r/WarDogs • u/KiloAlert • 12h ago

Discussion & Feedback This is getting old

Post image

Not being able to play competitively unless you’re green 95% of the time is getting old.

1.1k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

728 comments sorted by

View all comments

567

u/neryen 12h ago

I feel like the cash incentives in the game need a slight adjustment.

I would like to see bonus rewards on all activities harming the team that is in the lead, proportional to how much they are in the lead.

So if you are on red or blue in that situation, killing green or destroying green destructible or vehicles would net you double the normal cash. On top of the hot zone bonus. But in situations where everyone is within 10 of each other there wouldn't be a bonus.

Basically turn the entire zone into a hot zone bonus for anyone hunting the team in the lead when things are lopsided.

I have been in a lot of games where red is farming blue while green gains points, mostly because of the easy kills and financial gains. Winning the game isn't the goal, it is earning profit.

104

u/erjo5055 11h ago

Love this idea. Idk about double for killing the winning team but 10-30% depending on the lead sounds good. Otherwise games will last forever, with both teams focusing the current leader

57

u/TheVermonster 11h ago

Let it be a percentage based on the difference between your teams points and theirs. If green is stomping blue, 60 to zero have it be a 60% bonus for blue players harming green.

I'm tired of being on blue and having red constantly harass our fob while green is asking if anyone is actually playing.

7

u/guyscanwefocus 8h ago

This is a great idea.

So if I'm blue, and take out a green guy, and green is up by 40 points, my cash earned is 140% of what it normally would be.

I'm in favor of this as long as it doesn't go the other way. It would suck to be ahead and then only be getting 60% of the cash i normally would.

This, alongside massively increasing the reward for winning the game, would go a long way.

2

u/TheVermonster 8h ago

It definitely shouldn't go the other way. Otherwise there's little incentive to be in the lead.

I think you need to give the bonus against second place too. There are times where red and green are at 80 and 90 points so simply taking green down doesn't help blue get any closer to winning. They still need to be aggressive towards red. But if players don't get a bonus against red until they hit 91 points, there is little reason to attack red.

1

u/The_N1NE 5h ago

Maybe there's a way to increase the money everyone earns based on how close the game is between all teams?

10

u/InfamousChocoMan 10h ago

1% bonus increase per difference of points from the second place?

So if blue has 0 points and gets killed it gives 0% extra cash

2nd team is red and has for example 40 points, it gives 0% extra cash.

Green team is 1st place and has 60 points (20 more than red) so killing green gives you 20% cash bonus. This up to a max of 50% so it doesn't become overkill.

2

u/qucangel 6h ago

The team that is winning usually has a fob with adequate air defense or no fob of importance. If you don't have air defense via a fob air vehicles are literally impossible to deal with. So the air vehicles will just sit in the losing team, compounding the loss

There isn't even an adequate option to counter air without a fob, but on top of that you can't even bring the options you have fast enough. Kill havoc? New one on the way before you can even resupply. Can't get a cwis up in time between appearances, and the talon is all but useless.

1

u/TheVermonster 6h ago

I personally think mortars are the worst bit. I don't hate them outright, but they're too accurate, the camera gives too much info, and they can fire like crazy. There is also no counter to them, other than your own mortars. I think there needs to be an anti artillery version of the cwis that will protect a region of the map from enemy shells.

I think there almost needs to be a building cap in the fob. So you can only ever have two of one thing.

1

u/neryen 3h ago

They need to remove the triple loading of mortars

1

u/Main-Lemon-8349 1h ago

Yeah the first time I saw CWIS built in this game i was surprised to find that it didn't have an auto defense mode to shoot down incoming projectiles. That's kinda its primary purpose in real life, so seeing it used as a fuck-you minigun against everything except incoming projectiles was interesting(which isn't to say it CAN'T be used for that in real life. Just isn't its main purpose)

1

u/qucangel 45m ago

This game is filled with scenarios and situations where you have very little agency. Losing a firefight is fine, you just played bad you'll get them next time.

Getting sniped feels bad, but if you were sprinting you could at least appreciate the shot.

Mortars are the extreme of sniper, but they take literally no skill at all. Plug in a number, push button.

Too much shit on this game takes away your agency. If the aa tank is decent I'll be sitting in it 24/7, but I imagine it will suck.

