20 replies to this topic

[Fluff My Garfield]

The goal is simple: give us (PUGers) an obvious indicator as to who we're dropping with that deserves to be listened to. Disorganization is rampant in PUG matches because we're all apparently equals so why should anyone listen to anyone else?

The idea is simple: Every player gets 1 Leadership Credit (Confidence Point?) to award per week. If unused these expire every week. This is to make them less common and therefore more valuable. Credits given to a player stay with them forever and cannot be given out again. At the end of the match players on the winning team have the option to (on the final score screen) award their 1 LC(CP?) for the week to a lance or company commander on their team (who was filling that role at the end of the match). They do so by clicking a little plus sign next to that player's name.

Currently the working idea is a small dot next to their name on the lance, er, listy thingy in the upper left of the in-game HUD and on the, uh, screen that lists everyone in the game before launch (lobby?) and when you hit Tab. The color of the dot (possibly size as well, within restrictions) reflects what percentile of the total population of players with LCs that player occupies. Green means they are very low, bright blazing yellow means they are very high. A player with a higher LC score can take over a lance or company commander slot from a lower one at any time.

The end result is an easy indicator of battles won in a leadership role where a player performed well enough that other players decided they deserved a week's worth of thumbs up. Additionally, since the dot is an indicator of what percentile they occupy within the population, a leader can't earn a bunch and then enjoy their new status permanently. They have to keep earning them and in order to climb up the have to earn them FASTER than everyone else.


WALL OF TEXT BREAKUP PARTY!

FYI: I have no idea who the Lyran Guards are, just found this and giggled.

Time for some examples: Noob starts playing MWO, decides he/she wants to be a respected leader but fears he/she will get booted from a leadership role by a higher LC scorer or not listened to. First: the only people that can boot you from lance commander role are the 3 other PUGers in your lance. If they don't care to do it then you've got a chance. Second, by trying you open yourself up to as many as 11 LCs per match, something that is definitely worth a little effort. Third, a green-dotted leader is still at least 1 LC better (read: 1 victory in a leadership role that impressed somebody) than someone with no dot at all and we (sometimes) follow those now anyways.

What about friends upvoting each other? Yes, such circle jerks will definitely exist. However, while they are slowly taking turns getting a few LCs (keep in mind, each player only has 1 a week to give out so if they are taking turns they are only earning 1 per week on average) actually good commanders dropping with new groups every time will likely be winning an LC or two every victory or two. If a good commander spends an hour a day 5 days a week and 2 hours a day on weekends, average of 4.5 games an hour that's 40.5 games a week and exposure to 445.5 possible LCs. Figure half are wins and on average 1 player each win thinks the commander did well then that's 20.25 LCs per week.

TL;DR: Circle-jerks = 1 LC per week average, good commanders = 20+

Yes, this takes on another dimension once clans (guilds? girl scout troops? I never know what they're called, I'm just a filthy casual) get involved but they'll circle-jerk their choice commanders up to high levels all for what? So PUGs will listen to them? They're in a clan/guild/troop, when do they ever play with PUGs? And even if/when they do they DO still want to win so what would it hurt to listen to them?

To be a problem a group would have to spend months upvoting themselves to blazing yellow dot stardom, then go into PUG matches, steal the commander roles, and either work to sabotage the match (which honestly wouldn't be much worse than just having an average terrible team) or work to win the match and hog all the possibility for LCs. Either way, the experience is either no different or actually better for everyone else. Remember that potential LCs aren't even being wasted with this maneuver and the likelihood of dropping with the same dingbats again isn't high enough to worry about.

WALL OF TEXT BREAK UP AFTER PARTY:



Conclusion: In the end, players will be assessing the leadership of their commanders and deciding if they think that commander's performance was the best they've seen all week. I would not recommend changing it to earning 1 LC per some number of games because then heavy users in clan/guild/troops can unbalance the system too far by making ALL of their members blazing star leaders.

On the development side:

• This is 1 more stat to track and more useful than my MG accuracy
  
• A little tweak at the end screen where we can already input information
  
• A dot next to people's names

Boom. That's it. It would improve PUG matches and that's where most high-paying players start so it's good for business AAAAAANNNNNND fits right into the Mentorship initiative pinned in this forum.

