Teamplay, how can we resurrect it?

[Gisbert_of_Thuringia]

This whole discussion here will lead to nothing as it is impossible to get a good leader by any given stats 

Watch people's behaviour on the servers and write them down if you really want that leaderstuff (which is in my eyes totally unncesessary, as stated above) and then suggest them on forums.
But beware to put only people like Chase, Torben, Cooties etc on your list....High K/D doesn't make a leader. Usually a leader kills less than usual, because he has to keep his eyes on his whole team and on the enemy team etc etc. These "highskilled" players who can kill 5-10 enemies per round are better used under command of someone to do what they can do best.

[Teeth]

In any case shielders should be leaders, they can safely lead a charge and survive for long enough by keeping their shields up. For other classes there is always a problem with going in front, and of course the enormous banner in your face that makes you failblock. Leader with flag dies, teamplay dies.

I think W/L ratio would give quite a distorted view of commanding abilities. I think the win/loss ratio of every byzantium is above average because we have 5-10 good players on the same team almost always.

I think commander should be elected manually, just make a list with potential commanders and give them a special colour in chat only readable for their team. Or even better, enable him to use his voice ingame, probably really hard/impossible to do.

Anyway for real epic teamplay battles:

We need another one of these:
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,8764.0.html

Was some great teamplay in there.

Thomek if you want to have more open maps, make them yourself. I made my first map in three hours, just follow Kong Ming's instructions. It's really a lot easier than I expected.

Also if you want to try to get some teamplay together, make an armoured shielder alt. You really need to stay alive and go infront. Ninja is the worst class to try to lead people. You are faster than the pack and very vulnerable.

[The_Bloody_Nine]

teamplay? it is even impossible to get people for a santa-snowfight 

I'm really curious about those W/L stats if there even is such a thing. Would like to see if there are some surprises and ofc. as well where I would appear.

[Teeth]

teamplay? it is even impossible to get people for a santa-snowfight 

I'm really curious about those W/L stats if there even is such a thing. Would like to see if there are some surprises and ofc. as well where I would appear.

They probably don't get tracked right now, I'd think that would be implementable though.

[Thomek]

Well it's trueTeam W:L ratio would be a bit gimped, but it would be the value that should matter when evaluating a good leader. If someone manages to get team wins, that is the result that is needed of a leader. Of course if someone doesn't want to lead, they can uncheck leadership on the website.

Of course, banner would have some impact on the W:L ratio as clans already teamwork a little. Nevertheless I think the autobalancer does good resistance, even for byzantiums. As they rack up kills, they weigh in more, and so the balancer adjusts for that giving the other team more of the powerplayers.

I think the only way to "Beat" the autobalance is by helping other players be better, because your personal average skill is already counted for.

Still, honestly don't see the problem of choosing by W:L ratio. It gives the commander instant credibility, so the team should have faith in him. It makes players strive to get a good W:L ratio in stead of K:D ratio, eventually producing good leaders.

Would be the fairest way to choose them imo. Of course me and other forumers that are "known" could pick up and lead, but that doesn't mean we are actually talented at it.

[PanPan]

but ''shooting it out''
is impossible with the missile speed these days...

[Gisbert_of_Thuringia]

Why should I have faith in a guy with a good w/l ratio?
As a couple of people stated, he might got it due to taking a good clan's banner or due to being in a clan with many good and active players.

That doesn't tell me he is a good player or a good leader. Leadership is something to be deserved, not to be granted by some random stats, that can be affected so easily

[Joker86]

Still, honestly don't see the problem of choosing by W:L ratio. It gives the commander instant credibility, so the team should have faith in him. It makes players strive to get a good W:L ratio in stead of K:D ratio, eventually producing good leaders.

Would be the fairest way to choose them imo. Of course me and other forumers that are "known" could pick up and lead, but that doesn't mean we are actually talented at it.

You know, my W/L ratio would be much better if people actually listened to what I say, at least sometimes.

