cRPG

cRPG => Suggestions Corner => Topic started by: Micah on July 18, 2012, 12:46:00 pm

Title: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Micah on July 18, 2012, 12:46:00 pm
How about giving a team the option to nominate a Commander ? - for example vote for a commander in scoreboard screen or in Q- Menu ?
Players could apply for commander in first 30 seconds .
Elected Commander would then have a distinct color in Team chat and in voice command display and possibly other options available .

Edit: OP was changed , Jump to current state of discussioin here : http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,36160.msg549691.html#msg549691

There is also a new idea now
Topic: Flag Grouping support due Chat Color : http://forum.meleegaming.com/suggestions-corner/flag-grouping-support-due-chat-color/msg565661/#msg565661
Title: Re: Commander poll in Battle
Post by: Haboe on July 18, 2012, 12:52:31 pm
Didnt you suggest that already in an other topic you just closed?
Title: Re: Commander poll in Battle
Post by: Micah on July 18, 2012, 12:54:32 pm
yes that toppic was clumbsy and to big .. i figured that most of the stuff i wrote was crap and not really hitting the right spot
Title: Re: Commander poll in Battle
Post by: Haboe on July 18, 2012, 12:55:55 pm
All right :P

Nice idea, but will take loads of voting each round
Title: Re: Commander poll in Battle
Post by: Micah on July 18, 2012, 12:57:13 pm
Quote from: Haboe on July 18, 2012, 12:55:55 pm
All right :P

Nice idea, but will take loads of voting each round

not really , i reconsidered that it would be much better to make it optional for a team .. imagine like a kick poll ;)
Title: Re: Commander poll in Battle
Post by: Haboe on July 18, 2012, 12:58:31 pm
Players already rage when someone polls xD Its annoying in your screen.

Maybe a check box next to the names on the scoreboard to vote?
Title: Re: Commander poll in Battle
Post by: Micah on July 18, 2012, 01:01:33 pm
that very good if they rage because it prevents people from spamming commander polls . also it should be treated like kick/ban poll abuse , the only situation where its needed, is if team decides collectively that they need a commander.
Title: Re: Commander poll in Battle
Post by: Micah on July 18, 2012, 01:03:51 pm
like 1 for: yes, we need a commander => chose a commander; 2 for : no stfu we need no commander
Title: Re: Commander poll in Battle
Post by: Haboe on July 18, 2012, 01:10:00 pm
Extra polling makes players rage, the type 1 or 2 in chat whether or not you want a commander will make spam in chat.

The fact that a lot will not like the extra polling doesnt stop the few that do want it from spamming the poll :P

You need something less "flashy" to nominate a commander :P


+ how does a poll give the option to pick a commander among 60 players in a team?
Title: Re: Commander poll in Battle
Post by: Micah on July 18, 2012, 01:20:30 pm
Quote from: Haboe on July 18, 2012, 01:10:00 pm
Extra polling makes players rage, the type 1 or 2 in chat whether or not you want a commander will make spam in chat.
the poll should be initiated after there is already a broad agreement that its needed before.

Quote
The fact that a lot will not like the extra polling doesnt stop the few that do want it from spamming the poll :P
those will face team rage and possibly admin abooze ;P

Quote
You need something less "flashy" to nominate a commander :P
would be nice to have something less flashy .. maybe your idea to have that in score screen is really good =D

Quote
+ how does a poll give the option to pick a commander among 60 players in a team?
i was thinking of a extra popup with a team player list after pressing 1
Title: Re: Commander poll in Battle
Post by: Grumpy_Nic on July 18, 2012, 01:23:51 pm
Instead of making the whole team poll something they dont want to a person who would like to be commander could apply for it, lets say in the first 30 seconds (random number taken), after these 30 seconds one of the persons who applied is picked by chance.
Advantage would be that people who dont care dont have to press 1 or 2 or anything else and that everybody who applies gets a chance to be commander.