Edited by Ogrecorps, 05 August 2016 - 08:41 AM.

[Spleenslitta]

It's a half decent idea. Better than just remembering names anyways.
Some individuals might make a prank with it though. Get their friends to vote for them and then drop in a PuG match.
Give nonsense orders that unexperienced PuGs follow...chaos.

But they will probably be in the minority.

[MilesTeg1982]

1. please give an option to vote on the third vote for people who don't think its a good idea

2. this relies on people being able to estimate wether the commands/advice of another player was good or bad - I don't think that many people in pugs are able to do that. I have seen many "wannabe commaders" giving really terible commands in matches still won because the other team was even worse - I have also seen people giving good commands/advice and still loose the match due to a superior enemie.

3. Also I have experienced that many people in MWO just give a crap about reasonable advice/commands - like asking "not to do lightshows near teammates in order not to hit teammates" (that request sometimes works but unfortunatly some people read that as "please do more lightshows in my direction" (which is just childish in the best case).

to cut it short - the only viable option I can think of is to give your team some indication about the players experience - however, that will only work to a certain extend cause it does not mean that players really learned from their experience

[Tarogato]

I think it's a good idea, but I'd tune it a little bit.

Each player gets one (or a couple) vote(s) per day. If they appreciated the leadership skills of a comrade, then they can spend their reputation vote of the day on that person.

Every player gets a little mark next to their name that represents their reputation. It can be colour coded, so the higher the reputation, the more it is a certain colour on a spectrum. Reputation is based on a number of upvotes per match. So you do have to keep up the good work and earn reputation, otherwise your average reputation per match will begin to fall.

[Gladewolf]

Interesting idea. Maybe no votes possible from friends/clan mates to help control "popular" , or "dictatorial" leaders. I wish their was a way to base this entirely off of empirical evidence.....but I see know way to do that without some sort of ref. to actually oversee matches.

[RolfS]

Not a good idea. I commonly listen to people rambling on about what we should and mostly find the talkative people to be decrease PUG performance in CW. The argument usually is that having some plan (read run in a single file into the enemy) is somehow better than randomly walking around in a death ball.
I find that everytime somebody tells PUG teams to "rush" OMEGA and people listen the PUG team loses, I simply cant recall a game where this happened and I won. Comment after the match indicate that people think that the strategy used was not the problem.
I don't think PUG players are good tacticans, most PUG players suck at tactics in CW which is why a system based on other players opinions is a really bad idea.

[Fluff My Garfield]

MilesTeg1982, on 15 May 2015 - 10:57 AM, said:

1. please give an option to vote on the third vote for people who don't think its a good idea

No. That's what the second question is for.

MilesTeg1982, on 15 May 2015 - 10:57 AM, said:

2. this relies on people being able to estimate wether the commands/advice of another player was good or bad - I don't think that many people in pugs are able to do that. I have seen many "wannabe commaders" giving really terible commands in matches still won because the other team was even worse - I have also seen people giving good commands/advice and still loose the match due to a superior enemie.

That is a pretty low estimate of the intelligence of PUGS. How hard can it be to assess whether or not someone's attempt at leadership contributed to a win?

MilesTeg1982, on 15 May 2015 - 10:57 AM, said:

to cut it short - the only viable option I can think of is to give your team some indication about the players experience - however, that will only work to a certain extend cause it does not mean that players really learned from their experience

I agree that time in game or total matches played does not translate into knowing or being able to communicate good strategy.

Tarogato, on 15 May 2015 - 11:13 AM, said:

I think it's a good idea, but I'd tune it a little bit.

Each player gets one (or a couple) vote(s) per day. If they appreciated the leadership skills of a comrade, then they can spend their reputation vote of the day on that person.

Every player gets a little mark next to their name that represents their reputation. It can be colour coded, so the higher the reputation, the more it is a certain colour on a spectrum. Reputation is based on a number of upvotes per match. So you do have to keep up the good work and earn reputation, otherwise your average reputation per match will begin to fall.

