Author Topic: Better Battles. How can we achieve it?  (Read 2271 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rumblood

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1199
  • Infamy: 420
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: GrannPappy
Re: Better Battles. How can we achieve it?
« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2011, 07:11:07 pm »
0
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:
"I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday" – Abraham Lincoln

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Joker86

  • Mad & Bad
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1226
  • Infamy: 324
  • cRPG Player
  • Why so serious?
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Companions
  • Game nicks: Joker86_TP
Re: Better Battles. How can we achieve it?
« Reply #16 on: January 29, 2011, 01:45:52 am »
0
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: )
« Last Edit: January 29, 2011, 01:49:53 am by Joker86 »
Joker makes a very good point.
î saved for eternety (without context  :mrgreen:)

Offline owens

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 436
  • Infamy: 389
  • cRPG Player
  • PK_BALLA
    • View Profile
    • Our Website
  • Faction: Persian Kittens
  • Game nicks: PK's nice guy
  • IRC nick: PK world tour pm to donate
Re: Better Battles. How can we achieve it?
« Reply #17 on: January 29, 2011, 02:26:50 am »
0
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.

PK is back

PK is a collection of elites from throughout modern and ancient history. Giants of Calradia individually, as a group these gods of combat shatter all expectations and ascend to a higher plain of victory that only a few have seen before.

Offline Joker86

  • Mad & Bad
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1226
  • Infamy: 324
  • cRPG Player
  • Why so serious?
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Companions
  • Game nicks: Joker86_TP
Re: Better Battles. How can we achieve it?
« Reply #18 on: January 29, 2011, 02:31:25 am »
0
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.  :?
Joker makes a very good point.
î saved for eternety (without context  :mrgreen:)