Disadvantage would be that good commanders cant be commander all the time when other people apply for it.
Title: Re: Commander poll in Battle
Post by: Micah on July 18, 2012, 01:27:47 pm
Quote from: Grumpy_Nic on July 18, 2012, 01:23:51 pm
Instead of making the whole team poll something they dont want to a person who would like to be commander could apply for it, lets say in the first 30 seconds (random number taken), after these 30 seconds one of the persons who applied is picked by chance.
Advantage would be that people who dont care dont have to press 1 or 2 or anything else and that everybody who applies gets a chance to be commander.
very well  sir :D

Quote
Disadvantage would be that good commanders cant be commander all the time when other people apply for it.
if they are good commanders they are more likely to get elected ..
Title: Re: Commander poll in Battle
Post by: Haboe on July 18, 2012, 01:28:30 pm
If the commander gets picked by chance you will have the problem of a randomer chatting in colour xD
Title: Re: Commander poll in Battle
Post by: Grumpy_Nic on July 18, 2012, 01:29:49 pm
Quote from: Haboe on July 18, 2012, 01:28:30 pm
If the commander gets picked by chance you will have the problem of a randomer chatting in colour xD

and if that happens kick polls are back in town for commander aboozing :D

EDIT: just another idea about the election by chance: I'm thinking of QMD and QML, this could probably also be done for commanders. That means, if a commander is good people CAN vote for him or if he sucks people can QMD him. This would increase/decrease chances for getting commander over time.
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Micah on July 18, 2012, 01:37:01 pm
i changed topic and OP accordingly to the discussion, tell me if you are alright with that ?
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Torben on July 18, 2012, 01:40:48 pm
worked very well in bf 2,  I am wanting this for a long time.

+10 from me,  if I could.

my two cents:  people can apply by pressing some key,  than a vote in some distinct color appears with numbers next to nominees. 
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Micah on July 18, 2012, 01:43:35 pm
Quote from: Torben on July 18, 2012, 01:40:48 pm
my two cents:  people can apply by pressing some key,  than a vote in some distinct color appears with numbers next to nominees. 
shouldbe possible to do in Q-Menu menu imo ? :D
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Rusty_Shacklefjord on July 18, 2012, 04:02:24 pm
You're going about this completely the wrong way. The commander should be chosen automatically based on in-game performance. Not necessarily kills only, especially since the devs are talking about changing the point/xp system soon, but definitely on some kind of in-game stats and DEFINITELY automatically. The more skilled player is more likely to be a good commander. It's a matter of fact. They may not be the BEST POSSIBLE commander, but at the very least they'll be a competent, skilled player instead of some random noob.

Anyway the title switches every round so it really doesn't matter that much, and if you keep arguing about these super involved overly complex systems then it's never going to be implemented at all.

Re-posting from the previous thread because it was the only worthwhile post there:

Quote
In my opinion the best way to implement something like this would be:
- commander for each team is the highest-scoring player from the previous round.
- commander is able to place flags/markers for 0 battalion (the default) that everyone can see.
- commander speaks in team chat with colored text that stands out from the rest.

This ensures that each team's commander is their 'best,' most qualified player. That player would also be able to give basic instructions and place markers that the whole team can easily spot. As with everyone else, if the commander died they would no longer be able to talk to the living or place flags. This would add a new strategic element, with each team trying to assassinate the other's MVP commander.

There's no need for some complicated forum-upvote system or public teamspeak. Just a few developer tweaks to existing functions. Simple, quick, and easy.
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Grumpy_Nic on July 18, 2012, 04:07:10 pm
Well if they are working on it anyway and doing it different then fuck this thread and close it.
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Torben on July 18, 2012, 04:08:21 pm
Quote from: Rusty_Shacklefjord on July 18, 2012, 04:02:24 pm
(click to show/hide)

no offence!  but absolutely worthless,  especially this part:
- commander for each team is the highest-scoring player from the previous round.

why should voting work in a random based community like bf2 and not in a small familiar community like crpg.  I know for sure, that on the eu servers the well known commanders would be winning the votes most of the time.  and those are NOT the highest scorers,  because that is not what they do best.
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Torben on July 18, 2012, 04:09:47 pm
Quote from: Grumpy_Nic on July 18, 2012, 04:07:10 pm
Well if they are working on it anyway and doing it different then fuck this thread and close it.

they are?  sweet lord!  nice...
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Joker86 on July 18, 2012, 04:31:14 pm
Quote from: Rusty_Shacklefjord on July 18, 2012, 04:02:24 pm
You're going about this completely the wrong way. The commander should be chosen automatically based on in-game performance. Not necessarily kills only, especially since the devs are talking about changing the point/xp system soon, but definitely on some kind of in-game stats and DEFINITELY automatically. The more skilled player is more likely to be a good commander. It's a matter of fact. They may not be the BEST POSSIBLE commander, but at the very least they'll be a competent, skilled player instead of some random noob.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

Often enough the player with the highest score is the most arrogant, self centered and ignorant person on the server, seeing the others only as some kind of bots with better AI. There is absolutely NO connection between good reflexes + muscle memory and basic understanding of tactis in Warband.

