56 replies to this topic

[Major Derps]

Kraven Kor, on 06 June 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

ELO has nothing to do with your ability, nor desire, to lead the team.

I would rather see some type of "command experience indicator" and votes for who gets to be commander, over any arbitrary "player with best stats is leader" or the current "whoever wants to be leader is leader."

Show W/L percentage *as commander* of the player who is requesting command and let the team aye / nay it.

That brings uncontrollable variables into it. My W/L is pretty low, but not all my fault. Yes, I've done stupid things which have resulted with me in a ball of flames; but for game after game last night, I was stuck with noobs (noobs are ok, just sick of being stuck with them), who just got steam rolled; with not one of them getting a kill, or any that got within 200 points of the damage I dealt. Some one can take command, and cap rush 100 times and succeed 90 of those times, and he (or she) will have a 90% W/L.

I do prefer the voting system over the OPs suggestion though.

Edited by Mokey Mot, 06 June 2013 - 02:02 PM.

[Deathlike]

Kraven Kor, on 06 June 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

ELO has nothing to do with your ability, nor desire, to lead the team.

I would rather see some type of "command experience indicator" and votes for who gets to be commander, over any arbitrary "player with best stats is leader" or the current "whoever wants to be leader is leader."

Show W/L percentage *as commander* of the player who is requesting command and let the team aye / nay it.

I'm not sure showing W/L % is optimal because not all matches are equal... maybe something like "won last X matches of 10 (max) as commander" would be better. A command experience indicator would be fine.. but we would need to define how it functions first.

[HiplyRustic]

Bhael Fire, on 06 June 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

True. But luckiy it is the responsibility of only the BEST players to lead. The good players only have to follow orders.

Optionally, it might be a good idea to allow whoever's in charge to relinquish command to another player of his choice.

That's utter crap. The best leader may well be the geaked out kid with the shockingly bad hand/eye coordination and reflexes who knows tactics and strategies far better than the twitchmeister driving the AC40 that runs up insane K/D ratios.

[Bhael Fire]

HiplyRustic, on 06 June 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

That's utter crap. The best leader may well be the geaked out kid with the shockingly bad hand/eye coordination and reflexes who knows tactics and strategies far better than the twitchmeister driving the AC40 that runs up insane K/D ratios.

I don't know, man. That might sound good on paper in the Politically Correct Handbook, but the truth is, players that play the game frequently and play expertly often have the best advice on how to beat the enemy. All the best leaders I've seen in the game were total BAMFs..patiently and expertly taking out enemy mechs systematically.

These guys know real tactics better than any armchair tactician that has no idea if his half-cocked harebrain schemes will even work on the selected map against the current enemy. The tactics of a player that has navigated and played the maps inside and out, and won countless matches and killed numerous foes through cunning and tenacity will always trump the tactics of a player that only thinks they are a good tactician because they saw it on TV.

In other words, I find your example to be dubious at best.

Edited by Bhael Fire, 06 June 2013 - 07:04 PM.

[Pater Mors]

xDeityx, on 06 June 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

The actual answer to the problem you're trying to solve is a quality in-game VOIP system.

I don't even use VOIP as I don't have much inclination to voice chat with other players (text is fine for me), but I 100% agree with this statement.

[Bhael Fire]

xDeityx, on 06 June 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

The actual answer to the problem you're trying to solve is a quality in-game VOIP system.

This is something that I've been pushing for for a VERY long time. I totally agree.

[MuKen]

Bhael Fire, on 06 June 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

I don't know, man. That might sound good on paper in the Politically Correct Handbook, but the truth is, players that play the game frequently and play expertly often have the best advice on how to beat the enemy. All the best leaders I've seen in the game were total BAMFs..patiently and expertly taking out enemy mechs systematically.

Yeah, I'll bet in your experience they were all the top ELO'd players in their respective matches.

Oh wait, anecdotal evidence is even LESS useful than usual, since we can't see ELO. (and even in normal circumstances, you should know not to be citing anecdotal evidence).

Maybe in half those matches those great leaders never would have got a chance to lead if you had your way because regardless of how BAMF they were in game, they were not in fact the highest ranked player on the team.

Edited by MuKen, 06 June 2013 - 11:01 PM.

[Corvus Antaka]

A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.

—Lao Tzu

[Agent CraZy DiP]

Just because someone has a high ELO doesn't mean they're a good commander. I think for the first 15 seconds of the match everyone that wants it can apply to be the commander, and out of the people that apply it goes to the person with the highest ELO.

[Inkarnus]

The lessest problem is to find a leader
its more important to find ppl
that follow your orders
a cbill bonus for that would
be nice

[EGG]

Currently anyone can put themselves into the position, but no-one does. I think I've seen one person start using the Commander functions so far this year.

Some high Elo players slotted into the Commander position won't want to give orders, that's their decision. However some will, and maybe those games will be the better for it.


Regarding Elo being an indication of Leadership, this is a 15 minute max scratch-match. We don't need someone with the capability to run a top-tier clan for multiple years, all that's needed is someone with tactical knowledge. If you have the highest Elo, there's a very good chance you also have the best situational awareness and understand how and where to engage. Also, and this is important, they've spent some of their time playing with and learning from even higher Elo players than the other 7.

Running a clan involves recruiting, training, 'managing' egos, complex stategising and even firing. But none of these skills are needed in a pug game.

Voip would be useful of course, but it doesn't resolve the issue of who do you listen to? The Dragon doing the Mexican gun dance in the middle of the Caustic caldera, or the guy asking the left flank to pull back?