If the color of the mark is based off of where that player is in the total population the end result is the same: perform well and get upvotes, stay relevant. Stop performing well and fade away. What changes is how often people can give an LC out. If they get one or more a day then they'll be too free with them, I feel. "That dude told a funny joke. Upvote." I want them to only be awarded for truly exemplary performance.

Gladewolf, on 15 May 2015 - 12:03 PM, said:

Interesting idea. Maybe no votes possible from friends/clan mates to help control "popular" , or "dictatorial" leaders. I wish their was a way to base this entirely off of empirical evidence.....but I see know way to do that without some sort of ref. to actually oversee matches.

Originally I wanted to have some sort of AI challenges people would complete but that's a MUCH larger feature to add.

RolfS, on 15 May 2015 - 01:21 PM, said:

Not a good idea. I commonly listen to people rambling on about what we should and mostly find the talkative people to be decrease PUG performance in CW. The argument usually is that having some plan (read run in a single file into the enemy) is somehow better than randomly walking around in a death ball.
I find that everytime somebody tells PUG teams to "rush" OMEGA and people listen the PUG team loses, I simply cant recall a game where this happened and I won. Comment after the match indicate that people think that the strategy used was not the problem.
I don't think PUG players are good tacticans, most PUG players suck at tactics in CW which is why a system based on other players opinions is a really bad idea.

Players have to win AND lead in order to get any LCs. If after a victory you weren't impressed with someone who talked a lot it's likely others weren't either and that player isn't getting squat. Given enough games of that the good commanders will be recognized, rewarded, and shown with a bright dot next to their name for all to see while the people that just jabber get nothing.

Think about it as you play. When games end in victory and someone was trying to lead ask yourself if you would recommend their leadership to anyone else. If not, you wouldn't grant them an LC under this system. If so then you have to go even further and ask yourself if their performance was truly great, the best you've seen all week. If it is then give them the point, let them wear that badge so that the next time they go into a game people know to listen to them instead of the guy telling everyone to power down and hide.

[MilesTeg1982]

Ogrecorps, on 15 May 2015 - 09:17 PM, said:

No. That's what the second question is for.

1. by not giving players a valid options for the third vote incase they don't think it's a good idea you force them to choose an option they don't want and might show them in a very negative light - in other words your vote is biased.

2. I have more than 10.000 matches experience in MWO - and that tells me that it really is very hard to estimate wether or not commands have contributed to victory or not, wanna know why:

- you never know who follows commands and who does not and therefore if it matters or not
- often enough there are some outstanding players just playing really well and thus carrying the team (despite really bad commands in many cases)
- luck is a big part of the game wether you like it or not - to kill/cripple a really good enemie player with some lucky shots might contribute much more to victory than any commands
- there are too many small things which do matter - like people choosing the perfect moment to strike (for example when the whole enemie team turns around and show their backs to you cause they are chasing a spider) - which might be a result of luck, battlefield awareness and sometimes commands (If I would have to guess 1 of 1000).

Lets be perfectly clear on this:
Many people in pugs who claim command think the right tactic is to gather in some area (usually the area where 90% of the teams is heading to anyway ...) - if you think that is good tactic and should be acknowled or even rewarded somehow we'll never be on the same page. In my opinion that is one of the biggest problems the game has - pugs teach people NOT TO: try out different tactics or make bold moves (try for once in a pug to move away from the main body and around the enemie - in many cases shouting will start about how "stupid" that is). Why is that bad? Just play CW-Pugs and you'll see all those "tactics" (bad behaviours might be a more approiate term) fail and people crying about it.

[Fluff My Garfield]

MilesTeg1982, on 16 May 2015 - 12:13 AM, said:

1. by not giving players a valid options for the third vote incase they don't think it's a good idea you force them to choose an option they don't want and might show them in a very negative light - in other words your vote is biased.

The first question is to find out overall how many people like/don't like the idea. The second two are to gauge WHY. The both start with "If," implying that they are optional questions that should be answered only IF the criteria are met. Since you don't think the idea overall is good, you shouldn't be answering the third question.

