Khadmon

NEW Retreat/Withdraw Mechanics

NEW Retreat Mechanics  

148 members have voted

  1. 1. DO YOU WANT CONTROL OF YOUR AT'S on retreating / Withdrawing?

    • Yes. RETO let me have control of my AT's..... So I can tell them where to RETREAT / WITHDRAW to..
    • No. Don't Change this I like having no control over my AT's on retreating.


Recommended Posts

Khadmon    563

This is not about when a Battle ends and the AT's fall back.

 

THIS is about how as a General we have no control over our AT's when we give them a direct order to retreat.

Its not fun for any one when you have to retreat and they go forward into a skirmish or bounce back and forth into other battle that are playing. HOW IS THAT RETREATING?

 

REMOVE the retreat button and just let us move our AT's to where we tell them to go.

If we move them out of a battle that has started we still take a moral and troop loss. But we should have control on where they retreat to..

 

Please RETO Fix this.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have Add the word WITHDRAW to the title of the POST as of 27.03.19

 

read this post for more info on WITHDRAW

 

 

WITHDRAW = ( Pulling your  assault team out of a Battle NOT being played ) Should work the same. BUT you would not take a moral or troop loss.

 

REMOVE the Retreat/Withdraw Button and Let us just select  and move our AT's like we would normally do.... 

If the battle is playing the pop up says DO you want to RETREAT ( you will lose moral and tickets )

And if the Battle is not Being played you get this pop up in Pic 1.

 

BUT they SHOULD go where we tell them to GO.......

 

PIC. 1

  On 2/26/2019 at 9:03 AM, Khadmon said:

 

Sg1U9y0.png

 

 

 

If you are attacking then to select them Just click the stack on the line you want and you can still RETREAT or WITHDRAW...   

 

 

 

Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caymos    4

well you have to admit that its somewhat funny.. to see that happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ben1379    13

I voted yes to this, but I'm open to being persuaded to another position. I would like to hear from RETO on this.  If there's a significant implementation problem with something like this, fine I can live with it.  If it is something that can be implemented but it isn't a current priority. Fine, I can live with that (but the priorities ahead of it had better be pretty important!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nino.Vz    4

It seams to me that RETO did say that they do take ideas input from community and this would be a nice one to change.

Not being a programmer I do not know how hard is this from their point of view.

However it is a feature in game that do make owner of ATs cringe when whatching them hitting random lines on reatreat and effectivly being lost.

Nice one Mr.K

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SOSodin    11

Makes total sense to the Community, and we shall see if we are heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
foupoudav_    0

I agree with khadmon, regardless what faction you play, THE RETREAT option is render useless, in fact its the worst option to use, for the simple reason is you get the same moral loss as if you got a LOSS, but you don't get the rest of the EXP upon you re GENERAL or SOLDIER if that ATZ was loaded upon, in the sense that I rather have that AT sit there and get melted and at least I ll get the exp till the end for the ATZ that got spawn and then GET trickles down random line where I have NO control , JUST LIKE RETREAT OPTION, so therefore the retreat option is almost render useless for the BIGGER ATZ users, actually USING retreat is worst due to the fact you lose AUTOMACTICLY 1/6 of em and lose 20 moral, the one thing RETREAT should have is where to send them, or else its useless to use, trust me I ll have my get ATZ

melted until there completely pocketed and despawn them to not give em to enemy queue, just cuz of that RETREAT option that is USELESS, remember RETO, most big GENERAL spend money out of their pocket to FEED WAR GAME or the rest of the community, yet I ve kept sending ticket about you re SYSTEM , without a single reply, people still crying about WHALES generals yet these players invested into you re game the least you can do is also work on the RTS side of thing

Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RohesC    12
On 2/3/2018 at 8:16 PM, Khadmon said:

Its not fun for any one when you have to retreat and they go forward into a skirmish or...

 

Actually I have seen people exploiting this in order to make a skirmish "fun".

At least they needed several attempts to "retreat" a unit into the skirmish.

 

Retreating ATs is the RNG conefire of the RTS.

 

I do agree that there should be controlled retreats.

 

BUT I would keep a random retreat if you want to remove units from a battle that is already being played.

This would rather "simulate" the chaos in the heat of a battle. The more rules for the RTS the better.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sumpfe    280
1 hour ago, RohesC said:

 

Actually I have seen people exploiting this in order to make a skirmish "fun".

At least they needed several attempts to "retreat" a unit into the skirmish.

 

Retreating ATs is the RNG conefire of the RTS.

 

I do agree that there should be controlled retreats.

 

BUT I would keep a random retreat if you want to remove units from a battle that is already being played.

This would rather "simulate" the chaos in the heat of a battle. The more rules for the RTS the better.

 

 

 

Just don't let em retreat towards a battle, no matter if skirmish or an enemy town and we would be good to go i guess, maybe exclude para attacks from this, to avoid another sort of para abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khadmon    563
Just now, Sumpfe said:

 

Just don't let em retreat towards a battle, no matter if skirmish or an enemy town and we would be good to go i guess, maybe exclude para attacks from this, to avoid another sort of para abuse.

 

You should be able to move to any towns your faction owns even if it is in battle. but each time you leave a battle to move/retreat you get the retreat penalty like we do now. 

RETO could implement it  in two ways.

 

38 minutes ago, Sumpfe said:

Actually I have seen people exploiting this in order to make a skirmish "fun".

 

1. Only let you move to towns your faction  owns whether or not its in a battle. This would stop players making a skirmish fun after the para block.

 

or 

 

2. Just let you move in any direction so you could make the skirmish fun but at the cost of the retreat penalty. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reto.Circinus    1,639
On 3-2-2018 at 11:45 PM, ben1379 said:

I voted yes to this, but I'm open to being persuaded to another position. I would like to hear from RETO on this.  If there's a significant implementation problem with something like this, fine I can live with it.  If it is something that can be implemented but it isn't a current priority. Fine, I can live with that (but the priorities ahead of it had better be pretty important!).

 

I think it should be possible, but not a priority right now. All focus is on the re-factoring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sumpfe    280
1 hour ago, Khadmon said:

1. Only let you move to towns your faction  owns whether or not its in a battle. This would stop players making a skirmish fun after the para block.

 

That was actually kind of what i wanted to say, but i was in a hurry so i guess i typed it wrong and then got caught in my own wrong suggestion xD

 

Your second quote isn't from me though, that was @RohesCs concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kunalp    1,163

One of the below things will happen:

 

1. They will respond saying the feature is trying to mimic troops running away and in that case direction is random and 'realistic' (why would anyone run in random direction is beyond me) 

 

2. They won't reply as the feature is an intentional WF sinkhole. How else do you get ppl to buy gold to refill ATs? Ever wonder why there is no in game message telling new players that a random number (216) makes a battle fun? 

 

Pick your option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a free game account. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now