cRPG
cRPG => Suggestions Corner => Topic started by: Thomek on January 27, 2011, 03:16:02 am
-
After banner balance, best thing in cRPG in a long time if you ask me, things have gotten much better.
You see people actually cooperating! 2-3 friends here, a clan there etc. Much better than before, when you had to be lucky to end up on the same team as your friend.
Still, the battle environment can get better.
I think a full 120-man server has the potential to see real strategies with controlled movement of forces. Would be cooler if it was a 10.000 man server, but I'm afraid that belongs in the future somewhere.
I think the huge difference would come in communication. If one could produce a great communication system, everything would change from awesome to pure awesomeness!
Still, let's think big. I know our silent god is not afraid of that.
What IF:
Everyone in battles was listening in on TS to what the commander says?
* Imagine a system where cRPG and TS was talking to each other. Moving you to appropriate team as you got moved in cRPG.
* Imagine that you could elect commanders, or they had a score of Win/Loose ratio deciding who gets to command
* What if players had a real reason and self-interest to follow orders?
* That you got put into groups depending on what guild you belong to OR what class you were?
* That every player had a score of Wins/Losses in addition to K:D ratios
The system I'm thinking about looks like this on Teamspeak:
BATTLE COMMANDER (Everyone can hear what he says with priority speaker)
Elected on Commander W/L ratio - can be switched by team vote, in that case next one on Commander W/L list gets to command.
Can speak to ALL or GROUP COMMANDERS or INDIVIDUAL PLAYERS
GROUP COMMANDER (Only ones that can talk to Battle Commander)
Elected on Group Commander W/L ratio - can be switched by Commander
can speak to BATTLE COMMANDER or INDIVIDUAL PLAYERS or GROUP
GROUP SOLDIERS (Can only speak to Group Commanders as well as their own group members, priority speaker over group members)
Everyone is automatically in a group;
If you are in a (must be certified) clan, you get put in your Clan Group
If you have a bow or Xbow you get put in the ranged group
If you have a horse you get put into cavalry group
If you are melee infantry on foot, you get put into melee group
To play cRPG you would have to be on TS, but not necessarily speak.
As a soldier you would however be able to speak to your group members.
I really don't know if such a permission system is possible within TS limits, or if TS and cRPG can be made to talk to each other.
You can say that the planned strategus battles can emulate such a system, but it would only be an additional tool for that. Of course you should be able to customize your system for Strategus in a different way, or turn the system off and make your own.
I really believe such a system could take cRPG to the next level.
(Each player can only speak to his own tier + the tier above)
There might have to be certain limits though, as i.ex minimum 3 players from a guild needs to be online, before they get their own group, perhaps the whole system only takes effect above 80 players, or on certain maps etc. Obviously a TS3 server would need to be rented..)
COMMANDER
|
||GROUP COMMANDER INFANTRY
||| SOLDIER
||| SOLDIER
||| SOLDIER
|
||GROUP COMMANDER CAVALRY
||| SOLDER
||| SOLDIER
||| SOLDIER
|
||GROUP COMMANDER RANGED
||| SOLDIER
||| SOLDIER
||| SOLDIER
|
||GROUP COMMANDER MERCS
||| MERC
||| MERC
||| MERC
|
||GROUP COMMANDER TEMPLARS
||| TEMPLAR
||| TEMPLAR
||| TEMPLAR
etc etc..
-
I'm all for some system allowing teamspeak users to speak to everyone else in game using a script that adjusts volume and mutes based on each avatar's distance from one another.
Like ACRE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRcUqEXdJXU).
-
Positional and area based voice chat would be amazing, and I would also like to see some morale or tactic style system added to the chaos we have now...SOMETHING to increase the depth beyond a side v side killfest.
-
The one thing I've learned is that morale in a player versus player game already exists to a marginal degree. The one thing I regret is that most pubbers can't form a shield wall, much less a decent pike block.