I tell you, if always the "best" player would be elected, then in 90% of all cases he wouldn't give any commands at all. And in the remaining 10% he would write "just charge". And in 0% of all cases he would start to lead instead to keep on kill whoring, like he did before.

The "top" players are only interested into their personal progress, their skills, their reputation and, more than everything else, their K/D. If anything, they try to support the hand full of clanmates on the server, but that's it. I have never ever seen a clan giving a shit about the rest of the team before. And it's always clan players who lead the scoreboard.

On the other hand, someone who knows about the effects of offense and defense, hillcamps, bottlenecks, cavalry as defensive units and so on, can literally suck in melee or can't be able to hit the broad side of the barn with the bow, and still be a good commander. There is literally no connection, because fighting and tactics are two completely different matters. You wouldn't claim that Napoleon, Wellington, Rommel or Montgommery were killing machines who could butcher themselves through dozens of enemies (like some of their soldiers could), would you?

And even if different things are counted than kills and deaths: unless the developers are able to write an incredibly sophisitcated code which can not only measure the amount of messages written in chat by a particular player, but also their tactial value, there is NO WAY you can determine the best commander automatically.

Because of that insight and because of the usual douchebaggery of random people on random servers concerning votes, I still stick to the forum vote and "commander rights" options where certain players are granted commander rights like other are granted admin rights, which means if they connect to the server, they are commanders/admins. Later, under the condition that the commander system changes the average gameplay on the servers (pretty utopic thought) you can change the system, but for now it seems to be the only possible solution to me.
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Micah on July 18, 2012, 04:33:33 pm
(click to show/hide)
there is a tendency for players to "like" players with good ingame performance. It is definately not a indicator for his commanding skill and least of all its a indicator for the player to want to be a commander, i dont know where you have this idea from. Its a matter of fact that the phrase "its a matter of fact" is no proof for nothing. Furthermore, if players like , they can still vote for him if he applied . If players chose to elect a random noob for commander , so be it, but they dont have to. In no way i would prefer a automatic choice over a public choice .
To implement a nomination and changing a chat color dont seems to me to be such a complex system.

Quote from: Grumpy_Nic on July 18, 2012, 04:07:10 pm
Well if they are working on it anyway and doing it different then fuck this thread and close it.
who said they are working on commander idea?
Quote
...devs are talking about changing the point/xp system soon...

also, who said its not worth discussing about it if they would ?
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Micah on July 18, 2012, 04:48:47 pm
Quote from: Joker86 on July 18, 2012, 04:31:14 pm

Because of that insight and because of the usual douchebaggery of random people on random servers concerning votes, I still stick to the forum vote and "commander rights" options where certain players are granted commander rights like other are granted admin rights, which means if they connect to the server, they are commanders/admins. Later, under the condition that the commander system changes the average gameplay on the servers (pretty utopic thought) you can change the system, but for now it seems to be the only possible solution to me.
i had a similar kind of idea in my last thread its sounds really temptig and is definately worth thinking about. nevertheless , my intention with this thread is to make nice a easy start in the direction to a more tactical gameplay. Community based commander ranking/ladder system  would be a matter for a second step. first i want to make a tiny first step by introducing a very optional simple to do change, which hopefully grows into a more sophisticated version like yours .... so pls lets not discuss this matter here and keep it for later ok ;)
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Joker86 on July 18, 2012, 05:07:16 pm
I fear if you make it some kind of "side option" it will never become more as an unused feature. Not with the current folks on the server, unwilling or even uncapable of adjusting to major gameplay changes like organized battles would be.
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Micah on July 18, 2012, 05:21:14 pm
Quote from: Joker86 on July 18, 2012, 05:07:16 pm
I fear if you make it some kind of "side option" it will never become more as an unused feature. Not with the current folks on the server, unwilling or even uncapable of adjusting to major gameplay changes like organized battles would be.
it would be still a try and if its unused its not the right way but also not so much of a waste of energy and time of devs. i can see where youre coming from but tbh i dont dare to inject major changes into the game thats running  well. on the other hand i have much hope for a success of a small change since i seen many occasions where tactical gameplay was done in battles and i only want to start up with supporting good things that are already there. like giving the option to nominate a commander who then only has the special chat color would already have a good influence on tactical gameplay.
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Rusty_Shacklefjord on July 18, 2012, 11:01:24 pm
The devs will NEVER implement a voting-based system. They don't even trust people to poll-change maps ffs. If you enable polling for commanders we'll see 1.) people spamming polls because they want to command and 2.) people complaining about constant polls cluttering up their screen. Then eventually admins will disable polls and ban some people and we'll all be worse off for it. I'll reiterate: you're going about this completely the wrong way.

