Commander Chat for cRPG - Poll inside.

[Chris_the_Animal]

I think this is awesome.
Players who are not used to give commands can learn from others who are maybe playing the game for much longer. Even if you are not as good as player you could be a great commander and help your team to victory with your brain.

One question: Siege and Battle or only Battle?

[Kalam]

Seems great. DO EET COMMUNITY.

[Vermilion]

If this gets added please also add an option to hide it (permanently, I don't want to have to disable it every freking map).

D. Being a commander is optional. Tick a box on the website if you wish to participate.

Such as this, one button for wanting to be a commander, another for wanting to see commands.

There's enough crap spammed in chat and it is very unlikely that the "leader" will have any actual leadership skills which get expressed via the chat system.


I like the command in strategus (via TS) because I can choose which faction to apply for and therefore who will be commanding.
Giving "leadership text" to a random person on a server will just irritate me.

[Chris_the_Animal]

Giving "leadership text" to a random person on a server will just irritate me.

Its not a random person. It will be someone who already gained some Victorys and who showed that he got some knowledge about tactics and so on. In the first 2 weeks of this there will maybe be some guys who are not that good, but after these starter weeks it will improve and the real tacticians will get figured out.

[Thomek]

@Vermilion, please read the whole first post. It's not a random person, it will be people who are actually creating results who will be commanders. Their results in wins and losses decide.
But yeah, sure, that could be an option..

Just to let people know, we are voting for a feature quite likely to be implemented if we get enough votes, like 80% for..

The reason I didn't suggest voice chat is because it is nearly impossible to do. I've written walls of text about it before, but it requires a large effort with potentially no gain that no one is willing to do.

* Yes commanding is possible today as well, it's just that its hard to read the white text while in battle, separating it from  all the other chat.
* Voice commands are good, but more used for local coop and spammed a lot, watering it out.
* We would get a new stat to track!
* This is for battle only at first. Vote yes still, because there might be ways to implement it for siege later, It's just complicated with the way autobalance work there.

If players don't want to even TRY it, well then 

carry on.

[Micah]

Good idea .. yet, as Teeth stated, a bit late for development steps in that direction for cRPG ... considering, that we had  (very similar) ingame commanding/teamwork support suggestions and discussions going on like two years (?) ago, when mod was still active and not dieing like now...

Very interresting to see how things will work out social/gameplay-wise, as an experiment with  perhaps applicable results for M:BG ... i wouldnt get my hopes to high though, for things will change and devs will put more of efford into it then they had showed in the past especially since cRPG development is cooking on very low heat as far as i understand it.

[Butan]

Totally worth a try, like others said.



I'll just add one thing :


Why not add the M&B voice command (Infantry/archers/cavalry, move/attack/etc) with F1-9, mixing it with current flag system + cRPG voice commands ?
If flags were LOCKED for the sole use of the Commander, and that his voice command were in a BRIGHT FONT, it would be very easy and efficient to use!



Like others also said, TS > typing. But if you have shortcuts to give orders fast, it can put the Commander on the same level as TS (without the detailed orders).

[Vermilion]

Its not a random person. It will be someone who already gained some Victorys and who showed that he got some knowledge about tactics and so on. In the first 2 weeks of this there will maybe be some guys who are not that good, but after these starter weeks it will improve and the real tacticians will get figured out.

Yes, I read Thomeks post before posting.

The system he has suggested has no validation towards someone credentials for commanding a battle.

The 'team balance/banner balance' system is too poor for this, often ending with one team dominating the map. The first round of a new map is always the most interesting because the all the players are shuffled up.

Winning has nothing to do with how good the leadership is especially if people are free to ignore it and play as they wish.

So someone who has won a few maps in a row or a randomly selected person, it makes no difference.


Ever way, I don't care who the person is who gains "leadership text" or how they gained it. I'm not going to follow it and I don't want to see it.

