Teamplay, how can we resurrect it?

[LordSnow]

Follow us, listen to Tueten and you will have teamplay.

[Joker86]

I think at the beginning you should indeed stick to simple commands, anything that goes further than "wait over there and attack at 4:30" probably won't work as intended, but the better the average level of teamplay in the community is, the better you can perform commands that are more complicated or require greater self-discipline of the players, for example "fall back while fighting to lure them through a bottleneck"... it requires you to fall back although there is this single pikeman a few more meters away who would be an easy target.

I think there is no problem in creating a command system that provides the commander with a vast variety of options, as he can always decide how percise his orders will be, according to the team he is leading.

[H4rdn3ssKill3r]

2. Somehow appoint some players to leaders. Give them a new color text. (like admins, but other color)
Perhaps every player can get this text if they are at least gen5, and let the 2 best W:L ratio player on the team get it. W:L ratio could be a good tool to find true teamplayers and promote people taking charge and leading with success.

So basically give people who allready love extending there E-peen more fucking E-peen?

Riiiiiiiigghhtttt.
Remember, kills don't mean anything, that damn lone wolf backstabbing archers could be your leader
Make it a vote like in BF3 that you can mutiny against them if they are complete garbage, and also maybe a buff to the player that are near the leader  so they are incitied to stay near the leader?

[Malevolent_Warlord]

I think at the beginning you should indeed stick to simple commands, anything that goes further than "wait over there and attack at 4:30" probably won't work as intended, but the better the average level of teamplay in the community is, the better you can perform commands that are more complicated or require greater self-discipline of the players, for example "fall back while fighting to lure them through a bottleneck"... it requires you to fall back although there is this single pikeman a few more meters away who would be an easy target.

I think there is no problem in creating a command system that provides the commander with a vast variety of options, as he can always decide how percise his orders will be, according to the team he is leading.

The problem again with the lack of teamplay is this, as stated before by me:
1) Player needs to understand teamplay and its benefits
2) Player is willing to serve others
If these two rules don't apply means no teamwork.

The problem that we are discussing is that we have no teamplay, period.
- We have no respectable and known leaders who want to lead round after round.
- We have no teamplayers and even those who want teamplay fall into soloplay often.
- We don't have many players who understand teamplay.
- We definently don't have a lot of people people willing to help others and keep eachother alive.
- We have a lot of people who want to do what they want to do.
- We have a endless stream of "stick together" and it's effect is diminshed to say the least.

If we want teamplay we need players who want teamplay. Not gonna happen in puplic server.
Or we need the game to support teamplay heavily above individualism.

Complex or even basic command system won't work without clear incentive. Shouting commands to non-motivated players won't work. And who does the commanding and yelling round after round?

Battlefield 3 (OMG!!! Did he just say BF3 in CRPG forum? BAN!!)
Yes, I said BF3.
BF3 gives advantages to other teammates in our squad eg. ammo, health, explosives, combat capabilities. BF3 also allows squad respawns.
Teamplay in BF3 doesn't exist among puplic players, but the wisest ones do join squads just to get those perks other members give them.
U get some sort of teammate interaction there with all the benefits. Still quite non-existant.

M&B is a different sort of game and staying with the group is more easily understod. U easily lose when facing 3-5 enemies.
So I suggest a squad system (flags and battallions) that clearly benefits players. One person carries the flag and those near him benefit from that flagcarrier.
I think money and XP acts poorly as incentive. Once u don't need money or XP it loses its attractivness.

Lets say for Infantry 15-20 meteres around the flagcarrier receive:
- Extra health and health regeneration (+ 10 hp, +12 hp per minute regeneration?)
- Extra athletics
- Extra shield defence
- Possibly extra power draw, PT, PS?

For Cavalry 50 meters around the cavalry flagcarrier receive:
- Extra riding (+1?)
- Extra health for horse (+30 hp?)
- Extra charge (+10?)

Other capabilites:
- Extra arrows
- Extra WPF, Strenght, Agility
- Join a battallion and u get -20% to upkeep costs
- Join a battallion and u get 1,5x multiplyer

Teamplay needs to be built in the game and the benefits of it should be something the player doesn't want to be without.
Fullfilling some noobs FUBAR tactics doesn't appeal to everyone.