-
Indeed, it's very hard currently to organize a team unless you can get them onto a VoIP or something..maybe more voice commands?
-
Great idea thomek. I though doubt that this could be achieved somehow.
Problems:
Way too many players that are deaf/dumb/unexpierienced or all 3 combined.
What you think about would need a really dedicated, more or less open minded and willing community.
Imo most of the players I talk and you think about allready joined a faction, play with TS and bring in teamplay.
I totally agree, since banner balance this mod became even way better.
But I doubt you could get get all those mindless ppl. to play this mod in a less casual maner...
-
Good options for bind buttons:
Say to all
To group commanders
To group commander
To dedicated group
-
Not bad, not bad at all, even tho i see a problem in one thing, i am usually on TS with my clanmembers, some of them have issues with english, and we are talking in our mothertongue, this could be hard for them.
Overall, great idea, with the priority speaker stuff on TS you could achieve commanders having advantage in voice over soldiers and such, but the moving acc. to the groups could be very hard actually.
-
Nice idea, but I think a) connecting TS with cRPG doesn't work, and b) I wouldn't force players to have to HEAR the others. Only think of all those retards spamming the chat with their shit. Do you really want to be forced to hear them talk, or at least forced to mute them every time you join a server?
Also I think you should keep the chain of command as short as possible, because the longer it is the higher are the chances for failure. Cutting the chain of command down to "Commander -> Players" causes more work for the commander as he can't simply delegate work on the squad commanders, but on the other hand he is not depending on them.
And my last point of critics: I think a commander can never be determined by a fix system like "win/loss-ratio", "K/D", "Amount of XP" or whatever, a good commander is recognized by a) charisma and b) actual knowledge. And he has to be willing to lead his team. So the only way to determine a good commander is an election, where the players contest voluntarily. As this would take too long for each map, I would suggest a forum vote, making commanders some kind of players with "admin rights". Or better: what mods are in the forum, are commanders on the server. The admins are always "above" them, but they keep out of the forum/tactic stuff (mostly :mrgreen: ).
So whenever a commander player logs onto the server, autobalance puts him in the team without commander. If more than two commander players are on the server, only the two with the most votes get their commander rights. If only one commander is online, he doesn't get his commander rights, as it would be unfair for the enemy team.
I would give the commander an interface, similar to the one in single player: he can mark the different classes (in SP "Infantry", "Cavalry", "Archers") and assign them orders. I would simply add more orders, classes and other things.
Classes are determined this way by checking the equipment each round:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
The old batallions turn to those new classes. Players are still able to switch the classes by simply toggling the battalions like before. So some pikemen may decide to protect the ranged fighters this round and switch to the ranged fighters group, while a crossbowman, who is skilled more on meele, will switch to infantry. I made throwers infantry by default, as I think in most cases this is the "righter" decision, and even if not skilled for meele many throwers need the short distance of the infantry to perform well. There is no sense in placing them to the ranged fighters, as those will fight over longer distance in most cases.
Next to those classes there will be a Ninja-group, although I wouldn't call them Ninjas. Perhaps "Skirmishers" or something, every player is free to join if he wants to. Those are the guys who try to flank and sorround the enemy (but in most cases die doing so :lol: ). There is no way in creating an AI to find out which players want to play as skirmisher, so those players have to join the right group by themselves.
(We can also have two or three neutral "Squad"-groups, if clan players or so want to join their own group)
I think it is important to make the players join the proper class by default, instead of letting them join on their own will, as it is important to get the "passive" players for teamplay, too. In fact this is the biggest issue with setting up tactics.
The commander can assign flags to the single classes, where to take position like in single player, but also some "rules" of behaviour, like "target: horses" or "target: ranged fighters". Also, of course "Hold your fire", "Fall back!" "Advance!" "Charge!" "Flee!". For example. Of course there are even more orders we could need!