The problem is: the understanding of what would be the best for a certain team to do in a certain moment on a certain map is NOT measurable ingame by any means, with the current list of features. There is just no way. The W/L-r is determined by

- your clan/banner
- your skills
- your "auto balancer value"
- luck

And then a tiny little bit by how much you write in chat about tactics. And besides Phazh I don't know anyone who regularly tries to lead his team. Unless your skills as commander don't determine your W/L ratio by 51% or more, it is a BAD (= wrong, false) base to determine the leader.

In short: until now the game didn't offer any way to recognize capable commanders.

And I want to point out that I am speaking more of commanders than of leaders. Unfortunately, in cRPG you first need to be a good leader, and then a good commander, because you first have to convince people to listen to what you write in chat. If certain commander tools would be implemented, this "convincing" would not be needed any more, giving players a chance to show their tactical skills, who are not that known or eloquent or have a high K/D-r.

I agree that the W/L-r. should be tracked for leaders, but first AFTER they took over lead. Otherwise it is not representable by any means. You can't be punished for a loss if you were not in charge. As soon as a leader uses his commander tools, the round counts for his ratio, otherwise not.

But saying "There is no teamplay on the servers, we need to resurrect it" and then saying "you can see who teamplayed until now by the W/L-r." doesn't work together. Either there was enough teamplay to recognize good leaders, already putting us into the state you desire, or there was no teamplay at all (effectively), and thus the W/L-r. of every player is not affected by it at all. Which makes it a really bad base for recognizing good commanders.

[Fartface]

1 : high kdr doesn't mean that you are a better leader but more randomers will follow you ,because lets be honest if you see the 0-3 peasant telling you what to do you wont listen but the 12-1 tincan knight you get an feeling he knows what he is doing better.
2 : If you want teamplay just remove scoreboard alot of players care bout kills to mutch to focus on the team.
3: nerf cav.

[Lorenzo_of_Iberia]

Less Ninjas? They arnt team players

[Leesin]

I'm not going to take orders from someone or follow them every round just because his W/L ratio is good, that doesn't prove any credibility at being a good leader. There are probably alot of players with good W/L ratios who play "singleplayer" mode, i.e just for the kills and don't care about tactics or the team.

I can almost guarantee using that method you will see a ton of bad commanders and it will soon just encourage people to not follow the Commanders and resort back to their old ways.

Get a more credible method of choosing commanders or people are either just going to A) carry on being a randomer or B) Work together in a team with their own clan members via Teamspeak like we already do.

[Inkompetent]

2 : If you want teamplay just remove scoreboard alot of players care bout kills to mutch to focus on the team.

Definitely this. K/D ratio is a useless stat since the actual XP/money gain, and even fighting-for-winning isn't based on who has the most kills.

Good cavalry that supports infantry by bumping, or pikemen/ranged that dehorse enemy cav, or sledge-hammer-guys with a prepared overhand-attack scaring people into getting hit in the back, they are just as important to the victory as the ones getting killing blows.

Until kills actually serves a purpose, rather than taking away from the teamplay like it in part does now, remove it. We only need to know who are on what team, and if they are alive or not.

The first step to teamplay is after all to take away what promotes individualism.

[Henry_Broodsonson]

Crpg IS individualism...

[Xhandor]

Athough is has long gone - XP and gold once were only earned by sticking together and killing enemies - one effect of this was that the team actually stayed closer together -
I agree that teamplay should play a bigger role not only in battle but also in siege - nowadays you see people charging stupidly to one ladder where they get smashed by a big maul one after the other and once there are a few skilled players at one team attacking another place the castle falls...
And if there is someone trying to give orders he is insulting his team and using caps all the time - the crown of teamwork at the moment is to tell your teammates that a door has been breached or that the gatehouse is lost - if there is someone around who cares he'll go and take a look but a most of the players dont seem to care.

I kind of like the idea with the banners and beeing rewarded for teamplay - one step further would be to reward people for saving others life (which is far fetched i know...)....
I'm not quite sure about the method of using W/L or K/D for selecting the leader - but I agree to the argument that nobody is following a peasant ordering you around even if he shows some nice tactics.



It would be a first step and I'd gladly like to see some more teamplay - so why not - select leaders by W/L or K/D and make it possible to change them by vote if needed.

[Henry_Broodsonson]

You just set W/L so it only takes into account players who have fought a certain number of battles.