This is a stupid thread full of stupid ideas and I'm leaving it forever. Good day.
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Torben on July 18, 2012, 11:15:05 pm
Quote from: Rusty_Shacklefjord on July 18, 2012, 11:01:24 pm
(click to show/hide)

for the people who arent leaving the tread:  this man misunderstood the idea,  no single person shall be able to start a vote for himself,  instead one can apply for the comander vote via q options.
the applicants than get numerized and implemented into the commander vote that would be 30seconds into the first round.
the commander should stay nominated for the complete map.

Quote from: Joker86 on July 18, 2012, 04:31:14 pm
(click to show/hide)

joker:  I wholeheartedly disagree ^^
we are on the same level concerning the high k/d being a bad indicator for commanding skills,  but I know many skilled players that help the team and would also be decent commanders.  not like everyone with a high k/d is a no life sucker.

spoiler fail edit.
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Micah on July 19, 2012, 12:01:39 am
Quote from: Rusty_Shacklefjord on July 18, 2012, 11:01:24 pm
This is a stupid thread full of stupid ideas and I'm leaving it forever. Good day.
i wholeheartedly luld xD
for everyone: we are far ahead of the idea to place a new poll! There will be no new poll ! Merely a very descrete option in the Q-Menu or in scorebord or so, without any flashy popups or the like and no forced use !

Quote from: Torben on July 18, 2012, 11:15:05 pm
joker:  I wholeheartedly disagree ^^
we are on the same level concerning the high k/d being a bad indicator for commanding skills,  but I know many skilled players that help the team and would also be decent commanders.  not like everyone with a high k/d is a no life sucker.
spoiler fail edit.
noone ever said that a guy with good performance wouldnt also be able to be a good tactican , how would he have a good performance if he was not xD
nevertheless this fact does have no relevance for the question if he
1) wants a command ( as in applies for command )
2) if the team wants him to command ( as in gets many votes )
Furthermore an automated commander choice by performance is for me out of question, its the worst way to go. Since thats what people would get really mad about. And its simply unnessessary.
My idea is to start with a very optional way to chose a Commander IF NEEDED. If we do it good this option will be used and there will be request for improvements. Players will figure that tactics make a difference in battles. That will only happen if :
1) People are using the new tools successfully
2) it makes a real difference ( because if it doesnt we are really talking invain here)
3) people figure the strategic consequence that using commander is better than not using it
thats the point where it becomes interresting. Its the time when tactical gameplay starts to envolve and grow to a higher level.
Thus , our mission is to make it
1) usable
2) ensure that it has impact on the outcome of a battle

edit: another point to note is , in the worst case , there will be a guy being able to chat in a distinct color for one round/map. There is nothing more about being commander yet than the result that commanders chat is more recognizable out of the usual chatter. so the worst case would be a acceptable loss to game experiance for players imo. the advantage for a organized battle however , to be able to identify commander chat is a reasonable good improvement to tactical gameplay, if it happens.
on anoother toppic ,  i find it tempting to have a new layer of battle commander vs commander, so if tactical gameplay envolves to that point i would be really happy  :D
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Joker86 on July 19, 2012, 02:27:18 am
Quote from: Torben on July 18, 2012, 11:15:05 pm
joker:  I wholeheartedly disagree ^^
we are on the same level concerning the high k/d being a bad indicator for commanding skills,  but I know many skilled players that help the team and would also be decent commanders.  not like everyone with a high k/d is a no life sucker.

Actually, except of Phazey, I never met any good player who gives a single fuck about making his team win. The best I read if those top of the notch players even bothered using chat was "fight harder".