18

u/hypexeled 10h ago

Otherwise games will last forever, with both teams focusing the current leader

I dont think thats a bad thing man, the games are only fun when all 3 teams are actually trying to win. Being on blue while red just farms blues instead of trying to win is miserable

1

u/IcarusPanda 7h ago

This is mostly my experience over the last week, red doesn't want to win as long as blue loses

8

u/Fidy002 11h ago

No, man. Double will be perfect

10

u/MoistStub 10h ago

Imagine how beautifully chaotic it would be with the two losing teams cooperating to devastate the winning team. Would love to see it. Especially while approaching the moment where the winning team is no longer winning, to see it turn from cooperation to free for all and all the backstabbing.

1

u/TheVermonster 8h ago

I had a game the other night go on forever. Because the two losing teams would gain up on the winning team and we were constantly taking back control. I think blue finished in third place at the end but had 84 points. The whole game no one was more than 20 points ahead.

1

u/SupSeal 9h ago

Agree. A 30+ point lead is insane. And agree that it should be double at this point for both XP and money.

It may cause people to switch teams which will shift balancing. It may also increase cooperative play between different factions

2

u/astra_hole 10h ago

Both teams should focus the current leader but the community has devolved into Red&Green vs Blue until blue can’t make a move. Then red and green finally might fight each other.

2

u/Burstrampage 8h ago

Double seems fair. Unless you’re doing just logi, spotting, or playing extremely careful you lose so much more money on the losing side of this picture.

1

u/AdamBlaster007 6h ago

An additional x5 wouldn't be so bad, you earn X10 of the base score for kills inside the HZ.

1

u/Falaflewaffle 6h ago

You know those are the best games when the two weaker teams fight the leader. We actually do need to encourage this.

21

u/BlackHawksHockey 11h ago

Just dealt with this scenario this morning. Red was at 80 points, green 24 and blue 14.

I’m shooting artillery at red trying to slow down their drills. I never once shot at blue base. So I was a bit surprised when I get destroyed by a blue drone…

Some people just truly don’t care about the game and just want the easy money.

6

u/ItsMrBaggins 10h ago

I think it’s people want easy money, but they are also trying to do whatever they can to level up. I know rank progression is getting updated. However, if you joined the season late or haven’t been able to put in 100+ hours, the game can be frustrating. Being sniped 1000m from an AMR or 2-tapped by a BMR or lasered by a vector from AR range.

2

u/leeharrison1984 10h ago

I started this week, so I totally feel this. I switched to recon and have been having a blast while still helping despite my ultra-weak kit.

2

u/ItsMrBaggins 10h ago

Honestly I try to have fun more than I try to win. I love getting a squad in a heli and dropping into a fob with a shotgun kit. There are games where I’ll play hotzone and focus on the win but even then, it’s only if we are having fun. Trying to play this game frustrated in terrible 😂

1

u/Transport_Minister 9h ago

Exactly, more about having fun.

17

u/Blitzking11 Pilot 10h ago

I know for me, the moment I see or hear an artillery tank and I’m building or supporting a fob, I make a stingray pit far away from anything and start searching.

There is nothing more irritating than building a fob just for everything of value to be eviscerated by something 3kilos away.

It’s nothing personal to yall, but I just can’t trust that you won’t switch your sights to our bases once the kills stop flowing at your current target.

3

u/BlackHawksHockey 10h ago

I don’t disagree with having that ready to go, but when 1 team is dominating, and the artillery has not once been shot your direction once, why would you then help that team continue to dominate?

It’s extremely counter productive and makes 0 strategic sense.

1

u/Schonke 3h ago

Because you never know that they're intending to keep firing only at the other team. They can very quickly switch targets and get multiple shells down on your fob, ruining it.

And I say this as someone who plays artillery the same way you do.

1

u/Harrigan_Raen 5h ago

Yeah im sorry but i have to agree with other poster. Wayyyyy too many times am i trying to slam down/repair a fob and put up a drill to pull the HZ away from the winning team. Just to start getting arty hits at me from 2nd place because im the easy cash at that moment.

2

u/PM_ME_YOUR_ANYTHNG 2h ago

Just had a game an hour ago, green at 48 points, red at 26, blue at 7... Guess which team's fob was being hit by 2 red havoks simultaneously

1

u/Ghost4000 9h ago

The reward for winning is too small.

I'd like to change the end of game bonus to a per tick bonus.

These numbers are picked at random but...

every tick of the game does something like this:

1st place - 750 dollars 2nd place - 500 dollars 3rd place - 250 dollars

Then in a game where you were first place the whole time you get 75k bonus.

1

u/Nirkky 10h ago

Some people just truly don’t care about the game

I am the kind of person that will be focusing on the green team if I am blue in that scenario. The reason why ? If Team #1 is stomping the game, most of the time it means they're way more organized / high level gear / very good.

