Under Review

Make attack points visible for the whole team

untitledfolder89 6 months ago in All Platforms • updated by Kalko von Schpritzendorf 2 months ago 17

Title says it all.

You could make attack points from other squads in your team grey instead of white or something like that.

That's another measure that would encourage teamplay. Also way better for tactics. That way any NCO can point out to the whole team where the weak points are or where the enemies are coming from without having to use the chat.

I also suggest giving some points for following another NCO's orders, maybe half of what you would get if you follow those of your own squad's NCO.

This is tied with my previous post about score/kd/rewards for the whole team https://support.1914-1918series.com/communities/1/topics/2164-score-menu-total-xp-and-kill-death-for-whole-team-whole-team-rewards

Game Version:
Reproduction steps:
Output Log:

There's already enough UI as is, the attack icon is notorious for being one of the most annoying and obstructive UI elements in the game, making all of the orders visible to everybody would just be annoying. Aside from that the majority of NCO's who lead squads aren't competent players so it's really pointless to place any kind of emphasis on following their "orders". Due to the nature of public matches there never has, and never will be any significant amount of teamplay or teamwork. If a team wins a pub match it has virtually nothing to do with teamplay/teamwork it's all down to one side being more individually skilled than the other. Most of the time pubs cannot even accurately call out which side the enemy team is attacking on and the logic for "weakpoints" is simply based on how many people they think might be in the trench, which is often pretty inaccurate and doesn't even consider that there could be an entire respawn 20m away about to gain entree back into the trench, or a few players standing behind the trench waiting for the enemy to push in. 

Realistically the role of an NCO in a pub is not to give orders or tell the team how/where to attack, their job is to use the callin and provide respawns (depending on the squadtype and situation). If anything the NCO order might as well be removed as it serves no function other than to be used to gain additional points. 


You fail to see one thing : what the meaning of attack order is. You are basically attacking one of the core elements of the game - I guess I'll just let you fight this one with the devs. To improve upon an idea you must understand the concept, all you do is take the current state of things and put an extra emphasis on killing the concept just because players such as yourself don't care about the spirit of the game.

Verdun is a squad based, team based tactical WWI shooter, and its market is basically players who want a more realistic BF1 or players who are also interested in games like Red Orchestra. These guys also put a lot of effort into making the maps historically accurate, and that's also a selling point. Killing squad/ team elements is not the way to go, unless the devs suddently decide to shift the concept of the game from squad / team to individual players. That decision is for neither of us to take. But yeah if they do decide to change the concept they might as well remove squads, make individual players able to choose their loadout, remove NCOs and so on. I personally hope they don't.

On a side note, I see a lot of "veteran" players on these forums talk as if they represent the community, so I'd just like to remind everyone that in pretty much every game there's usually half of the players that are "green" and only the other half are "white" (often way less than half). This means there are still a lot of new players in Verdun, and I personally would rather have them stick around for the reasons they bought the game (which is most likely to play a more realistic BF1 - google just about any Verdun review) and not leave when they see how many players don't play the objectives at all and just focus on becoming the best jump shooters. (From what I've gathered discouraged new players is a real problem in Verdun.)

P.S.: If anyone thinks the attack point is too obstructive just make it smaller, scaling down an image takes a few seconds...

Verdun may be listed as squad/teambased, but it's not. Most of the times your team wins or loses because of a few good players on one side. Players who have played this game for a long time and know the game sometimes better than the devs. For your plan to work, new players should first understand the meaning and use of the squadorder. Most of the times nco's don't use it, or just put it on their own position for the extra points. For most players, Verdun is still a multiplayer where you play more parallel with others rather than syncrone. This could be fixed by giving them a proper walkthrough at the start, a nice tutorial (sopething that has been asked for a long time already).

But if the devs would wanna push this through, i would suggest lowering both the size of the arrow AND lowering the opacity, so it's not an annoying arrow blocking your screen, but it would enable you to see through it on the map (which is line a good compromise imo). 


Trust me I don't expect everything to be ideal. In the end, people are going to do whatever they want and can do. However, adding options that make it easier for team tactics makes playing as a team a more viable possibility. All I'm asking for is to give team players the tools they need. Also you could be surprised how many people would actually play as a team if it made any difference in winning / losing, and if it was easier to do.