If your experiences differ, okay, but mine are that the better a player is, the less he cares about others.


Quote from: Micah on July 19, 2012, 12:01:39 am
noone ever said that a guy with good performance wouldnt also be able to be a good tactican , how would he have a good performance if he was not xD

Good reflexes and trained muscle memory. One could say that good postioning and staying out of dangerous or disadvantageous situations increase survivability and thus indicate a good player, but that's wrong. With a certain skill level even this becomes unimportant. I don't know how often I saw those top players run into the biggest bunch of enemies they could find and getting out of it alive. Scratched perhaps, but alive. And even if not, they killed like five or six enemies the least before they went down, so everything's okay with their K/D ratio. The skill cieling in this game is still high enough that a single player can defeat numerous average enemies at once. Despite all the speed nerfs and whatnot.

I still say that there is absolutely NO connection between being a skilled fighter and knowing anything about tactics. While fighting is driving the car, tactics is actually repairing it and knowing how it works. Not everyone who drives knows how cars work. Sure, with time you learn a few things or two, but if you really want to understand how it works you need to inform yourself.

And if you never paid attention to how certain mechanics work in cRPG, you will never be good in tactics. Because right now it is the only source of information I know. There are not many books written about the matter yet...  :?
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Micah on July 19, 2012, 02:41:14 am
Quote from: Joker86 on July 19, 2012, 02:27:18 am
Actually, except of Phazey, I never met any good player who gives a single fuck about making his team win. The best I read if those top of the notch players even bothered using chat was "fight harder".
_Bjorn_,Zelisar,Everkistus.. some others whos name i forgot

(click to show/hide)
nothing personaly, but it still simply does not matter if and how ingame performance is connected to tactical skill , pls return to the topic and care for the relevant questions =)
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Joker86 on July 19, 2012, 03:35:48 am
You are right, sorry.

So let me try to rephrase the suggestion as Torben has summarized it, so that I can be sure I understood it.

(Please don't beat me for already taken Q-menu options, as I don't use voice commands I don't know any other than QMV  :wink: )

1. A new map starts. You press QCA (Commander->Apply)
2. A few others do as well
3. Anyone who is interested in voting presses QCV (Commander->Vote) and gets a list with numbers of the candidates. QCV4 would be you, for example
4. The one with the most votes wins

Right so far?

If yes, the idea will fail at step 3. And if people are forced to vote (the fail actually happens at "who is interested", so this should help it in theory), I fear Rusty_Shaklefjord will be right with his last (!) post.

Edit: unless only a minimum of votes is needed to elect a commander. But then already a clan stack of five players would be enough to repeatedly win the votes. Although this doesn't need to be a bad thing, in most cases I guess it will.
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Micah on July 19, 2012, 01:06:54 pm
(click to show/hide)
Hmm ..  : Yes and No. . First i dare to say that there is more about this community than what you think, its structured into serveral types of players and groups -  rough categories might be : newbies,decent, trolls . You are right about the fact that a majority will not care for voting or commanding at the start . Yet thats a fact that plays for us . Only the core and longterm players, clans and groups ~ the decent mass of the playerbase will care about using tactics and commanding (hopefully not so many trolls) . They might try to utilize advanced game options , as they do with flags ( even tho flags NEEDS to have te annoying bar removed since they render it unusable for many purposes, which forces me to think, devs dont care much about tactical gameplay sadly =x ). This will initialize the use of the option. Once it will be used , it will get noticed by the rest and result in a motivation for the remainding players  to vote for their own interrests . Thus i dare to say that a simple majority vote of the voters (not majority of the players)  might even be a sufficient procedure for the election.
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Joker86 on July 19, 2012, 02:18:20 pm
Well okay, seems to be worth a try. But I am not really confident.

Thing is that I wouldn't divide the community into newbs, decents and trolls, but rather into news, decent "duel players", decent "tactic players"  and trolls.

Yesterday or the day before Michael somewhere opened a topic where he suggested to implement a team deathmatch server. Despite the fact that it was Michael, the topic received broad support. Many players were thrilled by the idea of only fighting, and immediately respawning when they die (without the entire siege component). They limit the game on the fight from player to player. They have literally no interest in making a real, complete battle. Those players will never be interested in issueing or following orders, and I fear the percentage of those players in the community is at least about 60%. If not more. That's what I'd estimate from what I've read so far.