[Rical]

1. More random plains, or perhaps premade maps that are like plains.
This will gradually teach the players to stick together. Teach them not to run after cav.. (I facepalm everyday when I see this too much.)  The amount of cover and roofcamping in the village maps encourages xbow static play, invites cav to come around corners for the sudden insta-death couch or lancing or headslashing,

2. Somehow appoint some players to leaders. Give them a new color text. (like admins, but other color)
Perhaps every player can get this text if they are at least gen5, and let the 2 best W:L ratio player on the team get it. W:L ratio could be a good tool to find true teamplayers and promote people taking charge and leading with success.

3. Let us buy banners as a kind of polearm.
The system we have about joining groups etc works only halfway. Few people join battalions and even fewer actually use them.. They are too "free" in my opinion. Someone seeing themselves, or getting appointed to be banner bearer by admin would care more about their "Job". Even the ones following and protecting that player. Perhaps loosing or keeping a banner would have some kind of effect like Valour for the people around it, or Valour for the one that takes it.

4. Nerf/Change how xbows work.
Make them more mobile, by making faster reload times, nerfing damage. Xbows promote a camping, sniping individualist gameplay where it's SHOOT, HIDE, SHOOT, HIDE. And it works wonderful for the players playing like this. This is not teamplay.

5. Change Cav to be a less individualistic class.
Cav has one of the most powerful teamplay mechanics/tricks available. Bump + lance, but it's very rarely used consciously because they DON'T HAVE TO! They do too well by just running around in a mess. Again relying on individual skill.

6. Add synchronised walk speed.
One of the biggest problems maneuvering random groups on the battlefield is different run speeds. The team always reach the other team spread out. I believe if everyone had the same walk speed, one could keep better formations and keep people together. [/b]



I think I have to agree with you.. At least what I think is Close to what YOU think about bringing back teamplay.
1.Good Idea
2.Good as long as they choose a Decent guy...
3.Good Idea too
4.Yeap I totally agree
5.They are running around in a mess  because . . other peeps (archers - infantry-cav) ofter run around in a mess too , so they see it as the easiest and best way to get kills...
6.No I will have to disagree with you there..because someone else has higher moving speed than you doesn't  imply  that you can't manouver your group easy... It's all about teamplay.. and Oh it would be unfair A full plated swordsman running the same as a leather-wearing archer

[Joker86]

The problem again with the lack of teamplay is this, as stated before by me:
1) Player needs to understand teamplay and its benefits
2) Player is willing to serve others
If these two rules don't apply means no teamwork.

The problem that we are discussing is that we have no teamplay, period.
- We have no respectable and known leaders who want to lead round after round.
- We have no teamplayers and even those who want teamplay fall into soloplay often.
- We don't have many players who understand teamplay.
- We definently don't have a lot of people people willing to help others and keep eachother alive.
- We have a lot of people who want to do what they want to do.
- We have a endless stream of "stick together" and it's effect is diminshed to say the least.

If we want teamplay we need players who want teamplay. Not gonna happen in puplic server.
Or we need the game to support teamplay heavily above individualism.

You are right about every single point, except of the one I marked.

The topic has become quite extensive, so I understand if someone didn't see ll suggestions that were made, especially as some of them were made in several postings. I think I should comprehend them as much as possible.

In fact I suggested the following things:

1.: Elect commanders who volunteer via forum vote.
In my opinion this is the only way how the "proper" commanders can be elected, as this is a difficult decision and can't be done during an ongoing battle, so any ingame vote is inapplicable as solution. Especially because if you make it need a high percentage of votes, you will hardly ever have a commander, if only a few votes are needed, small clan squads could abuse it. They are commanders on the servers all the time, exactly like admins are admins on the servers all the time. But they can choose an option to leave commander modus for this match, of course.

