cRPG
cRPG => Suggestions Corner => Topic started by: kinngrimm on January 11, 2011, 06:50:32 pm
-
on several occasions i declared myself as a hater of the polling system. Main reason of it is when i got distracted in midfight to additionaly press 2 on default. I hadn't time to read the chat nor am i in TS yet.
But as we seem to have sometimes a lack of recognizing or acknowleding a lead, we could just poll us one. He must surly accept it but in the end, folks will listen to him more willingly.
-
It take too long with the current yes/no options - one poll for everyone on the team? That takes longer than the round itself.
-
make it an automatic poll between three players with the highest lvl, and only winner of such pole can use voice commands
or something like that
-
I can tell you right now that I'd have no motivation to listen to the 3 circle-jerking high level players that votes themselves in as an arbitrary leader for a match, and I think you're fooling yourself if many others would either. There's simply no motivation for players to have or listen to a leader in a game when most leaders would be terrible, or most players would think themselves better capable of handling their own tactics.
Now, you could consider adding mechanics to make it beneficial to listen to a leader, but let's not confuse what games SHOULD do and what gamers WOULD do.
-
He must surly accept it but in the end, folks will listen to him more willingly.
+1
it's a great idea and very well worth the try. it will work for some people, maybe even the majority - i'm a psychology student, you can trust me ;-)
-
me and my homeboys represent taylor gang erryday so taylor gang or die......................................
most people wouldnt listen to another player because they are so arrogant that they think they can do better themselves and valid points have been made and one is that just because someone is a high level it doesnt make them a leader at all lol
-
I can tell you right now that I'd have no motivation to listen to the 3 circle-jerking high level players that votes themselves in as an arbitrary leader for a match, and I think you're fooling yourself if many others would either. There's simply no motivation for players to have or listen to a leader in a game when most leaders would be terrible, or most players would think themselves better capable of handling their own tactics.
Now, you could consider adding mechanics to make it beneficial to listen to a leader, but let's not confuse what games SHOULD do and what gamers WOULD do.
im not saying how game should look or what gamers would do, if your talking to me that is
ofc large part of team wouldnt listen but there are those rare occasions in cRPG when a team do something together, having a leader might increase this
and how this mechanism would look i meant that at start of the first round lets say a table would pop up with three guys in it 1. player A 2. player B 3. player C and the team press 1, 2 or 3 and chooses a leader for that map . Now you are playing and you get to know some names, if someone would suck at tactics you would know and you wouldnt poll that guy, if he on the other hand was decent you could poll that guy.
As of now, voice command is avaible to anyone, and if its enabled to all it will be listen to by none, just saying
-
interesting idea
-
I would't poll every round but for an entire battle series, in such way it really becomes clear what spirit and tactics the lead can transfer to his team.
Still he must accept, as it is a responsibility which could be quite stressful, not every player at every time would want it.
@Chagan_Arslan and Arson, in context to autopoll depending on player level i agree with Arson, i wouldn't either, only because someone like me has a lot of time on his hands and can grind some more levels doesn't give him the big picture for leading and thinking of good tactics.
If it is a clan server, it would be them who have majority, no problem, from my site, if a clan is on a another server, they might get the poll, they might not. The beauty of polling a lead is, that the minority usually swimms with it. Another thing i noticed, we allready have several player with a good reputation, as far as i have noticed, players even ask them for advice what to do and people listen. Problem is new people don't know them, but over time they will. Another thought to that case again, it is ganging up on the lead, they don't have the choice to say no, but they should.
Perhaps you can do it in the follwoing way.
Before a player starts on a server playing, he has to confirm if he wants onto the a candidat list, from there xy random lead candidats will be taken onto the poll list. Then people poll.
-
The way it used to work : There was a tick box on your character site that you'd select to nominate yourself as commander. Commander in-game was automatically given to the highest level person on a team, that had selected to be a candidate. Nice, easy system. Not that he was always the best commander choice, or knew what he was doing, but it was clear who the server had selected by the message : "SoandSo is now your commander!".