I think those orders have to pop up on the middle of the screen, like the messages about won rounds and the arrow to the flag should be always visible. And the commander needs an extra chat colour anyway. The new patch already showed this is possible.
But now comes an important part of my suggestion: whenever a player reaches an area around his flag, let's say 25m, he gets an additional 10g or so, with a 1 minute cooldown (to prevent the commander of placing one hundred flags within a minute next to the players, giving them 1000g this way). So we can assume most players will actually try to follow the flags, or they get the feeling of abandoning extra money.
-
I suggested that the admins should be given permission to boot anyone who is not team playing. Excluding ninjas. We could have a registry for those. :twisted:
-
I suggested that the admins should be given permission to boot anyone who is not team playing. Excluding ninjas. We could have a registry for those. :twisted:
Well, lately we've tried to coordinate our flanking better so that we hit the enemy at the same time as the main force so that you guys are not all dead by the time we reach the fight. And ninjas teamplay often, just amongst themselves if nothing else :P
-
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,944.0.html
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,849.15.html
-
I don't know what you want to say with this. :?
-
- Nice idea, but I think a) connecting TS with cRPG doesn't work, and b) I wouldn't force players to have to HEAR the others. Only think of all those retards spamming the chat with their shit. Do you really want to be forced to hear them talk, or at least forced to mute them every time you join a server?
The average player would only need to hear the others in his group. I think it could, over time create "battle-brothers" and players that learn to teamplay. Any player should of course have the option to mute anyone except commanders and group leaders. Perhaps everyone should be also able to opt out of the whole system. (Cause I think 90% of players would like to be in it)
- Also I think you should keep the chain of command as short as possible, because the longer it is the higher are the chances for failure. Cutting the chain of command down to "Commander -> Players" causes more work for the commander as he can't simply delegate work on the squad commanders, but on the other hand he is not depending on them.
You are right in principle, but only 2 levels would be a horrible mess when 80 randomers talk at once.. Also I believe players should learn to work as smaller cells mostly together with the players that have similar class. There's no need for the infantry group to know what the cavalry is discussing, and the cavalry can have a nice overview anyway. Also it quickly becomes difficult to recognize voices etc with many players. Each group should be able, and learn to fight as a small, coherent unit.
- And my last point of critics: I think a commander can never be determined by a fix system like "win/loss-ratio", "K/D", "Amount of XP" or whatever, a good commander is recognized by a) charisma and b) actual knowledge. And he has to be willing to lead his team. So the only way to determine a good commander is an election, where the players contest voluntarily. As this would take too long for each map, I would suggest a forum vote, making commanders some kind of players with "admin rights". Or better: what mods are in the forum, are commanders on the server. The admins are always "above" them, but they keep out of the forum/tactic stuff (mostly :mrgreen: ).
Yeah this might be true, and have nothing against this. I still think the ultimate value of a commander will, in time be his W/L ratio. Even if he has an unconventional style. The nightmare would be to have people who "THINK" they are great commanders and read strategy etc, but have no clue on what actually works in cRPG.
- I would give the commander an interface, similar to the one in single player: he can mark the different classes (in SP "Infantry", "Cavalry", "Archers") and assign them orders. I would simply add more orders, classes and other things.
Would be easy to make more classes, but then you would need more minimum players to sustain the system.
- Next to those classes there will be a Ninja-group, although I wouldn't call them Ninjas. Perhaps "Skirmishers" or something, every player is free to join if he wants to. Those are the guys who try to flank and sorround the enemy (but in most cases die doing so :lol: ). There is no way in creating an AI to find out which players want to play as skirmisher, so those players have to join the right group by themselves.
Not necessary, the commander can simply ask some group, clan or single-trusted players to do that duty. Doesn't need to be a specific class.
- I think it is important to make the players join the proper class by default, instead of letting them join on their own will, as it is important to get the "passive" players for teamplay, too. In fact this is the biggest issue with setting up tactics.
