I hesitate to favour team benefits (like the aforementioned +athletics bonus) because I don't think I could stand the crying over it. Fact is, sometimes teams would be massively out-gunned in those scenarios by opposing teams with a dedicated leader. I'd prefer to rely on people being self-interested enough in their multiplier that they realize victory only comes through teamwork and PrideCrusher.
1-2 Athletics bonus is not that much, but yes that is the intention behind it, to get people to command and folks to follow them. If we will get more whiners than now, i can't say, i am not that much a prophet. But the whining now if you listen to it carefully is mostly like "dump team, should have done that , we need a plan, we were scattered, LEFT LEFT , no RIGHT RIGTH, and such like" which leads to my suggestion in the first place, change the system, if it is better, the whinnig will be about other things, if not it was worth a try.
2) You're right that we shouldn't need anything more than enlightened self-interest to have more organized multi-player. However I think it's an issue in the first place because we need a way to bridge the gap between people who want more teamwork, and people who couldn't care less. Since the ones who don't care limit the ones who do, short of an incentive what can be done to foster more natural teamwork?
true
What about if leaders could create and actively edit a priority list that shows on a corner of their team's screens? That way they could be free to run around the field and see where enemies are going, and assign tasks or locations with amounts of soldiers needed. Then players who care for strategy could respond to the list, leaving the more 'rambo/ronan' types to do what they're gonna do anyway.
If they can be handled easiely why not. I still think of the difference between army and bregade commands. The former has more time to his hands as he is in spectator mode, can declare targets to reach, where the bregade command focuses on targets of opportunities. We got a overall strategy planer, who choses more the places where the battels take places where to go next and the commander who is directly in the situation, who has to deside if he is actually picking a fight or perhaps retreating to another position, because the forces would otherwise overwhelm them.
In the vast majority of cases those that are left on their own fighting 20 other people and yet still keep running away, stand on a roof, or hide in the bushes somewhere are stupid fucking bundle of stickss who accomplish literally nothing but waste time, even if that time is only 2 or 3 minutes.
Charge is surly more to my liking, then sit and wait, but thats because of my natural impatience. I have to admit, that soemtimes camping is a valid strategy, but it needs preparation(ladders/siege shields/constructions), depending on the map as you said it can be a complete failure if 20 people hide/wait/camp at the same spot.
I disagree that it is allways time waisting, the defender/camper choses mostly the place, the attacker mostly the time when to attack, if the attacker doesn't rush he might loose more people to archers, but if he rushes the faster troops can come in too early and get smashed which results in a good moral of the defender. Does the defender repeat the tactics it is highly likely the attacker will find a spot to sneak in and backstab the campers.
Don't get me wrong, there are occasionally heroes who win it for their team, but it's rare.
True, you yourself are one of the better players arround i have met.
If you want tactics and organization, set it up at the start of the round. When your team are all dead and you're being rushed by half the enemy team is a little too late, and being in that situation in the first place means ,again, that you were fucking useless.
I don't agree, At the start of the round it is all in motion allready, to setup tactics at the begining we would need more time, have a look here
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,831.0.htmlATM the best time for suggestions would be when nearly all are dead, problem is autobalace here, you can't do it at the end of a round because the people get switched and now we would have the knowledge about our plans in the hand of the enemy.
No one should have to wait for you to set up some so called "tactics" by yourself that at most will net you a few more kills, and do nothing for your team.
I think we do not imagine the same, i don't want anyone to wait, ... perhaps 15-30 seconds, is that really too much? I don't know about so called "tactics". In my imagination, the army comanders would do no killing at all because he is in specmode and the bregade command can get how many he is capable of, though he has to manage and to fight at the same time. Those positions are clearly not for people who just want to kill stuff. Clearly not a way to "net you a few more kills".
In short, fuck delayers, go play a single player game. This is a team game, it's not Thief online version.
agreed, your rant is particularly ironic in that you praise teamwork and last stand delayers at the same time. Diametrically opposed.
PS: Savage 2 was fucking great 
but Savage 2 was also a resource game with economic objectives (mines, bases, upgraded units/buildings). You can't really compare it to a cRPG round. It's like comparing Starcraft to Myth TFL.
Never played it, but by the way Oberyn, as good as you are as a single player, you could do at least me a favour. Swear less and save me all the time to figure out the information in between as time is so important to you, you surly understand. Thanks for your constructive critisism.
