29 replies to this topic

[Sadist Cain]

In light of Nikos recent thread about Mentors or tutors of sort I think it's necessary to shove Teamwork and leadership into the limelight more.

Command wheel, obviously is desperately needed along with other features (Discuss)

There's very little to no framework that encourages better players to lead others, and pretty much nothing which encourages new players to follow the orders of those leaders.

That is your "mentor" system and it's sure as hell an awful lot more effective if it's done properly.

Consider War thunder's system, you can create a squad full of random pugs and fly a formation of bombers with an escort and work together.

Mechwarrior starts up and you're more distant from the people who play it than you are by going on some forum.
That needs to change and we need to encourage teamwork and leadership in games.

Perfectly fine for those who don't wanna lance up cos they're too l33t or too stupid but the way of things is you go alone and you die.
Get people working together more, Give the tools that makes it more desirable for a player to command a lance.

Why don't we showcase the best lance at the end of a game?
Why are there no extra rewards for effectively leading a lance?
Why no rewards for players who achieve good results following orders of their lance commander?
Why can a noobie have the same options to lead as someone with 100+ games?

Just a few small and simple changes could encourage some players to lead, be lead, communicate between each other and think more tactically. The Smurfs follow suit sometimes.

Is it any wonder there was such upset at the Game mode voting?

[Dock Steward]

It could definitely be cool to give rewards for reaching a destination point laid out by the commander and things like that, but you're right, there would have to be a better system for deciding who the leader was. Can't just have it be whoever gets to it first, especially if it starts mattering in rewards.

Any merit to: Highest Elo gets the position?

Man, implementation gets trickier the more you think about it. The first system I thought of is way too exploitable.

Edited by Dock Steward, 13 October 2014 - 12:00 PM.

[Hospy]

Not a super fan of the elo thing, what if you have people who have no interest in leading?

Sort of related, but World of Warcraft dungeon finder has an option when you queue for an instance on whether you want to be a leader or not. Might be useful here?

[Dock Steward]

Hospy, on 13 October 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

Not a super fan of the elo thing, what if you have people who have no interest in leading?

Sort of related, but World of Warcraft dungeon finder has an option when you queue for an instance on whether you want to be a leader or not. Might be useful here?

I don't like the Elo thing either, just my first (bad) idea. But you could always have a defer option.

[Sadist Cain]

Maybe you could apply on here to be a Lance commander, some sort of application process of sorts.

Side effect of that is it creates that element of mystery for nubs " How dya do that?"

Or having to go through a specific tutorial which details using a lance to its maximum potential and covers lance based combat? Can't command until you have that.

Other systems I've seen employ bonuses for sticking with your squad. Also there's enhanced bonuses for kill assists, spotting assists etc. when done within a Squad.

Movement bonuses and whatnot aren't as easily exploitable as you may think, they just need slight restrictions placing on them to prevent spam (I.e. can't repeatedly place one down in the same area) have a "Spot" marker which gives no reward that can be spammed to point your lance in the right direction quickly.

All manner of things which the current game mechanics support.

Hospy, on 13 October 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

Not a super fan of the elo thing, what if you have people who have no interest in leading?

Sort of related, but World of Warcraft dungeon finder has an option when you queue for an instance on whether you want to be a leader or not. Might be useful here?

The method of thinking behind that system is one that PGi needs to follow certainly, maybe not with that exact system but we need a sense of a leadership hierarchy in game.

Otherwise what are the CW battles going to be like for those not in units? or even those in units dropping in groups less than 10? how do they work together, how to they establish the plan?

It's glorious seeing it on the forums and reflected in game, more and more people are putting the effort in to communicate and fight together.
Enhancement is required!

Edited by Sadist Cain, 13 October 2014 - 12:20 PM.

[MadPanda]

Lance leaders should be given a button that lets you blow up your lance mates mech. I try to sometimes do "lance moves", but there is always some sheep who just herd straight into the main group and ignore everything else. In some maps where you know exactly the lance locations, you can do some cute lance vs lance fights but too many times not all from your lance want to come. They just wanna ball with the main group.

[Dock Steward]

Sadist Cain, on 13 October 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:

Maybe you could apply on here to be a Lance commander, some sort of application process of sorts.

Side effect of that is it creates that element of mystery for nubs " How dya do that?"

Or having to go through a specific tutorial which details using a lance to its maximum potential and covers lance based combat? Can't command until you have that.

