use polling to declare a leader

[Joker86]

Seriously, just use TS or Vent or Mumble with your friends if you need more teamwork, but as it is, if ur highskill and other highskills are near you, you WILL work together to eliminate enemies, so I dont see why a group command is going to work better than each guy playing to his personal best style

Each guy playing to his personal style = everyone runs where he wants to = everyone will be gangraped and taken out one by one by the enemy infantry cluster.

In least cases personal style means you need to seperate from the group, in fact only Ninjas and cavalry should. Everyone else who goes on his own can't be a skilled or experienced player.

Also don't forget: the more you outnumber the enemy at one point of the map, the lower your losses are over there!

And please everyone: stop the shit with "charisma is needed only" blabla, that's bullshit. Often I saw players, who, once accidentally looked in the teamchat and perhaps read their name, suddenly kept on reading it, and followed tactics although they ran around like headless chicken before.

There are many players who simply join the servers, spawn, run to the enemy and try to kill something without dying. But basically they would also follow tactics, it's just they didn't have thought on this yet.

If we had a system which would make the commander contact inevitably every player (e.g. by a screen message) by default (you have to turn it off, not on!), only those players would make their own thing who actively refuse to follow a commander. And I am sure those guys would soon have crappy stats, as they will be the last remaining targets for enemy cavalry to hunt down.

Crowd > skill. It's easy.

Also: Good Player (100% effectivity) + Bad Player (50% effectivity) = Team (250% effectivity)

[huscarl_johnson]

Each guy playing to his personal style = everyone runs where he wants to = everyone will be gangraped an

And please everyone: stop the shit with "charisma is needed only" blabla, that's bullshit. Often I saw players, who, once accidentally looked in the teamchat and perhaps read their name, suddenly kept on reading it, and followed tactics although they ran around like headless chicken before.

these are outliers, whereas

they would also follow tactics, it's just they didn't have thought on this yet.

the first here represents  new people in majority, then those unfamiliar with a given map or play style, and then headless chickens. Who wouldn't react to leadership in any form anyway.

Crowd > skill. It's easy.

This reflects mob mentality, not disparity in actual organisation between teams (or even more likely, which side gets the better starting position on a map) .  This arrangement doesn't need to be reinforced by mechanics. No leadership poll will ever have a noticeable effect on players' actions unless it carries gold/exp incentives - in which case such a system would also be prone to abuse. The current polling system is irritating enough as-is and would be better removed entirely than built upon.

[Diomedes]

Mount&Blade online is really really quick.  Even with two minutes left the *DEAD* chat often gets filled with people wanting to kick or ban the last man standing if he doesn't die immediately.  To these people, and this generally ADHD mentality, I say piss off.  The game would benefit from some slowing down and more room for organization. 

What I'd most like to see would be a system similar to the one in Savage 2: A Tortured Soul (available for free download if you're interested):  At the beginning of each Savage match, which lasts up to an hour, players are evenly distributed to teams and each team votes for a Commander who oversees macro-level tactics.  Players then choose to join other players making the selected players squad leaders.  Squad leaders have a few special in-game powers.  The remaining players are then free to join whichever squad they like, with clear tactical deference given to squad leaders.  This system could be modified for Mount&Blade by having one commander selected for each team who remains on their respective team regardless of auto-balancing.  This commander could then select a few squad leaders whom other players then join to form squads.  All told, this means three levels of text chat: squad, team, and total.  This system would of course benefit from a localized voice chat system too where squad commanders could chat with the Commander while intra-squad communication can only be heard by members of the squad.

The Savage system is unique in that the Commander does not play in an FPS perspective but an RTS one.  I don't think Mount&Blade players would enjoy being saddled with this, even if it meant no upkeep or getting a % of their entire team's gold and experience.  So unless people are behind a Spectator type Commander role the most extensive changes would likely just be the introduction of in-game voice chatting and squad leaders with specific squad commands.

/2cents

[Whalen207]

http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,944.0.html
 

[Toldfield]

Mount&Blade online is really really quick.  Even with two minutes left the *DEAD* chat often gets filled with people wanting to kick or ban the last man standing if he doesn't die immediately.  To these people, and this generally ADHD mentality, I say piss off.  The game would benefit from some slowing down and more room for organization. 

You're the only one talking to me, and you're not even a real person.

[kinngrimm]

@ Diomedes
1st chapter - i agree completly
2nd chapter - sounds intresting, especially  the part where the commander stays in in the team only his folks can be switched by autobalancing. But i wouldn't base it on who does the most killing, remember if he commads a lot he cant nesseccarily fight much and kill stuff. If you look at the ranks of an army, those in command are not those who do the frontline killing and that has a reason.
3rd chapter - I wouldn't mind to command from spectator mode as long xp/gold is transfered like now with normaly playing. I wouldn't give him more then the other teammembers, success and gained status with his team mates should be enough.