MilesTeg1982, on 16 May 2015 - 12:13 AM, said:

2. I have more than 10.000 matches experience in MWO - and that tells me that it really is very hard to estimate wether or not commands have contributed to victory or not, wanna know why:

- you never know who follows commands and who does not and therefore if it matters or not
- often enough there are some outstanding players just playing really well and thus carrying the team (despite really bad commands in many cases)
- luck is a big part of the game wether you like it or not - to kill/cripple a really good enemie player with some lucky shots might contribute much more to victory than any commands
- there are too many small things which do matter - like people choosing the perfect moment to strike (for example when the whole enemie team turns around and show their backs to you cause they are chasing a spider) - which might be a result of luck, battlefield awareness and sometimes commands (If I would have to guess 1 of 1000).

You have 10k battles-worth of experience and can't see how a coordinated team will crush an uncoordinated one (assuming approximately equal skill) 90% of the time? I have no argument to fight that, it's nonsense. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

MilesTeg1982, on 16 May 2015 - 12:13 AM, said:

Lets be perfectly clear on this:
Many people in pugs who claim command think the right tactic is to gather in some area (usually the area where 90% of the teams is heading to anyway ...) - if you think that is good tactic and should be acknowled or even rewarded somehow we'll never be on the same page. In my opinion that is one of the biggest problems the game has - pugs teach people NOT TO: try out different tactics or make bold moves (try for once in a pug to move away from the main body and around the enemie - in many cases shouting will start about how "stupid" that is). Why is that bad? Just play CW-Pugs and you'll see all those "tactics" (bad behaviours might be a more approiate term) fail and people crying about it.

1. Some areas on every map are simply better than others because they allow for cover, mobility, and overlapping fields of fire. People instinctively go to these and battle revolves around them.
2. Back when games were 8-man a single light mech could afford to run around and pick at back armor (bold moves) a whole lot more than now. The deathball strategy being applied to 12 mechs makes it so popping around a corner holds a serious likelihood of running into way more firepower than before.
3. I play mostly skirmish because I don't like how long conquests can take and I hate turrets in assault. When they changed the drop points in skirmish from everyone dropping in one spot to each lance being spread out I think the intent was to break up the action, have lances moving out on their own. Nobody does that unless they're in lights. Instead everyone moves forward and clumps up for safety. This makes the engagement area MUCH more consistent and boring. When everyone started together in a clump already there was no telling where it was going to go. The point is, spreading lance drop points out severely limited where battles happen.
4. Let's assume you are right, that PUGs are full of idiots (bad news for the majority of players since most of us don't ALWAYS drop with a clan EVERY. SINGLE. MATCH. so HAVE to participate in a PUG every now and then). So what if they (we) elect lucky loudmouths to lead us (them)?
5. You insist that you know good strategy and tactics (of which there is a serious difference: tactics are individual actions such as using jumpjets to pivot suddenly; strategies are group actions like going up the mountain or around it and therefore what we are talking about) AND that you have extensive experience in PUG matches but somehow, even with grizzled veterans like yourself deigning to drop in PUGs there still aren't enough brain cells to rub together to make a simple judgement call?
6. If YOU know PUGs so well, you must drop with them sometimes. Why? Once you've thought about that, ask yourself how many other players with thousands of games of experience are doing it too. I'm pretty sure MOST players in PUGs are quite experienced and can judge a good call from a bad one. Are you saying people who don't drop with clan mates are imbeciles?
7. I HATE CW because of the lack of coordination and that fact that one has to wait so long just to get roflstomped for 4 lives. Coordination is the key to victory, not luck as you stated above.

It seems to me that all MWO games break down into PUGs and not-pugs. Fair to say? When playing in a not-PUG it's up to that group to figure out how to play, regardless of colored dots next to people's names, you can do whatever you want. Therefore, this system only affects its participants.