2.: Improve the auto-/bannerbalance system
Instead of using banners and having a lot of leechers changing the banner to the one of whichever clan is currently dominating, you create "factions" on your character page or can join existing ones, where your application has to be accepted or declined. This way leeching and unneccessarily big bunches of people making things more difficult for autobalance are rendered obsolete. Also the new "faction"-balance has to distribute the factions as evenly as possible, and not all of them into one team. (Has this already been fixed recently? IDK). Commanders get put into different teams by default. If there are more commanders than two, the ranking of the forum vote decides who will be in charge. If there are less than two commanders (active), no one can be commander. (Everything else would be unfair)

3.: Implement a command system.
Every player has to see this command system by default! He needs to leave actively to get out of it.
Allow the commanders to...
... give different orders for different classes
... set (different) flags (e.g. "wait here", "stay away from here"...)
... give general behaviour commands via hud (e.g. "Stay defensively")
... write screen messages (e.g. "CHARGE NAO!!!")
... write chat messages in his own colour
... perhaps elect non commissioned officers, who have some limited "suqad control" commands, helping out with micromanagement


4.: Implement a reward system for listening to commands.
Be it small amounts of gold and XP or some special rewards like a new currency to buy some special looking weapons (without any outstanding stats), just give the players a new motivation for teamplay besides the sheer will to use or follow tactics.


Effects I am hoping for:

- Greed causes a good part of the server population to follow some of the orders
- The rest of the players will see more teamplay and follow for different reasons ("late" greed, being gangraped constantly, perhaps even some insights or enlightenments)
- Players will get used to teamplay. New players will learn playing the game with teamplay by default.
- After some time, hopefully, a good part of the community, perhaps even the majority (allow me to dream!) will recognize that teamplay...
... is a lot of fun
... doesn't take any longer than charging at the beginning of a round and then spending the rest in spectator mode
... makes you more successful and improves your K/D-ratio
... is neither complicated nor a great effort for your brain
... extends the time you're actually playing/fighting
- As soon as this stage is reached, a good part of the overall "cRPG skills" will be a common understanding of teamplay, making you do things that are not only the best for your K/D-ratio but also for the round of the match, simply by having learned WHAT to do WHEN, things you often enough see in other games.

When you play soccer/basketball on the playground with some other kids you don't know, you will still pass them the ball if you see they are standing free. You don't need to be friends (clanmates), or communicate at all (=use chat, need orders from a commander) to do so, it's as much part of the game as moving the ball.

At this point you can also remove the rewards for following commands, I bet people would still stick to teamplay, for a lot of (now) obvious reasons.

[Lorenzo_of_Iberia]

(click to show/hide)

You are right about every single point, except of the one I marked.

The topic has become quite extensive, so I understand if someone didn't see ll suggestions that were made, especially as some of them were made in several postings. I think I should comprehend them as much as possible.

In fact I suggested the following things:

1.: Elect commanders who volunteer via forum vote.
In my opinion this is the only way how the "proper" commanders can be elected, as this is a difficult decision and can't be done during an ongoing battle, so any ingame vote is inapplicable as solution. Especially because if you make it need a high percentage of votes, you will hardly ever have a commander, if only a few votes are needed, small clan squads could abuse it. They are commanders on the servers all the time, exactly like admins are admins on the servers all the time. But they can choose an option to leave commander modus for this match, of course.

2.: Improve the auto-/bannerbalance system
Instead of using banners and having a lot of leechers changing the banner to the one of whichever clan is currently dominating, you create "factions" on your character page or can join existing ones, where your application has to be accepted or declined. This way leeching and unneccessarily big bunches of people making things more difficult for autobalance are rendered obsolete. Also the new "faction"-balance has to distribute the factions as evenly as possible, and not all of them into one team. (Has this already been fixed recently? IDK). Commanders get put into different teams by default. If there are more commanders than two, the ranking of the forum vote decides who will be in charge. If there are less than two commanders (active), no one can be commander. (Everything else would be unfair)

3.: Implement a command system.
Every player has to see this command system by default! He needs to leave actively to get out of it.
Allow the commanders to...
... give different orders for different classes
... set (different) flags (e.g. "wait here", "stay away from here"...)
... give general behaviour commands via hud (e.g. "Stay defensively")
... write screen messages (e.g. "CHARGE NAO!!!")
... write chat messages in his own colour
... perhaps elect non commissioned officers, who have some limited "suqad control" commands, helping out with micromanagement


4.: Implement a reward system for listening to commands.
Be it small amounts of gold and XP or some special rewards like a new currency to buy some special looking weapons (without any outstanding stats), just give the players a new motivation for teamplay besides the sheer will to use or follow tactics.


