Commander nomination in Battle

[Torben]

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. 

[Micah]

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 ?

[Rusty_Shacklefjord]

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:

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.

[Grumpy_Nic]

Well if they are working on it anyway and doing it different then fuck this thread and close it.

[Torben]

(click to show/hide)

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:

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.

[Torben]

Well if they are working on it anyway and doing it different then fuck this thread and close it.

they are?  sweet lord!  nice...

[Joker86]

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.

[Micah]

(click to show/hide)

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:

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.

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?

...devs are talking about changing the point/xp system soon...

also, who said its not worth discussing about it if they would ?

[Micah]

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 ;)

[Joker86]

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.

[Micah]

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.

[Rusty_Shacklefjord]

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.

[Torben]

(click to show/hide)

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.

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.

(click to show/hide)

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.

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.

[Micah]

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 !

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 

[Joker86]

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.

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...