Other systems I've seen employ bonuses for sticking with your squad. Also there's enhanced bonuses for kill assists, spotting assists etc. when done within a Squad.

Movement bonuses and whatnot aren't as easily exploitable as you may think, they just need slight restrictions placing on them to prevent spam (I.e. can't repeatedly place one down in the same area) have a "Spot" marker which gives no reward that can be spammed to point your lance in the right direction quickly.

All manner of things which the current game mechanics support.

The problem with having Leaders designated outside the immediate match is...What happens when there's no leaders in that match?

[Khobai]

1) being leader should not automatically give you extra rewards. the reward is helping your team win.
2) following orders should not automatically give you extra rewards either. again the reward is helping your team win by listening to the leader.

If the only incentive to be leader is to help your team win then only players who legitimately want to help their team win will volunteer to be leader. there is no problem with abuse then.

The main problem is players who want to lead dont have the proper tools. We need VOIP, hotkey chat macros, some type of command wheel, and a target designation system.


If you want to reward players who do exceptionally well as leader or in general then I would recommend a voting system at the end of each match where players can vote for other players who they feel did a good job in the match. And that player would then get a cbill/xp bonus. Again its hard to abuse that because you either did a good job or you didnt, and if you didnt other players will call you on it.

Edited by Khobai, 13 October 2014 - 12:28 PM.

[Sadist Cain]

MadPanda, on 13 October 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:

Lance leaders should be given a button that lets you blow up your lance mates mech.

xD

MadPanda, on 13 October 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:

I try to sometimes do "lance moves", but there is always some sheep who just herd straight into the main group and ignore everything else. In some maps where you know exactly the lance locations, you can do some cute lance vs lance fights but too many times not all from your lance want to come. They just wanna ball with the main group.

This is true and needs compensating for of course. however the only way you will beat a massive zerg that out tons you is to out think them, and a handful of pilots can turn the entire field around in those cases.

It's key to make playing in an organised lance more enticing than balling with the "main group". However people should never be forced ergo they should be able to sheep off.
The goal is to have that main group be so small because all other pugs have lanced up that they're effectively just a lance themselves... only they don't desire to coordinate as much.

Good leaders work around those kind of players and use them to their advantage... lord above that's the truth.

Khobai, on 13 October 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

1) being leader should not give you extra rewards. the reward is helping your team win.
2) following orders should not give you extra rewards. again the reward is helping your team win by listening to the leader.

Very true and would be so in an ideal world. In my experience a carrot is a good thing and done well make's it less of a challenge to get people to do as ordered in a short time stressful environment, especially if they're new/logically challenged.
Project Reality had a teamwork score which was accumulated throughout actions completed as a unit, maybe a whole seperate teamwork score which calculates a C-bil/XP bonus depending on a lances teamwork score?

Khobai, on 13 October 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

If the only incentive to be leader is to help your team win then only players who want to help their team win will volunteer to be leader. there is no problem with abuse then.

The problem is players who want to lead dont have the proper tools. We need VOIP, hotkey chat macros, some type of command wheel, and a target designation system.


Now if you want to reward players who do exceptionally well as leader or in general then I would recommend a voting system at the end of each match where players can vote for other players who they feel did a good job in the match. And that player would then get a cbill/xp bonus. Again its hard to abuse that because you either did a good job or you didnt, and if you didnt other players will call you on it.

Damn straight brother O7

Dock Steward, on 13 October 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

The problem with having Leaders designated outside the immediate match is...What happens when there's no leaders in that match?

Not really Designated, just Authenticated say. Like I said, a mandatory tutorial or similar.

If there's no leaders in a match well what happens now would happen, with players communicating more with a command wheel and whatnot maybe...

If's when there are leaders in a match, and good ones they become legend, and folk have a desire to follow that example.

just gotta plant the seed.

Edited by Sadist Cain, 13 October 2014 - 12:34 PM.

[Dock Steward]

Khobai, on 13 October 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

1) being leader should not give you extra rewards. the reward is helping your team win.
2) following orders should not give you extra rewards. again the reward is helping your team win by listening to the leader.

If the only incentive to be leader is to help your team win then only players who want to help their team win will volunteer to be leader. there is no problem with abuse then.

I agree with your logic and conclusion in point 1.

I do think (some) people need an extra incentive to follow orders, as doing so does not always lead to a win. Although, nothing "always" leads to a win, and even having a bad plan is better than none at all...