Players can choose to follow him or not, there's no way to force it. But if the majority choose to, then even a bad idea can turn into a victory. People that choose not can probably keep playing as they like, no biggie. Implement this again, along with repopulating the public Team Speak 3 servers provided for us,
and we may see something interesting happen. :D
-
Leaders is silly: There are only 2 gamemodes: In one gamemode, we simply try and kill as many oposing team as possible, in the other we all try to attack/defend a set point: Since everyone knows the conditions of victory, and theres no secondary objectives that need filling, short of opening doors and gates: We dont need leaders.
-
I already thought about it a bit, and have a suggestion:
As we all know that votes almost never succeed, voting commanders just won't work. By the way I don't know how the voting option can be modified at all, and if it can contain more than two options. If it was restricted for 2 options it would make no sense at all, as there should be more than 2 candidates to vote for. And a single vote for each candidate with "yes" and "no" would take too long, and would be unfair for those being the last to be voted. (unless the system can wait with the result until the last vote has passed :? )
So I thought about another system: a forum vote!
Players who are willing to candidate for a commander role can field in a thread, and then a vote will be added, and let's say the ten players with the most votes become commanders. They PM their nickname and cd key to chadz (I know, PM :roll: :lol: ), and he gives them commander right, as soon as they log in with the particular character. (I think the commander feature should be bound to certain characters, to help the players recognizing their commanders).
Commander rights means: he is the only one in a team being able to place flags, and players don't need to join a batallion to see them, they see them always. And the arrow, too. And then there is another important feature: he gets an additional chat key, to write messages onto the screen of the players where usually "The poll has been rejected" and "Khergit Khanate wins" pop up. This way you can make those players follow, who actually are willing, but don't follow the teamchat at all. I know this feature is easily abused, spamming the screens of players with bullshit, that's why I planned a forum vote. So better vote for people you trust in :wink:
And for those cases of hardship not willing to follow team tactics at all, the commander can be muted always. :(
The commander features are only enabled, if two or more commanders join a server. So autobalance has to always put them into different teams. If there is only one commander he can't do anything, as it would be unfair for the other team. If there are more than two commanders, the order of the forum votes decides. So the commander #1 in the forum would ALWAYS be the commander, commander #2 only if he isn't in the same team with commander #1, and so on...
I think this is a good solution to provide the community with some commanders, give them actually some use ( = screen messages, so only those players don't follow the team tactic who really refuse it. The other players, who didn't pay attention till now, will be "cought" by this system :wink: ), and probably improve the gameplay.
If you think those screen messages are "too much" we can just make a special chat colour (orange or whatever) either as alternative to the screen messages or as replacement. Of course the screen messages are only for "emergency cases" to tell players to "stop" or "fall back".
-
anyone who is capable of orchestrating pub players (charisma, infamy, whatever) doesn't need this. It's conversely useless for everyone else who would use it. You really think adding in a poll option would suddenly endow players who win it with legitmate authority on a team? Christ.
Anyone who remembers BF2 will remember that it was overwhelmingly used by players to score artillery kills. Anyone trying to actually 'command' would be ignored or told to fuck off. You can't expect any order out of pubs.
Honestly, if you want to lead or be led, just join a clan.
-
@huscarl_johnson we got something in common, we both speak about systems of personal believe. In youre case "Christ", in my case "voting".
-
Anyone who remembers BF2 will remember that it was overwhelmingly used by players to score artillery kills. Anyone trying to actually 'command' would be ignored or told to fuck off. You can't expect any order out of pubs.
Honestly, if you want to lead or be led, just join a clan.
Bigtime "fuck offs" to commander, untill he dropped a humvee on you! :P
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
-
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)
-
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.
-
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
-
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,944.0.html
:!:
-
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.
-
@ 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.
-
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.
-
And no one would use it....
-
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.