Agreed :-)
- The commander can assign flags to the single classes, where to take position like in single player, but also some "rules" of behaviour, like "target: horses" or "target: ranged fighters". Also, of course "Hold your fire", "Fall back!" "Advance!" "Charge!" "Flee!". For example. Of course there are even more orders we could need!
I think those orders have to pop up on the middle of the screen, like the messages about won rounds and the arrow to the flag should be always visible. And the commander needs an extra chat colour anyway. The new patch already showed this is possible.
I think voice may be just as fine. The commander that give a clearer description of what hill to put the archers wins. Flags are complex to use, and move, but could of course be a help.
- But now comes an important part of my suggestion: whenever a player reaches an area around his flag, let's say 25m, he gets an additional 10g or so, with a 1 minute cooldown (to prevent the commander of placing one hundred flags within a minute next to the players, giving them 1000g this way). So we can assume most players will actually try to follow the flags, or they get the feeling of abandoning extra money.
This is connected to a inflexible flag system again. What if the commander dies, and some players refuse to move because they stand on the flag? Or more likely, a commander forgets to move a flag group. Things happen way too fast in cRPG to keep moving flags dynamically. Our battles doesn't last hours..
-
Your post has no ideas for improving battles in a public arena. I have no desire whatsoever to hear people's whiny voices coming through my speakers. Your ideas are great for a Clan playing Strategus battles, but everything you said needs a serious Reality Check to be suggested for the cRPG casual player.
I will not listen to your voice.
I will ignore text commands given, just like I ignore chat now unless I'm dead.
If you rant about it while dead, I will mock you.
Welcome to the Internet :twisted:
-
I suggested that the admins should be given permission to boot anyone who is not team playing. Excluding ninjas. We could have a registry for those. :twisted:
That would be AWESOME if Server_Admin_003 could just decide on a whim whether he thinks someone's actions constitute "Team Play" or not :rolleyes:
-
Sorry for the quote-bombardment, but it's a complicated matter, so our answers have to be rather extensive :?
The average player would only need to hear the others in his group. I think it could, over time create "battle-brothers" and players that learn to teamplay. Any player should of course have the option to mute anyone except commanders and group leaders. Perhaps everyone should be also able to opt out of the whole system. (Cause I think 90% of players would like to be in it)
You know, this is a thing I disagree to my own opinion. Usually I say players should be "forced" into a commanding system, and should also be forced to leave it actively, if they don't want to participate. But concerning voice I think it's "too much". While you can accept being forced into a common chat channel or something similar, I think it's still something completely different than being froced to listen to some random guys. Especially if you think of all those guys who talk way too much, who shout into the mic, who have a bad mic, who you hear breathing, with squeaky children voices, playing music in the background and all the other annoying stuff. I am sure you would have to mute 60% of all people each map! :shock:
You are right in principle, but only 2 levels would be a horrible mess when 80 randomers talk at once.. Also I believe players should learn to work as smaller cells mostly together with the players that have similar class. There's no need for the infantry group to know what the cavalry is discussing, and the cavalry can have a nice overview anyway. Also it quickly becomes difficult to recognize voices etc with many players. Each group should be able, and learn to fight as a small, coherent unit.
Well, in fact this goes hand in hand with my upper suggestion, and basically we agree: if there WAS a voice system, there SHOULD be squad commanders. But without voice at all (which would be my recommendation), you don't need those squad commanders.
I also forgot something in my last post: every class/batallion/squad/whatever has its own chat channel, with own colours. And like the *Dead* or *Spectator*-text at the beginning of each message there should be *Horse Archers* or so standing in front of the message. You can only read your own batallion messages, not the others.
So you have your batallion messages e.g.
*Horse Archers*[Cris] Let's ride around the hill on the right flank!
*Team*[Ninja_Thomek] Team, we will wait with our charge until you have contact
*Commander*[Merc_Phazh] Please wait for my command to charge
*Ranged Fighters*[Merc_Mustikki_the_Witch] Someone shields plz?