I'm not sure how to rationalize giving the reward to followers, but my gut thinks it's a good idea.


I just wouldn't want the system to be unbeneficial to Light pilots...(even though I hardly ever am one)

Edited by Dock Steward, 13 October 2014 - 12:30 PM.

[Mazzyplz]

i have talked about this before on this forums because this problem is OLD. my own take on this is to have commander elo.

if you have a nice ratio of won games vs lost when clicking to be commander role, there would be a separate ELO stored for it
then you would have preference for taking lead based on it.

and players who aren't interested in giving orders aren't affected or even counted for that matter.


again, i posted this idea over 1 year ago. with a poll even, and people voted against it - but i think it just needed to be refined a little

i had also thought about bonuses of cash for following an order, in fact - the map orders should appear in game as 3d model icons like in terra nova, strike force centauri.

you could draw waypoints and see the booeys rendered in 3d

buoys?

[Deathlike]

Sadist Cain, on 13 October 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

Why don't we showcase the best lance at the end of a game?
Why are there no extra rewards for effectively leading a lance?
Why no rewards for players who achieve good results following orders of their lance commander?
Why can a noobie have the same options to lead as someone with 100+ games?

While I agreed with the points in your post earlier... these questions... feel difficult to answer.

Showcasing a lance doesn't do much, since the likelihood of those lances to be in separate areas and/or comprised of different teams (in the group queue) is not representative.

Leading a lance is difficult enough, especially if players do their own thing. These things are not really controllable in the first place.

How should the game properly determine "following rewards"? This is a far tougher question to answer in reality, since it is mentioned in vague terms.

I don't know how one would judge them. It is possible to have a newbie with "command experience" (in real life or whatever) vs the veteran that plays the game, but couldn't tell you when to push or not push. That is why "Company" or "Lance" Commander is a "volunteer" position.... and it's also influenced by bugs (JJ key triggering it for whatever reason) or people getting/removing their position @ the start (noise pollution is annoying).

The "simplest" solution, however inelegant is to be able to vote in-game if you thought the Company Commander was good or bad (ideally, only done on a winning team). While this could be abused (like, your own large premade - you could just disable that functionality for them), you would have a visible rating for all to see... on the forums and/or in game... or something like that. It's not ideal nor optimal, but a rough idea on how your peers view you through voting is the way to go.

I could listen to better solutions, but there will always be flaws, so keeping it simple/simplistic is the best solution IMO.

Edited by Deathlike, 13 October 2014 - 12:35 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

I do think (some) people need an extra incentive to follow orders, as doing so does not always lead to a win. Although, nothing "always" leads to a win, and even having a bad plan is better than none at all...

Yeah but leaders dont always make the right decisions.

Rewarding players for blindly following orders discourages players from second guessing the leader when they make bad decisions.

In other words a bad leader is going to bring down the whole team.


Again... the best way to reward players for doing well is to have an after-match voting system where you can vote for players who you think deserve a bonus.

Edited by Khobai, 13 October 2014 - 12:37 PM.

[Sadist Cain]

Dock Steward, on 13 October 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

I just wouldn't want the system to be unbeneficial to Light pilots...(even though I hardly ever am one)

Ohhhh when you think about it a good light is an LC's wet dream. Fast moving, capable of scouting out the enemy, Narcing, tagging, ECMing, disorienting, distracting, flanking(fo' Realz!)....

Yum

Khobai, on 13 October 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

Yeah but leaders dont always make the right decisions.

Rewarding players for blindly following orders discourages players from second guessing the leader when they make bad decisions.

In other words a bad leader is going to bring down the whole team.


Again... the best way to reward players for doing well is to have an after-match voting system where you can vote for players who you think deserve a bonus.

Another reason why it's important for some sort of visible measure to show the experienced commanders apart from the chap having a go (Commander cadet bonus to encourage new folk when the environment inevitably becomes saturated with experience?)

Ultimately a bad leader is capable of bringing down the team of course. I've been under them. However a good team can work with a bad leader, and vice versa.
You'll always get bad luck, bad decisions and so on but hey that's what being a leader is all about, taking the rough with the smooth and accepting responsibility no matter what.

Hence why it's a position in need of encouragement and needs to be well thought out.

Deathlike, on 13 October 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:

While I agreed with the points in your post earlier... these questions... feel difficult to answer.