[MilesTeg1982]

Ogrecorps, on 16 May 2015 - 05:12 AM, said:

You have 10k battles-worth of experience and can't see how a coordinated team will crush an uncoordinated one (assuming approximately equal skill) 90% of the time? I have no argument to fight that, it's nonsense. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

Actually Yes, cause I'm not able to follow the actions of each of my teammates and the enemie all the time - if you are able to do so - well I'm not sure if **** Sapiens would the right term in that case for you ... However - I do ackknowledge that victory depends on many factors - not only someone giving commands - and that I won't be aware of most of them

Anyway, with you starting to get personal - there is no point in any further discussion on that topic.

ps. you should have tried to make a vote with only 2 questions answered before you gave the same still invalid answer twice ...

[Fluff My Garfield]

MilesTeg1982, on 16 May 2015 - 08:14 AM, said:

Actually Yes, cause I'm not able to follow the actions of each of my teammates and the enemie all the time - if you are able to do so - well I'm not sure if **** Sapiens would the right term in that case for you ... However - I do ackknowledge that victory depends on many factors - not only someone giving commands - and that I won't be aware of most of them

Anyway, with you starting to get personal - there is no point in any further discussion on that topic.

ps. you should have tried to make a vote with only 2 questions answered before you gave the same still invalid answer twice ...

Looks like I owe you an apology. I didn't realize that you had to answer ALL of the questions in the poll. I have added a few answers. I apologize.

Also, I didn't mean to come off like I was attacking you personally. You used yourself as and example and I guess we just aren't going to see eye to eye.

[Insects]

If Im playing PUG then I dont really want to follow someones orders., PUG mode is a more individual feeling.
I can drop with groups I know have good natural leaders for proper teamwork.

[Fluff My Garfield]

Just came fresh from 4 CW losses. The enemy moved with cohesion, purpose. We flailed and failed.

Voice chat in game has given us the ability to coordinate and sometimes its even used for that. But half the time it is, no one listens to the person talking. Why? Partly because flapping about on the map is more fun (though I would think WINNING would top that) but mostly because no one knows who this person talking is. A blazing yellow dot next to his name would at least let everyone know that he knows what he's talking about.

Yes, joining a clan and ONLY playing with them solves this problem. But why should the system be so skewed? Why can't the crucible through which we and all other new players pass be just one tiny bit more effective?

[Shae Starfyre]

I like the idea.

However, it could be even simplier and tied to a win as well which would prevent exploiting.

Sure, a group can decide to drop together and press a button to like someone up in leadership, but if he doesn't have the wins (after implementation), then it doesn't rate as high.

You also don't need limitors.

Let anyone click a +/- on someone (could be only those in a leadership role - lance and so forth).

So, someone takes the lance, gives commands, a couple of people know him and what they are capable of, and up's their cred before game starts so people see this (can also be part of the hud when looking at them and identify them on the mini-map/big map) and instead of a percentage, make it ranking system; private to general or whatever the real ranks were in TT.

Based on the win/loss ratio of the leader it could be a one rank higher or lower reference by tiers of .5

So that someone with a 1.5 win/loss who had a general one star rating might have a 2 star rating instead, while in contrast someone with a .5 win/loss would be regulated to whatever is one rank less than a first star general.

Those with 3 or rounded up 4.0 win/loss rations whether do to CW or not, would be viewed as highly credible when provided ranks from the masses such that a few could elevate the person quickly and subsequent like's (using likes as an example) would increase the rank more quickly.

Never show win/loss as it is a calculation; and even if some group exploits it, that win/loss would prevent someone from getting too high (could be a multiplier as well so that the more who like someone the less and less likely it is to make a difference; diminishing returns).

Anyways, it has some interesting appeal to me.

Although, sometimes, and I think this is almost always the case, how the person comands over VOIP in pug can be decided within the first 30 seconds of play whether he will do well or not.

[Fluff My Garfield]

Aphoticus, on 19 May 2015 - 06:46 AM, said:

Let anyone click a +/- on someone (could be only those in a leadership role - lance and so forth).

So, someone takes the lance, gives commands, a couple of people know him and what they are capable of, and up's their cred before game starts so people see this (can also be part of the hud when looking at them and identify them on the mini-map/big map) and instead of a percentage, make it ranking system; private to general or whatever the real ranks were in TT.

