29 replies to this topic

[Sadist Cain]

Dock Steward, on 13 October 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

Story of my life.

You should try reading the first topic I tried to make on this issue in my sig... xD I know how that feels bro

[Bishop Steiner]

Dock Steward, on 13 October 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

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.

High Elo is no guarantee of actual leadership ability, and especially ability to train new guys. Could you imagine the retention rate if new players got berated as Bads and "Get Wreckt, GGClose" by certain Lords or others in this community?

Skill, and leadership are often 2 very different things. And even some of the Comps who work well together, IDK if I would call it traditional "leadership", as most people don't operate best in the "Alpha Wolf, rest of the Pack" mentality some High Elo units exist on.

I've seen a lot of less skilled players who were far better leaders and mentors.

[Sadist Cain]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 October 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

High Elo is no guarantee of actual leadership ability, and especially ability to train new guys. Could you imagine the retention rate if new players got berated as Bads and "Get Wreckt, GGClose" by certain Lords or others in this community?

Skill, and leadership are often 2 very different things. And even some of the Comps who work well together, IDK if I would call it traditional "leadership", as most people don't operate best in the "Alpha Wolf, rest of the Pack" mentality some High Elo units exist on.

I've seen a lot of less skilled players who were far better leaders and mentors.

I think that's another reason to try to build some sort of score/bonus system around Leadership & teamwork to build it in as more of a "Feature" if you like.
Then we have the invisible metric made visible, that can be tweaked and adjusted with more visceral results for development purposes.

Naturally I think your standard PUG commander will of course have completely different tactics to your "high end" comp players but at least you create a dynamic environment where those differences can be used to an advantage.

Edited by Sadist Cain, 13 October 2014 - 01:15 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

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.

yup, that won't possibly turn into a popularity contest.

Even good leaders make bad calls or have bad matches. But better to have a bad leader, than a bunch of good cats, in most cases.

[Dock Steward]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 October 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

High Elo is no guarantee of actual leadership ability, and especially ability to train new guys. Could you imagine the retention rate if new players got berated as Bads and "Get Wreckt, GGClose" by certain Lords or others in this community?

Skill, and leadership are often 2 very different things. And even some of the Comps who work well together, IDK if I would call it traditional "leadership", as most people don't operate best in the "Alpha Wolf, rest of the Pack" mentality some High Elo units exist on.

I've seen a lot of less skilled players who were far better leaders and mentors.

I said myself it was a bad idea...I had a few even worse...read the whole thread.

EDIT: You liked this because of how bad my other ideas were, huh? I'd "dislike" half of my own posts if I could...

Edited by Dock Steward, 13 October 2014 - 01:23 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Dock Steward, on 13 October 2014 - 01:15 PM, said:

I said myself it was a bad idea...I had a few even worse...read the whole thread.

EDIT: You liked this because of how bad my other ideas were, huh? I'd "dislike" half of my own posts if I could...

better to bounce ideas, even a few bad ones around, then be the guys who post on here simply to criticize other people's thoughts, but never provide anything constructive themselves.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 13 October 2014 - 01:26 PM.

[Dock Steward]

There are a number of things I really like about this idea:

1) It encourages teamwork in a team based game
2) It proposes a system that CW will pretty much need to have some form of when it gets going
3) It suggests possibly adding more rewards, and when are those bad

The hardest thing seems to be deciding who the Leaders will be. In organized units that's the people who were there the longest/wanted the position/proved they were capable of having that position. Replicating all that with solo players is tough.

Now I wonder if an earlier idea someone had of just tagging yourself leader before launching and letting the matchmaker place you accordingly wouldn't be the best way to go. If you stunk at the job, people could always just not follow your orders and we'd have the same game we have now, but in the best case scenario, people would do a good job and the results would be higher rewards because everyone would just be playing more effectively.

Too many "Leaders" in the MM? No problem, just have it be a preference and not a hard lock. You're not guaranteed the slot. How the MM goes about deciding...IDK.


EDIT: It was Hospy. Hospy suggested the tag system in like the second post.

Edited by Dock Steward, 13 October 2014 - 01:44 PM.

[Sadist Cain]

Dock Steward, on 13 October 2014 - 01:40 PM, said:

There are a number of things I really like about this idea:

1) It encourages teamwork in a team based game
2) It proposes a system that CW will pretty much need to have some form of when it gets going
3) It suggests possibly adding more rewards, and when are those bad

The hardest thing seems to be deciding who the Leaders will be. In organized units that's the people who were there the longest/wanted the position/proved they were capable of having that position. Replicating all that with solo players is tough.

Now I wonder if an earlier idea someone had of just tagging yourself leader before launching and letting the matchmaker place you accordingly wouldn't be the best way to go. If you stunk at the job, people could always just not follow your orders and we'd have the same game we have now, but in the best case scenario, people would do a good job and the results would be higher rewards because everyone would just be playing more effectively.

Too many "Leaders" in the MM? No problem, just have it be a preference and not a hard lock. You're not guaranteed the slot. How the MM goes about deciding...IDK.


EDIT: It was Hospy. Hospy suggested the tag system in like the second post.

I do like that system along with a few additions...

• Tutorial to be completed to achieve your "Commander" tag/ability to lead in games (250mc for completing tutorial? )
  
• Leadership score/elo, How effective are you at giving orders to those who have chosen to be in your lance and follow them? I think that's a way to split the skill of killing and the skill of leading/mentoring those to kill more than normal.
  
• Ability to have more than just 3 lances, maybe 2 player min - 4 max in each lance? Could be a way to have a good two man lrm scout lance...

Spitballing towards the end there

How2 page Niko here I wonders...?

Edited by Sadist Cain, 13 October 2014 - 01:53 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

The hardest thing seems to be deciding who the Leaders will be.

Its not that hard. 99% of the time there will only be one person that actually wants to be leader anyway, and only then because no one else wants to do it

[Sadist Cain]

Khobai, on 13 October 2014 - 04:03 PM, said:

Its not that hard. 99% of the time there will only be one person that actually wants to be leader anyway, and only then because no one else wants to do it

I reckon what he's getting at more is how to get more competent folk enthused about leading, rather than deciding who is. Deciding who's best fit.

Boils down to tutorials in game I think.