*Team*[Merc_Mustikki_the_Witch] Someone got shields for the archers?
[Enemy Player]Hey Ninjas, we can see you!
This is what the commander sees. Cris for example couldn't see Mustikki asking for shields in her class chat, although he can of course read her message in the teamchat. Vice versa for Mustikki and Cris' order to ride around the hill. Everyone of them could read Phazh's order to wait with the charge. The Enemy player could read nothing of it, but as usual he can spot the Ninjas :P
The channel names are just to mark the different class channels clearly. This way you can always see which channel you are in currently, because as soon as you switch a channel the old coloured messages stop appearing, but a new colour pops up, written by different people. In fact a single colour for all classes would do the job for the players, but as the commander has to read ALL messages he will probably appreciate the different colours very much :mrgreen:
And yes, of course, this is a "dream world" teamchat :rolleyes: :lol:
Would be easy to make more classes, but then you would need more minimum players to sustain the system.
Currently we have 5 classes (horse archers, cavalry, ranged, infantry, pikemen) + Ninjas + Squad 1-3 (for the different clans/special squads). I think this is okay for most evening matches on the popular battle servers. Not having all classes used only means that the commander has less "tools" to work with, but basically the system would still work. Even if he had nothing else than pikemen.
Not necessary, the commander can simply ask some group, clan or single-trusted players to do that duty. Doesn't need to be a specific class.
I actually suggested this to make it unnecessary for the commander to ask at all. Every player who is willing to play as Ninja presses "p" until he gets into the Ninja squad, so the commander can issue orders without having to type in chat at all. (Most Ninjas probabaly don't like orders, but a single flag on the left or right flank spares the commanders to write just this in chat. And I think you should at least listen to which flank he would need you most, the rest is your personal decision)
I think voice may be just as fine. The commander that give a clearer description of what hill to put the archers wins. Flags are complex to use, and move, but could of course be a help.
I was actually thinking of the same system like in SP, with the backspace-overview-map. And of course only the commander would be able to place or move flags. Okay, placing a flag on the rooftop you want the archers go to could be a little tricky, but if the commander gets the house in his field of view, opens the command map, and clicks around until he has got the flag where he wants it to be, it shouldn't be more work than a few seconds. Then he can use the "buttons" on the command screen or just the F-keys, to tell the archers how to act, what the target is, etc.. Everything without even typing into chat, or talking to some people. (Of which half wouldn't understand what you said anyway :? )
This is connected to a inflexible flag system again. What if the commander dies, and some players refuse to move because they stand on the flag? Or more likely, a commander forgets to move a flag group. Things happen way too fast in cRPG to keep moving flags dynamically. Our battles doesn't last hours..
Good objection!
We could argue about the particular system, but I insist on a system granting some "pocket money" to players who participate in teamplay and move to the place they are sent to. (In my opinion the basic element of working tactis is players standing at the right spot. So if you get the right players at the right place, you already won the round by 51% :wink: )
-
The Idea of having limited chat between players is insane. I live in
Australia were we have only 1 decent server and a few power players the most players ive seen in one battle is 30 usually around 15. If a commander has to talk to individuals when every one has very different builds (that smaller battles allow). Its not worth it could he simply put archers or pony boys before every command manually. Better map smaybe of real historical battles would encourage teamplay more than complex command systems and chat.
-
Well, although I will probably sound like a jerk, but we can't really be considerate of you :?
If you say you are 30 ppl at the most, then you have a very special "type" of cRPG. Here in Europe and in NA cRPG stands for massive battles, we had 200 player servers for some time (although the server performance was horrible :? )
And, don't forget one thing: in my suggestion the global and the teamchat still exist! If you are too few to use the class chat (which could be the [U.]-key, for example), then simply don't do it! You can still talk via global or teamchat. :?