Return of Reckoning

Hargrim wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:46 pm

zabis wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:41 pm

Hargrim wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:07 am I wonder, does the people send letters to Alexey Pajitnov to make Tetris more like Mario Bros, or just play the Mario Bros when they want to play the Mario Bros instead of forcing the developer to make the Tetris more like Mario Bros when games like Mario Bros exist and they are more than welcome to play them?

This thread was opened for feedback. If it wasn't wanted, then it shouldn't have been requested. With that said, I enjoyed the three flag system better. It gave each team the opportunity to leave the wc and not be camped the entire scenario.

Well, great, but I was referring to people pushing the “please remove all objectives so I can mindlessly pvp” agenda with this post. SCs in WAR were always objective based.

Bozzax wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:23 am Sidenote, would be cool tho if scs lineup was linked to active map pairings. Example GoE, valley active when dwarf greenskin is pushed etc instead of random listing

flintboth wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:50 am thanks
After have play some more Reikland Factory scenario I post my last feedback.

There are no real big behaviors and habits today for the scenarios approach in generally.
For me, like all scenarios the outcome of the battle and the strategy approach depends the day, the hour you play it and who are joining them (solo, group, dudes, whiny posters...) and how they feel today.

But the mecanics drive and encourage some players to organize the event.

The new Battle Objective who is back today has (re)opened a secondary strategic path on the first battle front (who was the secondary battle front before the change).
Day after day the players try and find new strategies approaches in regard of this new path highlighted by the objective (if they dominate or if they are dominated or if there is an undeterminated battle).

Before the change the most active (most of the time) path was the one behind (the number 3 on the picture).
Today the most active path for me is the middle one to the middle Objective (to clarify, I mean is "the most used" during the scenario for me, I don't say is the "first" used at the scenario beginning).



The most strategic place (the most active too) was behind before the change, it was the first battle front and it was not a determinated spot like today, the effective area was around the both BO behind, between the both BO, including the paths to the warcamps, avoiding the entire middle zone (most of the time).
To win, the most players as possible was forced to move fast on a large perimeter (or "long way").
Today, for me, the most strategic place tends to be the middle BO.
The players who hold it well can send little forces to the BO they need back and can front the enemy forces coming from their respective respawn.



The new BO back in mecanics is "secondary" for me, it help dominated players to split the force who hold the middle BO.
It balance the scenario.



Now it seem (for the level 31-40 scenario) there are more style play possible for solo and duo because of the new objective who make the active area more large and more fun for those who like skirmish and little scale fights.
Today all secondary paths are used, tunnel way is more frequented, rail way is used but less than when it was only three flags (because in past it was the snipers and healers place between the two only IMPORTANTS Objectives, behind).
Group play is more on the two first flags because they can easily control the enemy forces, the both BO behind are most of the time for solo and duo play.
Today all BO are importants, in past there was only one strategic path used (or two) and only two BO played.

There are plenty sort of scenarios (flag after flag, one objective hold the place, three flags, two flags, run the bomb...) this one for me look more for all style play.
It is a Swiss cheese map like "2fort" in Team Fortress, four BO seems to bring back importance of all paths.


Click here to watch on YouTube


Click here to watch on YouTube

Nameless wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:23 am With this 4th bo near the wc enemy force could cut all of your ways to come out of wc and become boring wc campfest. This is the problem with that bo. Prolly that happens rarely at pug setting but when there is a premade or several duos the picture become ugly

peterthepan3 wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:56 am Having played the map a few times, my experience was that turtletanking flags and avoiding fights entirely is now even more commonplace: with an extra flag to choose from, duos/solo could run around the map for the entirety of the game and secure two flag captures with good success, allowing their team to pick one or both of the other two while opposition attempts to retake.

Hargrim wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:46 pm

zabis wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:41 pm

Hargrim wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:07 am I wonder, does the people send letters to Alexey Pajitnov to make Tetris more like Mario Bros, or just play the Mario Bros when they want to play the Mario Bros instead of forcing the developer to make the Tetris more like Mario Bros when games like Mario Bros exist and they are more than welcome to play them?

This thread was opened for feedback. If it wasn't wanted, then it shouldn't have been requested. With that said, I enjoyed the three flag system better. It gave each team the opportunity to leave the wc and not be camped the entire scenario.

Well, great, but I was referring to people pushing the “please remove all objectives so I can mindlessly pvp” agenda with this post. SCs in WAR were always objective based.