As far as I see it, you want to command the battle and tell people where to go etc. you have two choices
1. Make an army on strat, attack someone and only accept people who are in your TS and willing to follow your orders
2. Play Commander mode (or what ever it was called, if it's still running that is)

@Vermilion, please read the whole first post. It's not a random person, it will be people who are actually creating results who will be commanders. Their results in wins and losses decide.
But yeah, sure, that could be an option..

My reply is the same as that to Chris.

Unless you are going to add some system where it can tell if the team won by actually following your order/lost due to following your orders. It is basically a random selection with no real credentials towards leadership.

[EyeBeat]

I am down though you need to give admins the ability to strip people of commander status if they abuse it.  Like spamming the chat.

[Leshma]

I support this. Voice commands are decent way to command the army but I learned to ignore them because so many people like to abuse voice commands.

I suppose this is another pet project of Paul? If that's the case, I see no reason why we should be against it. At this point it's highly unlikely that anyone besides Paul will implement new stuff in cRPG. Be grateful, folks.

[Xant]

I support this. Voice commands are decent way to command the army but I learned to ignore them because so many people like to abuse voice commands.

I suppose this is another pet project of Paul? If that's the case, I see no reason why would should be against. At this point it's highly unlikely that anyone besides Paul will implement new stuff in cRPG. Be grateful, folks.

http://forum.melee.org/suggestions-corner/4-easy-fixes-to-make-crpg-better/msg877313/#msg877313

[Micah]

I support this. Voice commands are decent way to command the army but I learned to ignore them because so many people like to abuse voice commands.

i believe there will be a difference, when voice command confirmation message is in commander color, not the common team-green message ... ^^

[Leman_Russ]

I support people trying to come up with new ideas, but I think there are currently more important things that should be looked at.  For instance, having more than just Tydeus handling balance would be a huge step in the right direction.  Or maybe fixing some of the major bugs in strat battles.  There is a lot of stuff that more than likely will never happen, and this will probably end up being one of these things.

[Thomek]

(click to show/hide)

Yes, I read Thomeks post before posting.

The system he has suggested has no validation towards someone credentials for commanding a battle.

The 'team balance/banner balance' system is too poor for this, often ending with one team dominating the map. The first round of a new map is always the most interesting because the all the players are shuffled up.

Winning has nothing to do with how good the leadership is especially if people are free to ignore it and play as they wish.

So someone who has won a few maps in a row or a randomly selected person, it makes no difference.


Ever way, I don't care who the person is who gains "leadership text" or how they gained it. I'm not going to follow it and I don't want to see it.

As far as I see it, you want to command the battle and tell people where to go etc. you have two choices
1. Make an army on strat, attack someone and only accept people who are in your TS and willing to follow your orders
2. Play Commander mode (or what ever it was called, if it's still running that is)


My reply is the same as that to Chris.

Unless you are going to add some system where it can tell if the team won by actually following your order/lost due to following your orders. It is basically a random selection with no real credentials towards leadership.

You got it all wrong. This idea is to promote TEAMPLAY, introduce interesting new tactics, not to stroke some leader ego's.  The moment a leader shows some disgusting ego, people will simply stop following his orders. I don't think assholes have even a slight chance to become frequent commanders.

You must be NA, because on EU we have had good times when players such as Phaz would lead teams to victories again and again.(with just chat) Before bannerbalance even got implemented. This idea is all about creating characters like that, and giving possibilities to players to become commanders. It will be very hard to get there, but that path requires non-egoistic teamplay and being LIKED in the community.

So we won't just have leaders that are liked, we will have lots of players who wants to be liked because they want to be leaders one day. I think this idea could do great things to the community even: Just being a cool guy has rewards(!)

Most likely, the commanders won't be just clan stackers or leet players. They will be the ones people actually want to listen to.

The first battle a commander has, is to win the trust of his fellow players. If he looses that one, he has no future as a commander.   (Because commanding someone who doesn't listen is like commanding no-one, thus his commanding is ineffective, and will not improve his W:L ratio, thus make him less likely to be commander again.)

[matt2507]

This thing should have been implemented from the beginning