[Just4Mugs]

I say make highest Elo commander and give him the option to resign and if once he resigns then someone else can take over if they want... because i like the idea of having a player who knows what's going on in the command chair rather than some pug, but at the same time i agree that not everyone wants to be the leader...

[Typhoon Storm 2142]

No! If the commander would be autopicked after ELO, I would be it in almost every match I play. Definitely don't want that. And I don't want to resign at the beginning of every match. Screw this idea, let the not so great players be able to become commander aswell.

Anyways, I'm sure ELO rating has nothing to do with your skill to command a team.

Edited by Typhoon Storm 2142, 07 June 2013 - 03:06 AM.

[HiplyRustic]

Bhael Fire, on 06 June 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

I don't know, man. That might sound good on paper in the Politically Correct Handbook, but the truth is, players that play the game frequently and play expertly often have the best advice on how to beat the enemy. All the best leaders I've seen in the game were total BAMFs..patiently and expertly taking out enemy mechs systematically.

These guys know real tactics better than any armchair tactician that has no idea if his half-cocked harebrain schemes will even work on the selected map against the current enemy. The tactics of a player that has navigated and played the maps inside and out, and won countless matches and killed numerous foes through cunning and tenacity will always trump the tactics of a player that only thinks they are a good tactician because they saw it on TV.

In other words, I find your example to be dubious at best.

My words, you did not read them.

I'll try again:

A person who plays the game, a lot, and is well versed intellectually in tactics and can communicate them clearly...but who is has the reaction times of a three-toed sloth and the hand-eye coordination of Helen Keller...is a better candidate for leader, imo, than the twitch-kiddie CounterStrike Commando who can snipe the eye out of an Atlas from 800m without thinking about it (and who will have a higher ELO score) or the K/D farmer following the damage dealers and damage soakers around in his AC40 coring mechs that are already near death (who will also hiave a higher ELO score while forcing down the scores of the peole doing the heavy lifting for him).

Clearer?

PC my dyin' a$$...have you actually read any of my other posts?

Edited by HiplyRustic, 07 June 2013 - 05:22 AM.

[scJazz]

Ohhh heck no to OP!

Why?

Because Goons (SA) will sit there and methodically mess with 4mans for no other purpose than to determine their ELO through the backdoor you just opened!

[Lord of All]

Bad Idea, The best FPS will not be the best strategist. Sorry clickfest warriors.

[Odins Fist]

EGG, on 06 June 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

"Highest Elo Player On Team Is Slotted In As Commander"

I will have quote myself

Odins Fist, on 06 June 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

"NO", there are too many pilots out their that think they are General Freakin Patton, and aren't. Do you know how many times someone that is considered to be one of the better players in MWO has started barking out commands to do this and that, then yell at you when you "DO" what they want, and then they end up losing the match for your team anyway because they thought they were the reincarnation of Alexander the Great..?? I had some slack jawed wanna be Erwin Rommel go ape after we did exactly what he wanted, and his lance couldn't reach the objective, and guess who did more damage got more saviour kills?

Also, what happens when that person doesn't want to be bothered with having command over people that might not listen anyway.

No, sorry.. A bad idea is a bad idea.

A really awful idea is "STILL" a really awful idea...

[MuKen]

EGG, on 07 June 2013 - 02:15 AM, said:

If you have the highest Elo, there's a very good chance you also have the best situational awareness and understand how and where to engage.

Why do people keep saying this? We have next to no information about how ELO is calculated or what people's ELOs are. And now people are jumping to conclusions about how good a commander you must be if you have high ELO, which it is not even intended to measure.

You don't even know if it does a good job of measuring what it is supposed to measure, and now you're going to assume it does a great job of measuring something else entirely.

Edited by MuKen, 07 June 2013 - 09:16 AM.

[Zerberus]

Bhael Fire, on 06 June 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

True. But luckiy it is the responsibility of only the BEST players to lead. The good players only have to follow orders.

Optionally, it might be a good idea to allow whoever's in charge to relinquish command to another player of his choice.

In pure theory, a good idea.

The problem with an arbitrary system like this is reality.

8 players with elos of 750, 760, and so forth up to 830. All insignificantly better or worse players.

830 gets designated commander, and is FOTM cheesebuilder with only his own K/D ration in his eyes that couldn`t care less about his teammates as long as they don`t steal his kills.

790 is a RL Colonel with actual leadership experience that just started the game last week and hasn`t got his 25 matches done yet. But he understands tactics, planning and positioning, likely better than anyone on the battlefield. And by pure chance he`s seen this map 2-3 times before, so he knows the basic choke points et.al.

See why voluntary might make more sense?

There are numerous similar examples in history. The best WARRIORS are very rarely (actually almost never) the best LEADERS. This is becasue while the warriors were hoining their fighting skills, teh leaders concerned themselves with tactics, terrain, objectives and teh enemy in a fashoin much more encompassing than "I wanna kill somebody and be good at it". Good warriors are, in essence, assassins with a purpose. A leader must be much more, he must give them that purpose.

Do not misunderstand me, most (combat level) leaders are in fact excellent warriors, or they would have not have survived to gain teh knowledge and experience necessary to lead effectively. But not the best. This is why even in an elite group of operators such as DEVGRU (aka. Seal Team 6) you still have a commanding officer who`s word is law. And he is not selected for that role solely due to his ability to doubletap someone`s head at 600yards.

Edited by Zerberus, 07 June 2013 - 09:39 AM.

[Agent CraZy DiP]

Wait... I just realized something... None of this matters because eventually you will HAVE to have the commander module in order to be the commander. Problem solved.