Effects I am hoping for:

- Greed causes a good part of the server population to follow some of the orders
- The rest of the players will see more teamplay and follow for different reasons ("late" greed, being gangraped constantly, perhaps even some insights or enlightenments)
- Players will get used to teamplay. New players will learn playing the game with teamplay by default.
- After some time, hopefully, a good part of the community, perhaps even the majority (allow me to dream!) will recognize that teamplay...
... is a lot of fun
... doesn't take any longer than charging at the beginning of a round and then spending the rest in spectator mode
... makes you more successful and improves your K/D-ratio
... is neither complicated nor a great effort for your brain
... extends the time you're actually playing/fighting
- As soon as this stage is reached, a good part of the overall "cRPG skills" will be a common understanding of teamplay, making you do things that are not only the best for your K/D-ratio but also for the round of the match, simply by having learned WHAT to do WHEN, things you often enough see in other games.

When you play soccer/basketball on the playground with some other kids you don't know, you will still pass them the ball if you see they are standing free. You don't need to be friends (clanmates), or communicate at all (=use chat, need orders from a commander) to do so, it's as much part of the game as moving the ball.

At this point you can also remove the rewards for following commands, I bet people would still stick to teamplay, for a lot of (now) obvious reasons.

Commands are far too complex for Red Orchestra 2 with automatic squads and a built in command system, c-RPG community is just plain incapable. Give them simple automatic benefits to their immediate position such as increased stats when together and be there a commander or not. Electing one would be nice but atm a system does exist where if someone has enough charisma to lead a team to victory only some start listening and a lot of others still done, so I dont think its the lack of command thats the issue its just some people dont like commands.

Make it possible for players to not need commands or a commander but still do teamwork, via stats buff as I pointed out (page 9). You will find that the passive method will cause people to realise by them self its better to work as a team and when given commands they will not only passively but actively obey. Its a simple method of carrot on a stick, if we try to elect a higher order of players who are capable commanders, the proud, the trolls, the butt hurt they didnt get elected will all possibly go against the command. Mutiny will ensue and you lose all tactics. People dont like being told others are better than them, its as simple as that. Nobody wants to follow orders from some guy they dont recognise or know :/

[Lorenzo_of_Iberia]

Follow us, listen to Tueten and you will have teamplay.

Also sorry but I havnt seen much wolves influence on eu1 for a very long time a very very very long time, if anything I'd say the mercs are the closest to getting teamplay out public servers. Phaz is the most influencial and intelligent 'commander' I've seen actually pull stuff off on public servers, but Wolves I havnt seen you barking out orders in a long time ;)

I apologise for my double post

[Joker86]

Make it possible for players to not need commands or a commander but still do teamwork, via stats buff as I pointed out (page 9). You will find that the passive method will cause people to realise by them self its better to work as a team and when given commands they will not only passively but actively obey. Its a simple method of carrot on a stick, if we try to elect a higher order of players who are capable commanders, the proud, the trolls, the butt hurt they didnt get elected will all possibly go against the command. Mutiny will ensue and you lose all tactics. People dont like being told others are better than them, its as simple as that. Nobody wants to follow orders from some guy they dont recognise or know :/

Well, stats buff is another form of reward for following orders (e.g. a certain buff within the range of a flag. A "Defend" flag could provide Ironflesh, an "Attack" flag Power Strike, only the bonus of the last placed flag within an area apllies), and what you write after this, about people realizing and actively following orders, shows that we basically agree. 

[LordSnow]

Maybe start with the shielwall bonus that we have on strat implement during normal battle?

[Thomek]

I think we need to keep it stupid simple.