1. I considered allowing upvotes as well as downvotes but I would rather that people advance within the population by being that much better (getting +1s) and to prevent dedicated groups of trolls from ruining someone's good name for no reason other than they can. I want people to be able to keep what they've earned so that they aren't afraid to step out there and lead.
2. I considered a ranking system just like you talking about. I based the color of someone's dot/star on their percentile within the leading population so that they could never earn a certain rank and then just sit back to enjoy that forever. If someone does really well, gets a lot of credit as a leader but then stops leading or getting credit or playing altogether then their star fades, literally and figuratively. I get that your ranking system is based off of win/loss but my win/loss been the same for literally years and has been affected more by randomness than skill. I wouldn't want to get into a game, try to lead, lose because of something outside my control, and have that affect my rank negatively. I would prefer that winning comes with rewards for leaders but losing is more of a "no harm, no foul" situation. Again, I don't want people to fear attempting to lead. There is no need to "put some skin in the game" by risking moving backwards. Instead, better commanders excel by their success rather than other commanders' failures.

Aphoticus, on 19 May 2015 - 06:46 AM, said:

Based on the win/loss ratio of the leader it could be a one rank higher or lower reference by tiers of .5

So that someone with a 1.5 win/loss who had a general one star rating might have a 2 star rating instead, while in contrast someone with a .5 win/loss would be regulated to whatever is one rank less than a first star general.

Those with 3 or rounded up 4.0 win/loss rations whether do to CW or not, would be viewed as highly credible when provided ranks from the masses such that a few could elevate the person quickly and subsequent like's (using likes as an example) would increase the rank more quickly.

The problem with this is that someone could just be a follower with no skill in leadership of their own, get in with the right group, and get the same rank as that group's best commander.

Aphoticus, on 19 May 2015 - 06:46 AM, said:

Although, sometimes, and I think this is almost always the case, how the person comands over VOIP in pug can be decided within the first 30 seconds of play whether he will do well or not.

Initially I wanted to agree wholeheartedly but since I put this idea up I've been trying my hand at leading. So far, no one at all seems to be listening. Maybe my voice is too gruff or they don't like commands so much as suggestions...? I dunno but they have no reason to listen to me so they don't. I said we needed to spread out, gave them specific places to go to get overlapping fields of fire and we stayed clumped up, allowing the enemy to surprise flank us and get more angles on us instead. I said we needed to wait to go in together and gave them a spot, they trickled in one or two at a time and got melted.

Maybe I'm a bad commander or sound like a jerk, I don't know. But every prediction I made about enemy movements came true so SOMEONE should have listened to me but no one did and they probably decided that in the first 30 seconds based off of something completely unrelated to my command ability like my tone of voice or word choice.

[Jorunn]

Implementation of some form of recognition of experience or leadership ability would possibly a positive. Coordination of some form is key to winning as we all know and occasionally it's random, occasionally someone (I try to be that someone) calls rally points and strategies to try to follow based on map and drop locations/changing battlefield conditions.

PUG matches are made up of a random mix of noobs and experienced players with some players liking to go solo cowboy and some wanting to work together to win the match.

I sometimes see poor strategies called out and implemented resulting in match loss which is frustrating. I've got over 3,000 matches in and feel like I've got a pretty good handle on tactics and strategy. Having some idea of how much experience players in a match have would be interesting. Like 0-500 "noob" or "FNG" lol, 500-1,000 "rookie", 1,000-2,000 "soldier", 2,000+ "Veteran" as I didn't feel really competent till I hit 2,000 matches. Or could be equated to military ranks, Private, Corporal, Sargent, Captain, Colonel etc.

This might be more easily implementable than a voting system.

[Banditman]

Ogrecorps, on 18 May 2015 - 07:23 PM, said:

Yes, joining a clan and ONLY playing with them solves this problem. But why should the system be so skewed?

Because it's a team game.

I could go on and on explaining to you why your idea is open to abuse and will not achieve the ends you desire, but since you've already come up with the real solution, there is no need. I applaud that you identified a problem and tried to come up with a solution, but the OP is not the solution you seek. What you came up with is, unfortunately, a highly subjective popularity contest.