And to be honest, with only 40% players or even less listening to commands, you can forget about the command feature. All you will achieve is splitting up the team.

That's why I initially moved away from my idea to implement any commander system in battle to dropping battle mode in general, and splitting it up between a team death match mode and some kind of commander mode. That way the minority which cares about tactics could play the game the way they like it, and no Rambos and Lemmings would kill all fun, wheres those who just want to fight and measure their reflexes can do so on the TDM, and there won't be boring people who spam the chat and tell them to hide in some ruins.
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Micah on July 19, 2012, 04:49:23 pm
100% want to have a joucy, satisfying game experiance
100% want to be heroes
100% want to win and get payed
100% cry if they die or lose
100% are humans with a natural implanted herd behavior ( thats why we play mmos )
100% know that organized herds are propably more successful than unorganized ones
100% will follow plans in the one or the other way ( which includes to not follow a plan if they think its flawed )
100% idc for TDM and FFA, even though commandship in TDM would still be considerable

edit:
100% are not interrested
except you joker, thanks for the nice mind exchange , was fun arguing ;)
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Toodles on July 20, 2012, 10:58:43 am
I'm interested!

I absolutely agree with Micah in that a commander is not manditory - so long as the team is winning mindlessly theres no sense in commanding, and if I ever do step up in such occasion it's most often to save the team's multi at the end of the round when the last five guys are about to assault the crushthrough-tower, or when the few survivors are split and the enemy has the ranged and/or mounted advantage - to spare us being picked off one after the other.

Otherwise, a commander can be of great use when one side is simply being hammered senseless - most often due to fighting on terrain that ill suits the team's strengths, charging in all directions when the enemy has the mounted advantage (a class that feeds on loners) and splitting or heading the wrong way on bi-directional maps (in which case the round is most often won by the fastest team).

A commander can be of great use by encouraging people to do that which is counter intuitive : for instance while one's first impulse is most often to HOLD facing overwhelming cavalry, under specific circumstances it can be best to CHARGE and use numbers to one's advantage by first swarming their infantry - while TOGETHER infantry and cavalry are lethal, dissociated one is free to fully focus on the threat at hand.

As for the community's willingness to follow - in my experience those who aren't are the exception, the issue lies in convincing the rest of the necessity - it often takes a colossal loss for them to realise that a plan is in order, and sometimes it's best for a commander to let that happen rather than issue orders followed by noone and suffer an inevitable loss in credibility. Timing is also critical when it comes to elaborating a plan that is followed, even if as simple as charging left or right, I like to use the voice messages "Attack the left / right flank" "hold" and "defend the walls" during the second or two in which players are frozen at spawn, as to influence those who spawn in the front ranks - for THEY are truly the ones followed.

A different chat colour would be very helpful (also for voice commands), not to mention knowing WHO to listen to. I don't believe a majority should be required for the vote to pass, but perhaps one third of the players on a team - while the majority will follow, most won't bother with the Q menu.

What do you think?

Bjorn
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Micah on July 20, 2012, 03:14:59 pm
Quote from: Toodles on July 20, 2012, 10:58:43 am
I'm interested!
thanks for proofing me wrong  :lol:
(click to show/hide)
Exeptionell summary on how commanding is already practiciced ; tyvm sir :D
also +1 for the idea on changing voice command color in chat for commander. I will edit the OP accordingly =)

