56 replies to this topic

[EGG]

As per title.

Other games have visible ranking systems, which help to figure out who on your team is worth their salt and is worth listening to on the battlefield. PGI don't want to go for this kind of full disclosure, as it would likely lead to endless recriminations and more screenshots in the (im)balance forums.

Installing the highest Elo player as unit commander is a step towards this, but without the recrimination downsides. Whether or not that player then wants to give out any orders to the other players is up to them, but at least the other pugs know that the Commander is better than them at internet robots if he does tell them to get their assault over with the other assaults.

Currently Pug games suffer from a herding cats problem, so it's easiest to take a group strategy that will work with a bunch of total unknowns. ie on Caustic waddle up to the caldera, Alpine the valley, etc etc. It's quite likely this could nudge a percentage of Pug games away from using those same strategies every time.

Obviously some players won't listen and many players don't speak english, but those issues occur irrespective of who is commander.

[Stingray Productions]

this kind of a cool idea.

[Mechteric]

Not so keen on this. Many good players don't have any aspiration to lead (which is fine), they just happen to be good pilots! I think I prefer the voluntary method they have now.

[xDeityx]

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

[VXJaeger]

This makes sense, if tools for commanding is brought to level supporting it.

[MuKen]

Not all good players WANT to lead. I would think choosing a player that wants the role is more important than shoehorning in whoever is the best pilot regardless of whether he actually plans on doing any leading.

[Bhael Fire]

I've been suggesting this for a while.

I think commander rank and lance leaders should be auto-assigned at the beginning of the match, based on the highest Elo scores. When the commander or a lance leader dies, the player with the next highest Elo score is promoted. The scores themselves need not be divulged.

This would remove the guess work out of who should take command and would instill a certain of faith in the other players as to their leader's credibility and whether or not their orders can be trusted.

[Deathlike]

It sounds good "on paper", but it's not practical.

Not all skilled players are leaders, and not all leaders are skilled. I'm sure there are people that are skilled and can lead, but the reality is that high ELO does not imply that they can lead. It's that simple.

[Bhael Fire]

MuKen, on 06 June 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

Not all good players WANT to lead. I would think choosing a player that wants the role is more important than shoehorning in whoever is the best pilot regardless of whether he actually plans on doing any leading.

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.

[Jack Lazarus]

Simply playing in a 4-man team regularly will ensure you have a higher Elo value than those who play on their own, because teamwork is the mightiest weapon in this game, and you will win more games. If that same player then decides to drop solo, they will be given command even though their Elo is derived from their cooperation with a regular group of friends, not their individual fighting prowess, or ability to lead.

Additionally, knowledge of how to battle in your own mech(s) of choice does not also mean you have knowledge of how to use the resources of other players properly.

[Bhael Fire]

Jack Lazarus, on 06 June 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

Simply playing in a 4-man team regularly will ensure you have a higher Elo value than those who play on their own, because teamwork is the mightiest weapon in this game, and you will win more games. If that same player then decides to drop solo, they will be given command even though their Elo is derived from their cooperation with a regular group of friends, not their individual fighting prowess, or ability to lead.

Still better than having the player with the lowest Elo and a cocky attitude grabbing command then leading his team into a royal face ******.

[MuKen]

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.

The obvious extension of what I said is the there is no guarantee the best player on the team wants to lead, I didn't think I needed to spell that out.

[Bhael Fire]

MuKen, on 06 June 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

The obvious extension of what I said is the there is no guarantee the best player on the team wants to lead, I didn't think I needed to spell that out.

Sure. In which case, the best player can relinquish command to another player of his choice. The point being, command starts with the best player instead of some assshat that thinks he's being cute by taking command just to give stupid orders that no intelligent player will listen to anyway.

[Corvus Antaka]

id much prefer ingame ranks to take care of this, along with an option for each player to "be a commander" or "not be a commander"

[MuKen]

Bhael Fire, on 06 June 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

Sure. In which case, the best player can relinquish command to another player of his choice. The point being, command starts with the best player instead of some assshat that thinks he's being cute by taking command just to give stupid orders that no intelligent player will listen to anyway.

You really think that's what's going to happen in pickup games? The highest ranked player who doesn't want to lead is just not going to bother doing anything 99% of the time, so nobody can be commander. Forcing someone to take an action to NOT be the leader isn't a good idea.

Btw, the elo system matches you with people around your skill level, meaning sometimes those a little below you, sometimes those a little above. So basically except for the absolute worst players in all of mwo, EVERYBODY is going to be put into matches where they are the top player. And a large amount, if not a majority, of them don't feel like leading.

Add to this that player skill is not a guarantee of leader skill, and I say the system of letting people who want to be commander choose to be commander is better. If you must work ELO into it, do it the opposite way of what you are saying: allow the higher ELO guy to force the other guy to relinquish command to him, instead of saying he has to relinquish it if he doesn't want it.

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

[Ramien]

Considering ELO is calculated separately based on 'mech size, this is not a very good idea. Someone who's good but not great but sticks with their Assault might have a higher ELO than a great player who's trying out a Medium instead of their usual Heavy.

And with ELO matching, in most matches, everyone's going to be right around the same skill level, so the ELO point difference might not be very large. It would quickly become just a bragging rights thing.

[Odins Fist]

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

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

"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.

[Kraven Kor]

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.

[Major Derps]

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.

They don't have to command. First off, give them the option to relinquish said command; and second, I have seen people take command before, and not do anything. Just because you are given command, doesn't mean you have to go barking orders. Finally, people are generally clued in enough to know a stupid plan when they hear it.

[Bhael Fire]

To me, Elo is a better indicator of skill than somebody simply saying "I'm the best leader!" and taking control.

I don't even like taking command. I just hate it when idiots take charge when there are far more qualified players on the team.

Is it a perfect solution. Nope...but it is indeed better than the alternative.