Showcasing a lance doesn't do much, since the likelihood of those lances to be in separate areas and/or comprised of different teams (in the group queue) is not representative.

....

I could listen to better solutions, but there will always be flaws, so keeping it simple/simplistic is the best solution IMO.

Forgive my vagueness as I was just yanking quick examples from other games out of thin air to inspire a bit of discussion into the matter

Shameless psychological forum warfare I know.

Edited by Sadist Cain, 13 October 2014 - 12:45 PM.

[Dock Steward]

Khobai, on 13 October 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

Yeah but leaders dont always make the right decisions.

Rewarding players for blindly following orders discourages players from second guessing the leader when they make bad decisions.

In other words a bad leader is going to bring down the whole team.

Yeah, it could certainly happen, but if teamwork is at least exhibited as a result, the net seems positive to me. I play with a unit, and we don't question orders, pretty much ever, even if we do disagree with it, because doing so tends to create worse results than following "bad" orders.

[Dock Steward]

Sadist Cain, on 13 October 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

Ohhhh when you think about it a good light is an LC's wet dream. Fast moving, capable of scouting out the enemy, Narcing, tagging, ECMing, disorienting, distracting, flanking(fo' Realz!)....

Yum

Right, but creating these rewards with that Scout in mind is even more difficult due to it's proximity to the rest of the Lance. It would be fairly simple to add a reward for hitting the same target as an ally, or for being in a certain proximity of the LC and doing something (following move order, attack order, etc), but Scouts tend to be positioned elsewhere for some of the time and may even be distracting other enemies intentionally, rather than focusing fire.

[Sadist Cain]

Dock Steward, on 13 October 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

Right, but creating these rewards with that Scout in mind is even more difficult due to it's proximity to the rest of the Lance. It would be fairly simple to add a reward for hitting the same target as an ally, or for being in a certain proximity of the LC and doing something (following move order, attack order, etc), but Scouts tend to be positioned elsewhere for some of the time and may even be distracting other enemies intentionally, rather than focusing fire.

Very true so maybe lights need to be assessed in a different way to the other mech archetypes when considering lance based rewards?
Could be an opportunity there to encourage more players not just into lights but into lights that work with the team.

Light mechs are a prime example of the two is one, one is none philosophy.

[Dock Steward]

Sadist Cain, on 13 October 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

Very true so maybe lights need to be assessed in a different way to the other mech archetypes when considering lance based rewards?
Could be an opportunity there to encourage more players not just into lights but into lights that work with the team.

Light mechs are a prime example of the two is one, one is none philosophy.

Pretty decent idea.

Someone mentioned introducing Leadership points of sorts, maybe if we have a third reward (1st-cbills, 2nd-XP) that was given out for following orders, then when enough were accumulated, they could or could not be traded in for Leadership positions...though I have no idea how you could start that system, as it would require having leaders in the first place...

Then giving orders cost points, but then those points were returned in equal measure if the orders were followed. That way if you were a bad leader, people wouldn't follow your orders and the position would be taken away, but if people did follow orders, then you were safe in your position?

I'm thinking out loud here.

[Sadist Cain]

Dock Steward, on 13 October 2014 - 12:54 PM, said:

Pretty decent idea.

Someone mentioned introducing Leadership points of sorts, maybe if we have a third reward (1st-cbills, 2nd-XP) that was given out for following orders, then when enough were accumulated, they could or could not be traded in for Leadership positions...though I have no idea how you could start that system, as it would require having leaders in the first place...

Then giving orders cost points, but then those points were returned in equal measure if the orders were followed. That way if you were a bad leader, people wouldn't follow your orders and the position would be taken away, but if people did follow orders, then you were safe in your position?

I'm thinking out loud here.

Honestly I think that overcomplicates the issue.

When I mentioned Teamwork points I meant something as a measure of a performance of teamwork, that could then be applied to award a bonus multiplier for any c-bills or XP. Slightly difficult to conceptualize, how do you measure teamwork? There will be multiple ways but what's best for mwo?

Ultimately my thinking behind that is just getting in the mind of even those who don't usually coordinate in such games... "Points... scoreboard... being the bestest etc." and it encourages players like that to chase the points.
IF you've structured your teamwork score system right then even a spoon chasing points its more use than one who isn't.

[Dock Steward]

Sadist Cain, on 13 October 2014 - 12:59 PM, said:

Honestly I think that overcomplicates the issue.

Story of my life.