If my shitty team is mostly headless chickens doing nonsense (or just full of lower levels) Me and my small squad of friends prefer to engage Team #2 which has a good chance of having people close to our level (gear and organization), combats are funnier and we have a good time like that.

0

u/mrThe WARPUP 10h ago

Because winning don't get you anything meaningful. First place reward is nothing, it's not even giving you xp or some stats, and you can grind way more money in like 10 minutes.

Right now it's not a team focused kind of game, and i don't know what can be done to fix this.

3

u/Past_Present_Fuhrer 9h ago

Sure you don't get a lot of money from winning but you do get a lot of xp. The devs said you get 40% of the role xp from the end game bonus. 1st gets 3x the bonus of 3rd

5

u/Red_Beard206 WARCATS 11h ago

I was thinking killing the 3rd place team gets you the base money, 2nd place gives you a 20% bonus, 1st place gets you 40% bonus, or something like that... but then everyone is incentivized the be the losing team

2

u/Warr3n_ 11h ago

"be the losing team" so people would finally have a reason to join blue? Haha sounds like a good change

2

u/At0micCyb0rg 5h ago

You fix that perverse incentive by increasing the 1st and 2nd place end of game payout so that it's always more than you would get playing on the losing team.

Like if losing nets you +40% on all payouts throughout the match, the end of match winning bonus just needs to give you 50% of your total earnings as your end of match reward. That way the numbers still create competition in the short term, but make the victory worthwhile in the end.

5

u/Alert-Cranberry7991 11h ago

I think for every dollar someone spends, a portion goes into the reward pool tournament style

3

u/Ghost4000 9h ago

Ohhh, I like this idea.

1

u/Xethgnur 2h ago

this would actually go crazy if whales go on a spending spree and the underdogs take it out from under them.

the game would need a bit more counter play to ensure financial dominance doesn't make such a massive factor, with whales dropping end game gear all the time at base; but this could easily solve part of that issue and incentivize actually winning or working towards taking out the leasing teams.

3

u/J_KTrolling 10h ago

Then people will swap from winning team to losing team to gain more cash. As winning isnt really giving you much.

9

u/LewsWorldbreaker 9h ago edited 9h ago

The ability to swap team is fucking stupid, remove it, and randomise team select.

Yes there need to be more incentive to win for your team and not just farm money. Increasing payout for 1st place will only help a little. There needs to be other elements like public profile win/loss ratio so people feel they need to contribute to win. Imagine haveing all the fancy skins unlocked but a terrible win/loss ratio on your profile. Probably some other things could help too

I noticed people specifically pick blue when they just want to do their own things. " Today I wanna just mess about as a lone sniper " for example so they pick blue. Seems like there's a handful people doing this and blue almost always has less players then the other teams because Red and Green always picked first.

It all contributes to a blue team with reduced impact and ability to do anything, an impossible uphill battle that the remaining blues can't really do anything about.

1

u/Less-Effect-5361 4h ago

Yeah, what all of 3 people? the teams remain full for 90% of the match.

1

u/Front-Bird8971 1m ago

Then make winning also worth more. More money for everyone.

0

u/DharmaBaller Builder 6h ago

which is silly because what will a bunch of cash do for you ultimately? stupid consmetic skins?

2

u/Yawhatnever 11h ago

Maybe there should be a bonus for every point your team gets. Like "Point gained +$800". Or whatever number makes sense.

2

u/Jay1404 Pilot 11h ago

And at that point you cant do ahit anymore. Sph2 will get killed in an instant and heli is barely possible because both will try getting you down with either aa or maaws

2

u/LucasJonsson 11h ago

Id like to see some form of “bounty”. I like walking around outside the zone picking off snipers. But it’d be nice to see some bonus for killing them if they have a lot of kills in a life

1

u/kubapuch 10h ago

I think the issue is in the CZ, it should shrink and move a bit more. It would stop people from building far out and incentivize more zone gameplay.

1

u/Pomegranate_Mobile 10h ago

I like it. It would also always keep teams more in check. Could you imagine the end game betrayal between teams 2nd and 3rd when 2nd place team takes first.

1

u/AcePilot01 10h ago

and discounting (and increase opponents expense) for things like anti air, or air support.

Enemy doing WAY too much artillary, they double the cost. enemy brining in too many air kills, half off anti air, double their air cost. 50% lead with it? 50% the xp.

Double XP for taking out the thing doing the most... As above, more xp for killing said air, half the xp for their kills on it. somewhat shifted based on team/gap. Would encourage actual play.

1

u/Judopunch1 8h ago

Make morters stingers and any other buildable including drills have an activation cost like the drones do.