[Kenyon Burguess]

ive played too many mmo games where people have bought or ground out a commander tag/icon and then tried to lead other randomly assigned players to their doom repeatedly. it never works out well in pug situations.
players who know what to do, join a unit and command them to victory on teamspeak, thru those victories word of mouth spreads and that's how you earn reputation as a good commander. I know the names of many good commanders from all factions because I fought with/against them previously or heard their dreaded names whispered in dark corners. I would follow those people even if I was unsure about a tactic because I know I can question it and they will assure me with an answer.
that doesn't happen in pug matches and never with a random name, in a random arena because they may have acquired a marker somehow. if you want to herd pugs in a pug match, do it with your own force of will and not ask for a marker that says you have a right to do so.

Edited by Geist Null, 20 May 2015 - 08:28 AM.

[vonKobra]

Didn't read all the responses, but I like the idea of an indicator and voting system. Avoiding gaming of the system would acually be pretty easy, and really you could just give players a chance to vote up or down for their company commander and lance commander at the end of a match, and vote every match, its not a big deal.

Here's how you deal with the 'abuses' that your worried about.

1. votes only show up in pub matches
2. you can't vote for someone in your unit or group
3. votes decompose, the color dot is only indicitave of the votes recived in the last 7 or so days, older votes don't count for or against you, allows newer players to get in if they prove themselves, lets bad showings from new players vanish from their records

If someone wants to 'game' the system by spending hours trying to sync drop for just one vote, they are welcome to, I don't think they'll find it effective.

[Fluff My Garfield]

Banditman, on 20 May 2015 - 07:42 AM, said:

I could go on and on explaining to you why your idea is open to abuse and will not achieve the ends you desire, but since you've already come up with the real solution, there is no need. I applaud that you identified a problem and tried to come up with a solution, but the OP is not the solution you seek. What you came up with is, unfortunately, a highly subjective popularity contest.

I've got time and I'd like to hear what you have to say about exploitation of this idea. I agree that it's a popularity contest. However, the votes are valuable because they only renew once a week and the only candidates are people who were in a position of leadership at during a win. The situation then, at the time of voting is "Of the 3 leaders on this winning team, do I feel like one of them was the BEST leader I've seen in a week?" If there were votes to be cast at the end of every single match, win or lose, then it would get out of hand.

Let's consider worst case scenario: a group of 1,000 players band together to specifically wreck this system. First, what is the worst that they could do? Vote a few people into bright dot status who then hog positions of leadership that they then use to... what? Lead teams to victory? Defeat? Remember that we're not bound to obey them. If someone with a dot tells everyone to spread out and avoid focus firing smart players aren't going to listen and dumb players were going to do something stupid anyway so what's changed from PUG matches now? Maybe they want to vote each other up all together? Well, everyone only gets 1 vote a week so on average everyone's only going to get 1 vote a week. Abusing this system is utterly pointless. it only affects the people actively participating in it. (I'm not yelling at you, I just want people skimming this to notice this statement.)

Okay, goal aside, how exactly would this legion go about abusing the system? Well, they'd organize, get a schedule together, and then once a week upvote someone within their group. So now they have spent all of their votes on a concentrated effort while the many thousands more PUGers are carefully choosing who should get an upvote. Players who take a command position, give instructions, and win are eligible for a point. Let's keep in mind that Jorunn is exactly right:

Jorunn, on 20 May 2015 - 07:07 AM, said:

PUG matches are made up of a random mix of noobs and experienced players

That means in addition to noobs wasting their 1 vote a week on nifty paint jobs and funny jokes, players with thousands of games under their belt will also be assessing whether or not that was the best leadership they've seen all week. All of this means that a large dedicated group is going to spend MONTHS getting nowhere on a plan that does nothing.

I would be happy to hear where I'm wrong in that assessment.

MORE WALL OF TEXT BREAKUP PARTY, COURTESY OF IRAQIWALKER:

(It's a little ironic because I personally prefer lights....)