A good question might be: What tools can usefull support ongoing attempts to organize a team.
Question arises:
What style of team organizing is going on? ( reffering Toodles post)
Ad-hoc tactic style - thats the non-verbal  or "silent" tactics -  there is homogene version like spontanous generated gank squads from certain melee classes or archer groups with the silent agreement over the best place to positioin or the best way to go on a map. Also cross class version like "the protector" Melee (player/group) defending a archer(archer group). On a higher level this results in ad-hoc team tactics like if some players swarm out individually followed by some others that silently agree resulting in a potential flanking maneuver, but often unknown by the others and with no/bad timing. there is much more about that layer and advanced players with certain level of overview of a battle try to use such tendencies for their advantage if they can. this can not be supported directly , only trained and practiced by playing and a bit in clan trainings. However , this style have serveral major risks and flaws with it which render unusable in a greater sense of tactics.  Its even more a short term version of tactics, since it tends to create very instable associations . I wont discuss here since its to far off topic But this category has a real intersection with the Implicit Commanding style.   
Agreement style (or "Team agreement")- Ideas and suggestions are given in the team chat/voice command - this happens at start of a round ( after one or more lost rounds) . It also appears in late or end phase of a round attempting to make a team work together to get the upperhead of the situation or to prevent major mistakes. In the middle game when flanking attempts are spotted or suggested (keyword: reactive tactical gameplay ). This style very often lacks the decision for one of the possible tactics.
Battle Commanding -  where a guy like Bjorn or Phazh who is known to be a good experiance in commanding is directing a team in order to prevent headless behavior. This style relies on and utilizes advanced features like Flags (!remove the annoying bar!) to mark locations or lead people by carrying the flag.(im talking about the good commanding  style , not the COMMANDER CAPS STYLE)
Implicit Commanding  style, if a clan/group is exercising teamwork causing others to deal with this situation, this is also a non communicative, forced style which i dislike for some reasons. Those guys are hanging in TS often not noticing the chat or even ignoring it. Small groups making a shield wall on unexpected locations or driving a gank truck without looking at what the own and the opponent team does. Neverheless its working sometimes for some reason, which would be the surprize element or randomness advantage against a unorganized opponent. This style is mostly causing split of a team and tactics, leaving half of the team behind to get flanked/cav raped or letting half of a team die before starting to become active incase of a shieldwall exercise. Last but not least this style often prevents the success of communicative teamwork attempts like commanding or agreement tactics because those players simply not listening or just not following tactics of the rest of the team. Sorry for evaluating but i want to make clear why i wont support this style explicitly.
Combinations of these styles where the Implicit+Commanding style would be mentionable since its potentially very effective due to its already existing group core and communication (TS ) , if successfully comunicated to the team members like "Follow us bat X" and the team reacts accordiingly it can result in a very effective teamplay depending on the tactical abilities and decisions of the initiators . Nevertheless its a forced way to do it and has serveral weak spots. First of all it depends on the uncertain tactical abilities of the core group. It Also relies on the positive reaction of the team, it is basically a "self election" or "self nomination" to commandship which has much potential to result in disagreement and split team; that is incase of multiple groups and differing ideas .if however this group(as in one member) could be nominated for commander it might result in a very strong team.

Regarding Team Agreement style i would suggest supporting this with better voice chat commands than currently since they are simply to slow , warnings should be indicated as such in chat, aswell as suggestions . Yet its always danger of spam and abuse thus it has to be kept less intrusive.
On supporting Battle Commanding, the Current proposal of the OP seems to be a good start to me, also removing annoying flag bar when flags are carried. The huge problem to overcome seems to be the propper way to chose a Commander since it appears to rely on a public or automated election which of both methods have their major drawbacks. However having in mind the possible ladder system where Commander promotion by up/down-voting could be added i see possible improvements in that matter. Additionaly subgrouping by assigning subcommanders, up to the point where Commanding in Spec mode would add a new layer of tactical gameplay with players focusing on Commanding in great scale battles ( thinking of 200+ player battles in cRPG or strat, obviously FoW for commander Spec mode has to be implemented , which would be easily possible by preventing specing out of a proximity of the own troops ) might be the times to come.

There is however a great fear that the current fast paced gameflow might drive into static, positional combat where CS-style killing machines with incredibly deadly combat skills and a affinity to large dosed adrenaline rushes might get bored. I want to ensure that this is not gonna happen by only supporting and not adding anything which is not already there. On the other hand there is a good deal of the playership that also would like to see battles becoming more of an epic event  with more momentum to it than headless slaughtery. With the rallying of the troops to their location on a hill , the moments when the emeny army appear out of the rain, the sound of their swords chattering on the shields, the air becoming blood and the armees crash into another with the power to make them forget that endless grind because this moment in battle is the one that counts. To achieve this level of gameplay experiance it requires distinguishable game phases  and the knowledge of a plan that might succeed or fail. Both of these things will get lost on the road to another highspeed killer game.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Commander nomination in Battle
Post by: Micah on August 01, 2012, 01:19:11 am
i came up with a new idea utilizing Flags but without a global commander in that case , still this idea might work out even better ^^
 Flag Grouping support due Chat Color:
http://forum.meleegaming.com/suggestions-corner/flag-grouping-support-due-chat-color/msg565661/#msg565661