[Noely]

you could just add a skill point for the voice commands, and then only people interested in leadership rolls would take it leaving everyone else with whistle.

[KyndridOLD]

And no one would use it....

[kinngrimm]

you could just add a skill point for the voice commands, and then only people interested in leadership rolls would take it leaving everyone else with whistle.

This is a intuitiv idear, in that way we got another roleplaying component at work, too.
But asking myself how i would handle that ... creating a new character who's single role is to lead? Depending how intense the experince from spectator/coordinator view would be, possibly. If he can only level in this way that would be a chalanging task. BUT what if your are not voted into command, you just sit there doing nothing? Leaves us the choice to build hybrids with lead/command possibilites. I still like it. I would make a horseman, lots of IF, Riding, a bit polearm, a bit shield, lead so he can go anywhere fast and survives most attacks, not a high damage dealer but, a spoter and  a support cav if he is not in comamnd of the entiry army he can take brigades under his wings. You can build  a structure that way.
If invested 1 point, he can write things on brigade level, investing 2 points he can do it on army level.
But i would concider that the first point goes with lvl25 minimum, also athletics >5 or riding >1 and the second with lvl 31.

[Rextard]

To these people, and this generally ADHD mentality, I say piss off.  The game would benefit from some slowing down and more room for organization. 

I have ADD, and I also want room for more tactical battles, fuck you very much.


Being able to send messages won't necessarily get others following. What about if the leader could also lead teammates close to him on faster runs? Points of command would be small bonuses to lead more people around the field faster. Both sides could then play out more strategy in the same amount of time, and the two leaders would be fighting their own little chess battle.

[kinngrimm]

I have ADD, and I also want room for more tactical battles, fuck you very much.


Being able to send messages won't necessarily get others following. What about if the leader could also lead teammates close to him on faster runs? Points of command would be small bonuses to lead more people around the field faster. Both sides could then play out more strategy in the same amount of time, and the two leaders would be fighting their own little chess battle.

I like the idea of small modifiers through the leadership, this way more skill points can be distributed into leadership with beneficial effects for all in a brigade or even army,
for example you got
3 lead => +1 athletics in brigade
4 lead => + 1 athletics in army
5 lead =>  +2 athletics in brigade
6 lead => + 2 athletics in army

the brigade modifier should have a range limit, the army modifier counts for every friendly trooper on the battlefield, only the largest modifier is taken into account

[Rextard]

Yeah thats about what I was thinking

Basically make the leaders the hands that move the chess pieces around.

[kinngrimm]

Yeah thats about what I was thinking

Basically make the leaders the hands that move the chess pieces around.

Only that the chess pieces have a free will and might not allways go with those suggestions.
Then again it makes the pieces beneffit from leadership, that way it is more likely they accept it.

[Diomedes]

I have ADD, and I also want room for more tactical battles, fuck you very much.

Perhaps you misunderstood my comment.  It was directed at specific people who can't stop crying about their precious time being wasted by other people who aren't dead yet.  It was also directed at people who think this kind of intolerant speediness is acceptable when playing with other people who are trying to have fun.  I used "ADHD" specifically - to denote the kind of people that are so out of it they can't even sit down still long enough to listen when spoken to.  If this refers to you then OK but if not please take a moment before you respond.


I hesitate to favour team benefits (like the aforementioned +athletics bonus) because I don't think I could stand the crying over it.  Fact is, sometimes teams would be massively out-gunned in those scenarios by opposing teams with a dedicated leader.  I'd prefer to rely on people being self-interested enough in their multiplier that they realize victory only comes through teamwork and PrideCrusher.

[Rextard]

    1) Actually I'm the type that has trouble listening whether or not I'm sitting still, inattentive. You're referring to those who have trouble with physical restlessness and assuming that because they can't keep still that they can't listen. When it's both physical and mental it's called combined type. I think ~you~ misunderstood my comment. Your catchall is a bit hurtful and ignorant. Whiners are whiners irrespective of whatever else they are. I was just joking about the fuck you very much.

    2) You're right that we shouldn't need anything more than enlightened self-interest to have more organized multi-player. However I think it's an issue in the first place because we need a way to bridge the gap between people who want more teamwork, and people who couldn't care less. Since the ones who don't care limit the ones who do, short of an incentive what can be done to foster more natural teamwork?