Competetive Environment

[Lt.K.Saidler]

Hello Ladies & Gentlemen!

As it seems the developers go a very solid way in implementing as most realistic features as possible, of course in combination with a balanced gameplay experience.

What I really miss in the entire gaming industry, that provides WW2 games is, that none of them delivers an environemt, to have actual competetive games.
That Squad vs Squad gamemode could be perfect for this.

My suggestion would just be:

If so possible, I think a lot of professional, and passioned clans / teams would be very pleased, if they could mess with each other in an E-Sports like environment.

But that's just my opinion.

cheers///

 

[SneakyPara]

All righty then. Now the Traction Wars sacred cow has been sacrificed and we are in the world of paying for Vanguard, perhaps we could link payment to competition. Competition, money and clans.
Competition is the nature of an fps online game, so initially free to play to encourage new players. Players who pay would have entry to tournaments, leagues and other competitions. Tournaments might have an entry fee, and would include a clan league for clan teams games. Clans would register the clan name, maybe for a small fee, and have approved VG clan status. Clans would impose rules on clan members and gradually bring in clan members to help organise events.
In game, clan tags would be available only to approved clans’ members. In games like Warface, the clan tag is pointless as any body can use a clan tag and there’s no worth while clan organisation. The obvious clan tags for VG would be the regiments of the armies of WWII but that is not to suggest VG would need to impose a restriciton on clan names.
VG approved status for a player would be identified by a clan tag. It would encourage new players who see the clan tag approved status to ask for support and direction, and maybe be more involved.
Finally, let’s not overlook the Kickstarter contributors who would receive free stuff for a few years. And have bloused trousers, or unfastened helmet straps, that sort of small realistic detail.

 

[yrumad11]

I say have everything available for everyone and don't encourage clanny gameplay or status among players just because they put more countless hours into the game. I am all for teamplay and a tactical environment, but nothing ruins games imo like a ton of clannies stacking up against randoms who want to play casually (which I myself much prefer playing like).

We will have to see when the game releases if such a thing is an issue in which case I would advise specified match settings for people who want to play ranked up TeamSpeak esc clan matches so they don't ruin the experience for new players because I've seen that happen plenty in other games and it turns off potential new players from purchasing or playing hence giving bad reviews and a bad name. *cough* *cough* Heroes & Generals *cough* (That game also had a terrible dev team and bad community feedback for updates, but I won't get into that now.)

 

[SneakyPara]

To answer yrumad11. The purpose of suggesting VG clans was as a way of getting money into the game.
“everything available for everyone” would suggest all maps and raids available for all players. You are right, yrumad11, completely agree with you.
“don't encourage clanny gameplay or status among players”. The suggestion was for clans to be supportive to new players not superior, for clan players when casually playing to offer to help new players in a game who are learning VG game mechanics. So we agree
“nothing ruins games imo like a ton of clannies stacking up against randoms”. Agree. The suggestion was that for a fee the clan players would participate in tournaments and leagues played on dedicated server(s) not available to casual players. This agrees with your point about “match settings for people who want to play ranked”. The casual games servers would still be available for all and any. Your point is well made about clan players grouping on a casual server(s) against casual players, so perhaps that’s something for the devs to consider if they have clan arrangement.

 

[ShotgunRCAF]

Tactical Team Based with a touch of realism game play is what I paid for when I helped kickstart this game.

 

[Lt Jake Cutter]

yes...i am all about clan based game play of squad based game play...

run and gun is for teenagers....and theres plenty of game out there for you run and gunners...

we older 40-50 yearolds want tactics..!!!!

plain and simple!!!

been looking for a modable WW2 COD search and destroy squad style gameplay for a long long time now...and vanguard looks to be exactly what we want.!!!

i think the game development community has left us older players behind, and has focused too much on in game purchases and locked unmodable servers,..for what you ask? MONEY..!!!! keep the money flowwing into their coffers...

anyway...

devs, keep up the good work..!!!

ignore the run and gunners.....stay true to the tactical game play...be unique in this run and gun game world....

 

[SneakyPara]

The stated purpose of the devs is to offer a squad based shooter, with carefully designed sound and graphics, to represent WWII combat. The devs are making efforts to keep the backers happy, who quite clearly are interested in some kind of co-ordinated squad game, with co-operative team mates who have tactical sense.
At launch, the game needs to attract as many people as possible and create interest. There will be thousands of people who want to try the latest online free to play game, and they will include hackers, cheats, campers and casuals, as well as competitive players wanting to test themselves. While “everything available for everyone” would suggest all maps and raids available for all players, this is not ensuring good game play for the backers.
Can we please have some indication of whether there will be two types of servers available and/or filtering of players.
And, perhaps it would be sensible to have a backer with some kind of authority over tournaments, leagues and clans.