People must actively carry banners with huge flags and bonuses around.
3 colors (archers, inf, cav)

I still think W:L ratio should determine who should be leaders. The only way to bypass the value you have for the autobalancer is to help others get kills or lead your team. Hence you can be as good individualist as you want, but it won't affect your personal W:L ratio. The autobalancer will always weigh in your leetness with another or 3 players on the other team.

Personally I would only respect the W:L ratio of a leader. It's the facts.. Perhaps the W:L ratio when he leads should be the only ones counting, but still.. Before that normal W:L ratio quite accurately identifies a team player. There will always be some bias towards archers and cav since they more often deal damage without killing, assisting, bumping etc.. But I suspect not by that much more than an average inf.

[gazda]

havent red any post so im dont know if this was suggested, but im making it anyway

what if we give attribute of "commander" to some players, and that somone with "commander" attribute  would be able to join as spectator(he wouldnt be actually playing) and he would have all kind of commands and options, AND he would also get the multi and gold of his team,

[LordSnow]

I think we need to keep it stupid simple.

People must actively carry banners with huge flags and bonuses around.
3 colors (archers, inf, cav)

I still think W:L ratio should determine who should be leaders. The only way to bypass the value you have for the autobalancer is to help others get kills or lead your team. Hence you can be as good individualist as you want, but it won't affect your personal W:L ratio. The autobalancer will always weigh in your leetness with another or 3 players on the other team.

Personally I would only respect the W:L ratio of a leader. It's the facts.. Perhaps the W:L ratio when he leads should be the only ones counting, but still.. Before that normal W:L ratio quite accurately identifies a team player. There will always be some bias towards archers and cav since they more often deal damage without killing, assisting, bumping etc.. But I suspect not by that much more than an average inf.

I'd love banner that we can carry with our clan emblem on it, been on sugestion board many times:/

[Joker86]

I still think W:L ratio should determine who should be leaders. The only way to bypass the value you have for the autobalancer is to help others get kills or lead your team. Hence you can be as good individualist as you want, but it won't affect your personal W:L ratio. The autobalancer will always weigh in your leetness with another or 3 players on the other team.

Personally I would only respect the W:L ratio of a leader. It's the facts.. Perhaps the W:L ratio when he leads should be the only ones counting, but still.. Before that normal W:L ratio quite accurately identifies a team player. There will always be some bias towards archers and cav since they more often deal damage without killing, assisting, bumping etc.. But I suspect not by that much more than an average inf.

I don't get why you are so hooked on the W:L-ratio 

- You claim that there is (almost) none teamplay on the servers
||
V
- Which means teamplay has no impact on the end of rounds. How could it, it's not existant?
||
V
- The only thing left to determine the outcome of a round is the average skill of a team and/or teamplay among clan players (= your banner)
||
V
- Currently the W:L will probably show the same players like the K:D will. Which will be the clan players with most skill
||
V
- No way this can be a good base to determine good leaders


You are right, after a command system is not only implemented, but also accepted and fully integrated into the gameplay, it is a good way to observe the success of a commander as long as you only count those rounds when he is in charge. But the problem is: this only works at a later stage, and is completely unsuitable for finding commanders, especially at the current state of the game.

Even if we DID have a working command system, and you would like to become a new commander, your W:L would only show how successfull your previous commanders were.

The point is: a single player can't influence his W:L WITHOUT having most of his team listening to him.

It's like saying "You can only start studying Maths if you made your professor in maths. Eerrrr..."

Or better:

"You can only become mayor of your town if the household of your town exceeds a certain value, showing that you have lead your town well before becoming mayor. Eerrrr.."

havent red any post so im dont know if this was suggested, but im making it anyway

what if we give attribute of "commander" to some players, and that somone with "commander" attribute  would be able to join as spectator(he wouldnt be actually playing) and he would have all kind of commands and options, AND he would also get the multi and gold of his team,

Actually an interesting idea, although I sounds abusable. Because every tard can give himself a high commander skill and then troll around with the commands ingame... but sounds worth thinking about it a bit further... 

[CrazyCracka420]

Back up in your ass with a resurrection.