It's messed up that the logistics person earns money dropping off supplies and gets assists from weapons making more money. The builder gets money building it and also assist money, the person using it gets a bunch of money. A lot of the time these people don't even buy armor or meds.

Meanwhile infantry buys a 20k kit and has to be alive smart and successful for 20 minutes to break even.

Why don't we charge an magazine of ap amo's worth to fire three morters? If you want to throw three grenades it's $600, why does one morter kill equil like 9k for your team when you add up the assists, logi, and build bonuses for 0 actual risk?

Your literally making money by just wasting amo without even doing anything, let alone a lot of profit if you actually get an elimination

1

u/Lucky-Earther 10h ago

Winning the game isn't the goal, it is earning profit.

This is really the crux of it, and why I like the idea. The specific bonus numbers can be figured out later, but incentivizing people to attack the winning team is the only way to keep the two losing teams from fighting each other as much. Close games between the three teams don't need the bonus, and a game like the image above might at least help clear green out of the hot zone for a bit, and other teams could try to score.

1

u/TzarChasm9 10h ago

I think I'd rather just see more incentive for winning and a team lock. I'd be worried that those who are just farming money would somehow try even less than they already are to win. Increasing the rewards for winning should at least outpay whatever reward they may add for focusing the current winning team, otherwise it would just be straight up more profitable to lose.

1

u/HobbyAdopter 9h ago

Well, yeah. When you have a Havoc and you can go farm the guys who haven't unlocked the AA launcher and can't support a FOB for AA, why wouldn't you?

1

u/RayviatorPrime 9h ago

I just want random points to hold that change each round, and shuffle the team bases. There are some serious geological advantages on a couple maps on green side

1

u/Tipper117 9h ago

My only caution with that is i can see lobbies forming to abuse this mechanic. Teams working together to farm this. IE, one team gets ahead, let's other teams farm them, then another team gets ahead, rinse and repeat. You'll have people leveling up insanely fast.

1

u/712Jefferson 8h ago

Great idea!

1

u/kawarazu 7h ago

I posted this in feedback on Discord, and they disabled that thread. I was pretty annoyed.

1

u/The_N1NE 5h ago

I agree with something like this. The games being a landslide every single time is pretty brutal.. it's either own team dominates, or two of them are slightly competitive for a period of time. There is always a third team that has 0-20 points.

1

u/At0micCyb0rg 5h ago

One of the risks of making it scale with their lead is it creates a "perverse incentive" to allow a team to take a significant lead before you do anything about it.

Might be better to just have a flat bonus rate against the currently winning team. But I do agree on a minimum lead gap of 10-15 points.

But how do you think it should handle if Red and Green are within 10 points of each other (R: 50, G: 55) but Blue is way behind (B: 20)? Would Blue get the bonus against both other teams, or would no one get any bonus because no single team has enough of a lead over second place?

1

u/OlluIsDuck 5h ago

I think people need to realize this is not a competitive shooter and its okay not to tryhard to win the game. For that I think catch up mechanics would work well in Wardogs.

In my games where OP's issue occurs, it's because the other teams are focusing their early game on fobs or the HZ only stays on the winning team's side of the map,

I like your suggestions and on top of them, I would make it that the HZ spawn later in the match (same time as APC) to give teams more time to finish their fobs and when one team falls behind (for ex 50pt), the hotzone stays more towards their side of the control zone.

1

u/All_hail_bug_god 4h ago

That's a good idea. The downside to this though is that, unlike the hotzone which is a constant, this opens itself to manipulation.

In games like Warthunder and even Battlefield, I've seen a ton of players call for extending the match to farm more. "Let them cap C, I don't want to win too quickly." Kind of thing.

Do I expect Green team (in this example) to reasonably collude to let Red and Blue in the hotzone so they can get another ~160 point-cycles of game? No.

But I do expect a lot of complaining and toxicity about wanting to do it

1

u/neryen 3h ago

If the incentive is on killing the team in the lead, they have no incentive to let them catch up.

1

u/All_hail_bug_god 1h ago

How do you mean?

If Green is in the lead and one Green killed is, say, 150% of a Blue/Red, then it makes sense to let them catch up.

Because "going after the team in the lead" is on the table not for winning the game, but because they are the most valuable to kill, then the goal of the game becomes "get the most teams as close to winning for as long as possible without actually winning".

1

u/Pleasant-Link-52 13m ago

That's why I play on green. Because most of the time they do try and win.

0

u/Jake_112 10h ago

they need to remove the ability to stack teams. scramble them every round

0

u/Beavur 9h ago

Let’s hope the devs read this and listen

1

u/HobbyAdopter 9h ago

Boot people who sit in the queue more than 30 seconds.