Geist Null, on 20 May 2015 - 08:27 AM, said:

ive played too many mmo games where people have bought or ground out a commander tag/icon and then tried to lead other randomly assigned players to their doom repeatedly. it never works out well in pug situations. players who know what to do, join a unit and command them to victory on teamspeak, thru those victories word of mouth spreads and that's how you earn reputation as a good commander. I know the names of many good commanders from all factions because I fought with/against them previously or heard their dreaded names whispered in dark corners. I would follow those people even if I was unsure about a tactic because I know I can question it and they will assure me with an answer. that doesn't happen in pug matches and never with a random name, in a random arena because they may have acquired a marker somehow. if you want to herd pugs in a pug match, do it with your own force of will and not ask for a marker that says you have a right to do so.

So what I'm getting from this is that there is already a system in place that you prefer. My understanding of said system is that to function at all it is contingent upon playing with mostly the same people on your team nearly all the time and therefore does not AT ALL work in a PUG match, the place for which my system is designed. Additionally, gaining leadership and respect in this system of yours is apparently based on rumor, hearsay, and being forcefully willful. This sounds time-consuming, inefficient, and very difficult for a new player to become a leader within. Sure, that's how it's done in the real world but we would also all be literally dead the first time we failed in this game if it was meant to be an exact representation. Since it's a game, some creative license is allowed to make it fun. My system is a small addition that harms no one's experience and stands a serious chance of enhancing it for PUGs.

I am reminded of Beowulf's confidence that he was too powerful even unarmed and naked to be overcome. You, apparently, have too powerful a force of will that is felt too strongly through the internet to be resisted. You COMMAND instead of lead and PUGs have no choice but to obey. Except on those more-often-than-not occasions when they DO resist and you have no choice but to nod with grudging approval at THEIR strength of will to not listen to you. I do, however, find it strangely at odds that you say one should lead through force of will but then that you'd follow the experienced commanders you know because if you ask "why" they'll answer you. I have to say, of all the clan vs clan matches I've seen on Youtube I have not yet seen the match where there was time to answer "why" after commands are issued.

Another way to think of my system is to consider what would happen if you, and experience player who knows which commanders to follow, suddenly found yourself with a noob friend playing the game whom you wanted to help. They ask you who they should follow and in some way (verbally, written) you indicate who is worthy. That's all this system is: indication of players' opinions on who to follow.

vonKobra, on 20 May 2015 - 08:43 AM, said:

Didn't read all the responses, but I like the idea of an indicator and voting system. Avoiding gaming of the system would acually be pretty easy, and really you could just give players a chance to vote up or down for their company commander and lance commander at the end of a match, and vote every match, its not a big deal.

Here's how you deal with the 'abuses' that your worried about.

1. votes only show up in pub matches
2. you can't vote for someone in your unit or group
3. votes decompose, the color dot is only indicitave of the votes recived in the last 7 or so days, older votes don't count for or against you, allows newer players to get in if they prove themselves, lets bad showings from new players vanish from their records

If someone wants to 'game' the system by spending hours trying to sync drop for just one vote, they are welcome to, I don't think they'll find it effective.

That is a very valid alternative. There are a few things about it, however, that make me still prefer my system:

1. I don't want players giving out up/downvotes carelessly because they'll get another in 20 minutes. I want them to give their support only after careful consideration. I visit Imgur.com a bit and I've noticed that when upvotes are free weird and useless crap becomes inexplicably popular.
2. Being unable to vote for someone in your unit or group would DEFINITELY solve the circle jerk question but as I stated earlier in this post I think that problem is basically non-existent. Additionally, I play with some friends who sometimes command and I'd like to be able to upvote them when they do well.
3. Votes decomposing does put new and experienced players on the same footing (which is good for noobs) but then you never know who is a seriously seasoned commander. Every week or so players would be starting over, with past victories never building upon each other for long. Going by percentile, however a player can have a career to build on AND they have to stay active or other players will surpass them. Plus, I like the idea of a public leaderboard so that commanders in the top 1 percentile can have grudge matches with hand-picked teams.

Edited by Ogrecorps, 22 May 2015 - 05:17 AM.