure, on pain of desertion) if the building has not been contested for 2 minutes. Thus the 2 sides battle it out on even terms for the rest of the round. Maybe a cooldown to be able to re-enter the building if situation changes.
- either this or remove buildings all together (would be a shame, though)

A bit more room to scout and come back safely to formation (up that ridge and look in the next valley, up that house and look around). Basically it's search and destroy mode, let the people search individually if they feel like it but fight as a unit.
The desertion timer would be triggered by any form of attack (after discharging the rifle or stabbing someone, you need to regroup promptly). Sure, a certain reasonable maximum distance from the unit must be enforced, so walk too far out of sight and you'd trigger the desertion timer.

I second this, the only problem I have with this gamemode is the bumrush for the house. If yall close the doors on the houses or make them an off limits place, we'll continue to see this gameplay.

[LaBelle]

Just shoot through the walls, boys.

[TrustyJam]

Thanks for the feedback. :)

We'll monitor how the gameplay evolves and will make tweaks on an ongoing basis.

I think the mentality of "they are defending a super strong position so we must attack!" is something that is carried over due to having played Skirmishes for so long which is understandable. I suspect the urge to do this will slowly die down as people learn that it is very likely a lost match if one does attack such a position.

The truth is no one is forcing you to attack an entrenched enemy as there is no other objective than the shared one of killing the other side. :)

- Trusty

[EneCtin]

The truth is no one is forcing you to attack an entrenched enemy as there is no other objective than the shared one of killing the other side. :)

True, but what remains of the game in that case? Not much action if you do not find the enemy, not much action if they (or you) choose to hunker down somewhere, just a lot of waiting. Basically the game mode is scout around, engage similar forces and call in the cavalry if meeting too strong a force. Buildings are a force multiplier (usually), also there was some nice scouting and maneuvering in the first ten matches or so which turned to let's get to a building and do them what they did us.

It's much too early, true. Just something to consider tweaking.

PS. Sorry, couldn't stop myself :D. If one side is camped somewhere, the other side receives more troops (50-100%) to deal with situation. Irl I guess a scout would report back and bring in more troops or the regiment comes to find out what the ruckus is all about. So, one side hunkers down, the other side gets more soldiers (well, that team's max numbers get increased, which when more people will be playing on several servers will cause the influx of additional troops). Those troops will stay for 1 life even if the other team leaves the building, deterrent for future uses of buildings. Or, simply allow 2 respawns to a variable number of soldiers in those situations (that is inline with skirmish mode and could work even now).

[Matt(Fridge)]

If there is realistic bullet penetration soon which it seems so as they pushed a patch for some today. I do not see hiding in buildings as a foolproof method.

[Vulcarin]

If there is realistic bullet penetration soon which it seems so as they pushed a patch for some today. I do not see hiding in buildings as a foolproof method.

One thing i have to ask the devs here about bullet penetration...would the chance of penetration be reduced as the bullet goes through multiple walls?

[Matt(Fridge)]

That would be ideal. I hope that is the way they choose to implement it.

[Poorlaggedman]

Technically if the penetration is a set percentage chance then the likelihood of a bullet penetrating a second wall is always reduced, but I know what you're saying.

[LaBelle]

Bullet penetration should be near 100% for the initial wooden surface, followed by a 20% reduction in chance of penetration each additional surface impact. Just my two cents.

[Sox]

Bullet penetration should be near 100% for the initial wooden surface, followed by a 20% reduction in chance of penetration each additional surface impact. Just my two cents.

I've live fired the 1853 Enfield, shooting at a beef carcass & cedar planking. At very short, or medium ranges, a straight through shot did horrific damage, but even at those ranges penetration was never one hundred percent. There are live firing vids on YouTube that you can watch (mostly Sprinfields) and you'll see that the minie was just as likely to flatten out as it was to penetrate. At short range the results are pretty conclusive, and most shots will go straight through wood, but once you move to medium/long range the results are very eratic indeed.

There is, however, another angle on all of this. Circa 1862, troops who were holed up in a building would be pretty helpless to stop a sustained infantry assault (Fredericksburg?) they could not put out the volume of fire needed because they were in buildings. So from a game mechanic perspective you could argue that increased penetration makes sense, but certainly not 100%.

[Oleander]

This is where I'd be willing to bend the rules of physics a bit for the sake of gameplay. If the whole purpose of this mode is to kill all enemies or have more kills before time runs out, you need something pushing people in that direction. Otherwise you're looking at standoffs around houses.