-
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. :P
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 have ADD, and I also want room for more tactical battles, fuck you very much. :P
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
-
Yeah thats about what I was thinking :)
Basically make the leaders the hands that move the chess pieces around.
-
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.
-
I have ADD, and I also want room for more tactical battles, fuck you very much. :P
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.
-
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?
-
1) 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.
My comment was made out of frustration at a specific kind of intolerant behavior that I associate with the ADD and ADHD children I've known (horrible memories from friend's birthday parties). I also took against what I read to be an unwarranted personal attack where none was due. I'm very sorry if I caused offense or hurt.
-
It's all good, please don't feel bad about it. I was going for the colon-p tongue smiley, but that's the shortcut for the 'razz' smiley, which looks smarmy. I only brought it up because those kinda associations damage understanding of the disorder, which is lacking in many public realms. Especially that many of those kids turn into adults with additional problems like anxiety and/or depression because of the way it's perceived and reacted to by others throughout their lives.
Back to the important stuff: What about if leaders could create and actively edit a priority list that shows on a corner of their team's screens? That way they could be free to run around the field and see where enemies are going, and assign tasks or locations with amounts of soldiers needed. Then players who care for strategy could respond to the list, leaving the more 'rambo/ronan' types to do what they're gonna do anyway.
-
In the vast majority of cases those that are left on their own fighting 20 other people and yet still keep running away, stand on a roof, or hide in the bushes somewhere are stupid fucking bundle of stickss who accomplish literally nothing but waste time, even if that time is only 2 or 3 minutes. If you are in that position it's probably because you were useless to your team when it really mattered. When the server has 60 vs 60, that is 59 people on your team waiting for your dumb ass to die. In total 177 "manpower" minutes minutes wasted. Don't get me wrong, there are occasionally heroes who win it for their team, but it's rare. If you want tactics and organization, set it up at the start of the round. When your team are all dead and you're being rushed by half the enemy team is a little too late, and being in that situation in the first place means ,again, that you were fucking useless. No one should have to wait for you to set up some so called "tactics" by yourself that at most will net you a few more kills, and do nothing for your team.
In short, fuck delayers, go play a single player game. This is a team game, it's not Thief online version. Your rant is particularly ironic in that you praise teamwork and last stand delayers at the same time. Diametrically opposed.
PS: Savage 2 was fucking great :D but Savage 2 was also a resource game with economic objectives (mines, bases, upgraded units/buildings). You can't really compare it to a cRPG round. It's like comparing Starcraft to Myth TFL.
-
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.
1-2 Athletics bonus is not that much, but yes that is the intention behind it, to get people to command and folks to follow them. If we will get more whiners than now, i can't say, i am not that much a prophet. But the whining now if you listen to it carefully is mostly like "dump team, should have done that , we need a plan, we were scattered, LEFT LEFT , no RIGHT RIGTH, and such like" which leads to my suggestion in the first place, change the system, if it is better, the whinnig will be about other things, if not it was worth a try.
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?
true
What about if leaders could create and actively edit a priority list that shows on a corner of their team's screens? That way they could be free to run around the field and see where enemies are going, and assign tasks or locations with amounts of soldiers needed. Then players who care for strategy could respond to the list, leaving the more 'rambo/ronan' types to do what they're gonna do anyway.
If they can be handled easiely why not. I still think of the difference between army and bregade commands. The former has more time to his hands as he is in spectator mode, can declare targets to reach, where the bregade command focuses on targets of opportunities. We got a overall strategy planer, who choses more the places where the battels take places where to go next and the commander who is directly in the situation, who has to deside if he is actually picking a fight or perhaps retreating to another position, because the forces would otherwise overwhelm them.
In the vast majority of cases those that are left on their own fighting 20 other people and yet still keep running away, stand on a roof, or hide in the bushes somewhere are stupid fucking bundle of stickss who accomplish literally nothing but waste time, even if that time is only 2 or 3 minutes.