I agree, right now what usually matters the most is the skill of a few good players. But that doesn't mean it has to stay that way. And it certainly does not mean that the general rule should be made to only please those few good players.

Sure, lowering the opacity may be a good idea, also another easy one to do. I just don't know if its necessary, let's remember for a sec that we're talking about a max of 4 small arrows on a map.


Maybe it would suffice to just have the other squads' Command Arrows displayed on the mini-map instead of in the game environment? Wouldn't personally use the same arrow icon as the player NCO's however, so maybe something like a small circle icon. (Also wouldn't mind seeing other NCO's displayed as a different color on the mini-map)


Would like to see an option to view the contested sectors fully though, (i.e. Tannenberg's Overview Map) where NCO's can draw lines of attack/movement. (which are also visible to the whole team, but the Command Arrows are not.)

Half points for being around another NCO's Command Arrow and making kills, doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. (Just make it anywhere from 5-8 points though, as the 'Followed Orders' green bonus points are meant to be Co-op XP for the squad. Kind of leaning towards just 5 points personally.)

P.S. Placing a Command Arrow at a NCO's feet no longer reaps a bunch of points for themselves. The NCO actually now needs to move it around to where their squadmates are going/at. (Where their kills when near the arrow, make points for the NCO)

From the Changelog:

  • Near order points adjustment: non-NCO still get 15 points when killing near an order, NCO now only gets points for each squadmate that actually follows the order. This prevents NCO to just use the order for itself and to encourages placing better orders
  • Teamwork points adjustment: When making a kill IN the squad Aura, you now get 5 points per OTHER squadmate that is also in the aura.

P.P.S. At least a few videos explaining things a little more in depth, I think would go a long way.


I was only talking about the mini-map all along. Yeah no need to add anything in the 3d view of the game.

Here are 2 examples I did real quick, of course there are many, many more graphic possibilities, so don't let this stop you from imagining other symbols, sizes, and so on. I took the smallest map in the game, just to show you even in that map it doesn't clutter things too much.

P.S.: As for given points, whatever works, the idea is just give a reward for defending any strategic points. I said half only as an example. Sometimes you're far from your NCO attack point, or the NCO just forgets to give attack orders, so in this case you would still get something for helping the team. But I agree, it must not be too high and should not defeat the purpose of squad points.


I like the second mockup personally, as you can easily tell which is your NCO's and which are from another NCO.

In general though, smaller and more transparent is the best way to go IMO regardless of the actual icon.

P.S. I did the same thing before (in the linked thread above), thinking that the OP was talking about the game environment instead of the mini-map. >,> haha


Here's a 3rd example. In my opinion this one has the merit of distinguishing which points are yours and which are other's (like the crosshair model) while also not needing any explanation as to what the symbols mean.

I'm pretty sure anyone familiar with the game would understand the arrow has something to do with attack orders.

Again, these are only examples. I'd be fine with any symbol/ design as long as its meaning is clear for the players.


Can someone tell zab and his 10 accounts to stop down voting every one of my posts including those about bug reports?

This is a great idea that won't even affect him at all. So just chill the f*** out and stop trolling.

Honestly I don't think the idea is "great", realistically it's not going to do much if it's added. Won't go into detail on it though, you know where I stand. 

I haven't got ten accounts, I'll admit to having more than one though, I've logged into this through another steam account, and signed up for it with my email, which created another account I guess. I'm actually of the opinion that the whole voting mechanism should be removed from this site, personally I'd rather have real discussions rather than focus on votes that can be easily changed/altered through making more accounts or potentially a VPN. Additionally I removed the one vote on your bug report, it was uncalled for and I apologize, but otherwise the vast majority of votes on both of your active threads have been cast by anonymous users, both the for and against are largely from anonymous users. 

Even the jumpshooting thread which has the most votes is mostly anonymous.


I've asked the Devs if it is possible to disable the anonymous voting. They were able to disable the anonymous commenting, so maybe it is possible.


For the record I downvoted because I'd rather not have more stuff cluttering my screen thanks


Here he says using one account to post something and then another to add a P.S.. Because he accidentally made many accounts lol. You don't understand what's going on here, its not an accusation so much as it is an appeal to reason. But clearly I've overestimated you. So go ahead and down vote until everything you disagree with reaches -30 if it makes you feel better. I won't be seeing it anyways.