Charge is surly more to my liking, then sit and wait, but thats because of my natural impatience. I have to admit, that soemtimes camping is a valid strategy, but it needs preparation(ladders/siege shields/constructions), depending on the map as you said it can be a complete failure if 20 people hide/wait/camp at the same spot.
I disagree that it is allways time waisting, the defender/camper choses mostly the place, the attacker mostly the time when to attack, if the attacker doesn't rush he might loose more people to archers, but if he rushes the faster troops can come in too early and get smashed which results in a good moral of the defender. Does the defender repeat the tactics it is highly likely the attacker will find a spot to sneak in and backstab the campers.
Don't get me wrong, there are occasionally heroes who win it for their team, but it's rare.
True, you yourself are one of the better players arround i have met.
If you want tactics and organization, set it up at the start of the round. When your team are all dead and you're being rushed by half the enemy team is a little too late, and being in that situation in the first place means ,again, that you were fucking useless.
I don't agree, At the start of the round it is all in motion allready, to setup tactics at the begining we would need more time, have a look here http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,831.0.html
ATM the best time for suggestions would be when nearly all are dead, problem is autobalace here, you can't do it at the end of a round because the people get switched and now we would have the knowledge about our plans in the hand of the enemy.
No one should have to wait for you to set up some so called "tactics" by yourself that at most will net you a few more kills, and do nothing for your team.
I think we do not imagine the same, i don't want anyone to wait, ... perhaps 15-30 seconds, is that really too much? I don't know about so called "tactics". In my imagination, the army comanders would do no killing at all because he is in specmode and the bregade command can get how many he is capable of, though he has to manage and to fight at the same time. Those positions are clearly not for people who just want to kill stuff. Clearly not a way to "net you a few more kills".
In short, fuck delayers, go play a single player game. This is a team game, it's not Thief online version.
agreed, your rant is particularly ironic in that you praise teamwork and last stand delayers at the same time. Diametrically opposed.
PS: Savage 2 was fucking great :D but Savage 2 was also a resource game with economic objectives (mines, bases, upgraded units/buildings). You can't really compare it to a cRPG round. It's like comparing Starcraft to Myth TFL.
Never played it, but by the way Oberyn, as good as you are as a single player, you could do at least me a favour. Swear less and save me all the time to figure out the information in between as time is so important to you, you surly understand. Thanks for your constructive critisism. :wink:
-
sorry for necro but, as we do now have this suggestion build in i want to include:
Please deactivate polls after 30 seconds into the round.
It is just a mess always having the polls up when you try to concentrate on enemies.
Not only for the commander voting but "ANY" polls should be disabled after 30 seconds into the game.
Also if you are at it, please get rid of the ctrl+M, replace it with some automatic system.
I don't want to poll anyone, but let it be done by deafault from the system. There is often such a drama because someone crtl+M some otehr dude ... We dont need that.
If at all, make a "Hall of Shame", anyonce th/tks would added up, you could search yourself in the statistic and would be able to see how badly you have done the last day/month/week and if you are within the top 10, you know you need to change soemthing. If you then also want to make a reminding pm for those at top and give those names to admin to have a clsoer look out for those i guess it would be better, then let the players get all worked up over some shity teamhit.
-
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
-
Funny how this is January 2011 and it gets implemented in November 2013.... But we shouldn't lose hope! Maybe our current suggestions will be implemented by the end of 2016?!
-
Funny how this is January 2011 and it gets implemented in November 2013.... But we shouldn't lose hope! Maybe our current suggestions will be implemented by the end of 2016?!
i don't mind waiting for good additions, but the current system, ain't yet good ...
-
Nice neckro!
It's bizare finding pre renoun people that left before it kicked in and are there for ghosts in the machine! (total miss use)
-
I agree its really annoying having people spam polls constantly. And there should also be a way to demote commanders by electing a new one because once someone gets it you cant do anything to get rid of them, even if theyre spamming really badly
-
BULLSHIT - commander chat for public servers.