The following message is for everyone (also my last post on these forums):

Lately I've been trying to give new players and non clan people a voice, because I have seen on numerous occasions (we are talking more players than the total of players who post on these forums) people displeased with the current state of things :

The truth is a lot of people are disgusted by the use of exploits, cheats, and how 1 player can single handedly kill everyone. Most of them end up playing squad defense, or stop playing altogether (that means they won't get the word of mouth going so that more ppl buy Verdun, and probably won't buy Tannenberg).

So called "pro" clan players (whatever you want to call them) always log on between the same hours (usually at night) and they play frontlines. A lot of what goes on outside of that time frame and in other game modes is completely unknown to these people.

And so I've been trying to give the "normal" player a voice, which also often happens to be one more inclined towards teamplay. End result? Complete waste of time. "Pro" players such as Zab are not even willing to have a compromise which clearly would not affect their playing style in any way. Lets face it, do they even look at the mini-map that much? They are usually not even aware of what their teammates do because all they care about is their own skill and top score.

And I mean, if that's your thing... do it I guess. But forcing everyone else to either play by these standards or not be able to have fun at all is just really lame -- and bad for business. I'd be curious how many people quit playing Verdun everyday, I know a bunch myself. You think you might play with them, next thing you know they play Rising Storm Vietnam or BF1 (true story, and on more than 1 occasion....)

So go ahead you all "veterans'", keep getting 100% of the devs attention, and make sure the player base dies out faster in the long run just so you can keep playing the way you want right now.

I'm out of here.

P.S.: Any reply is a waste of time unless it's addressed to someone else than me.

And on a side note, 2 months and a half and I still cannot use artillery due to a bug. Also the sound is messed up. I guess I should do like all the others and find another game.

Pretty much sure me and Nord are different people, but okay lol.

I look at the mini-map all the time, it's pretty important, hence why I don't want a pointless UI element added to it :)

Tannenberg removed all the "exploits" and failed, Verdun kept them and has retained a healhy playerbase for years. 

Oh well, twas only a few minutes wasted. 

"The truth is a lot of people are disgusted by the use of exploits, cheats, and how 1 player can single handedly kill everyone"

If pubs picked up actual rifles, stopped going prone everywhere, and got kills to win, this would no longer be a problem. We don't hold it against pubs that don't want to do this, but they also can't whine that their dumb tactics get them killed when someone decent plays against them.

"Most of them end up playing squad defense, or stop playing altogether"

This is just statistically untrue.

"Lets face it, do they even look at the mini-map that much? They are usually not even aware of what their teammates do because all they care about is their own skill and top score."

Completely untrue. This perspective is not grounded in reality at all, and I don't think you have a fair understanding of who these "pro" players are that you are targeting here. They are good because they utilize their team and their skill to win the game, that includes knowing what your team is doing and looking at your minimap. You give all of us too much credit if you think we go frag hunting in a game while ignoring our teammates and UI.

"So go ahead you all "veterans'", keep getting 100% of the devs attention, and make sure the player base dies out faster in the long run just so you can keep playing the way you want right now."

This claim is untrue, and it demonstrates your saltiness right now. We get close to 0 dev attention, outside of getting a hacker banned all they do is ban and mute us in-game and in the public forums.

I am not writing this for OP since he has stated that he has no intention of responding. I'm writing it for anyone else who actually believes everything he has written here, or even just parts of it. There is a skill gap between the ever-hated "pros" because they have come to understand the game's meta and enjoy playing it for that meta. This is because Verdun has always had a very competitive aspect to it, from the beginning. That meta involves rifle play, being fast and maneuverable, and knowing where your enemies are to engage them in tricky positions. There are no cheats or exploits involved, in fact it is amusing that anyone would accuse pros of exploiting when machineguns can still be glitched into the ground. OP acting like he's a voice for all the poor downtrodden pubs who play the game is about as cringey as the sperg-out he had because people can actually disagree with him. Please don't be like him.

Under Review

Seems likely these are part of the updated UI and order drawing update.Will have to see if this makes its way into verdun as well. 

You all say that it would clutter the play area and that it would block your view. Why not just ADD a feature and make the user be abble to toggle it? Those who want can stick to it, those who don't could just disable it. Everybody would be happy.