Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Ranks and organization

  1. #1

    Ranks and organization

    I feel like if you just make rank associated with numbers of players willing to trust you then it would be the easiest and most fair solution. I don't think you need a direct vote but rather voting by association.

    The role selection screen could really use a general revamp. Players are essentially choosing a unit and then 9/10 players are picking private, so the screen shouldn't emphasize the roles like traditional games use weapon classes. The officer and NCO roles would automatically mean you have the trust of other players and people might be more likely to follow them. The organization is important enough that it shouldn't take a back seat to a map or an objective progress bar or anything else.

    For limited regiments (Cavalry, Sharpshooters) you need to take into account that some people would initially volunteer to lead in order to try and secure a place in that regiment. You can deter this by not allowing people to spawn in until they have followers.

    Also a start-of-round planning phase would greatly help as well.

    https://youtu.be/HN8XZJ4RgPU
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 01-24-2019 at 06:28 AM.
    Gameplay Suggestions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjUuaVXTJsY


    Old Pennsylvania Discord: https://discord.gg/MjxfZ5n

  2. #2
    That would be a good idea for events, but regular games would just be chaotic fights of whomever's turn it is.

    Brings it back to older days where communities formed, hosted and trusted one another's leadership skills; both in-game and creating companies on this forum.


    I stay away from public play for the reason that I don't trust the folks taking those roles; so I play in seclusion or moderated games.
    Last edited by L. Hopper; 01-24-2019 at 09:31 AM.
    Infantry Battalion Commander
    Major

    Army of the West

  3. #3
    It's easy to trust another's leadership skills when the objective is not to lead a team but to orchestrate a team. I've seen some of the most innovative leaders come out of random players. The key is they aren't copying other people's battle plans. They're also dividing into regiments. That's something you nearly never saw happen in 'events' prior to 12/3. That's pretty much standard operating procedure in regular gameplay today
    Gameplay Suggestions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjUuaVXTJsY


    Old Pennsylvania Discord: https://discord.gg/MjxfZ5n

  4. #4

    USA General of the Army

    Bravescot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Perthshire, Scotland
    Posts
    2,626
    I do like the idea, but hell would it be asking a LOT of the devs to make a system like this with a lot on their plate already.

  5. #5
    All the more important to get it done the first time then and not have to continually revise it. I have to imagine there will be a lot of changes from the system in place now.

    The idea doesn't have to be very flashy. Instead of picking a role players will volunteer for a leadership role and be listed by name. You could also volunteer to lead later on. People who choose to 'join' you are just effectively voting for you. Volunteering to lead could be done in a similar fashion as how you choose a team after you pick a team (I want to lead vs I don't want to lead). Players who don't volunteer for a leadership role then click on something to the effect of "join" one of them and the more who join the more their available rank is increased. Color code the various forces or otherwise make some way to link them to a unified force of some kind. This way, if you have a clan, you can easily discern whether some recruit is in your's or in the wrong group without consulting a player list. Though the player list could also be by squad, preferably not visible by squad to the other team. The time at the start of the round I suggested is to avoid a mad rush to spawn in just empowering the first guy who wants to lead. Players have a few seconds to think about who they want to entrust. Also if you've already spawned in and you get even more players and want to up your rank before the round goes live, you could do that without wasting as much time to de-spawn at the start.

    Yes, it will result in small squads but I think the fracturing will be good and allow players to transition their trust to different leaders from ones who may be failing them. There's still important benefits of working in larger groups already. The color-coding and official partitioning of team groups would possibly even encourage some segmenting of existing formations so they aren't just one mass of confused people turning left and turning right at every report. You could more easily delegate areas of responsibility. Like companies within a regimental formation.

    The 'role selection' screen becomes accessible on-demand (as opposed to purely on death) with changes to your actual role occurring when you spawn next. The possibility would exist that someone could select/reserve a flag bearer role and then not spawn in until after a painstaking ordeal until his death. To avoid this, the flag could be removed as a class and have it spawn at the base spawn (or initially at the objective for the defending team) at a set location, nearest the biggest group to spawn in at the start perhaps. This is of course risky. Perhaps the only thing that need-be changeable mid-life is swapping groups or a leader promoting an underling. IMO the flag bearer should be less critical to gameplay and simply entail a significant 50% reduction in spawn time and any formation should be able to spawn people in, even if very slowly. That would be a challenge to develop, but they've done much of the work already in the flag bearer system. You'd just have to devise some way of selecting where / who you spawn with and make some logical math behind the time it would take. Obviously a small group of three would poop out another guy very slowly compared to a large line. The hardest part would be choosing which group to spawn on. I think that will be more obviously feasible in the future when players can either select which flag to spawn on or spawn unit-specific.

    The planning phase could be fairly simple, at a minimum it just requires a set number of minutes (5) to count down from the round start, start everyone with zero ammo. It'd be worth the effort to disable meelee mode (the same disabling mechanic I wished for in the video on gameplay suggestions). It'd also be worth the effort to confine at least the attacking team in the spawn zone with desertion barriers. Alternatively a planning area could be designated on each map (Antietam, Harper's Ferry, South Mountain, etc) where a team is spawned during the planning phase when doing the attacking (or both teams in a meeting engagement map) that already has desertion barriers put in place. I'm loathing round start chaos more and more each time I play and a short time set aside at the round start for planning which doesn't detract from the round game time or put you at a disadvantage in speedy deployment would certainly help. The little things help a lot and I'm sure there's some plans for changes.
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 01-27-2019 at 03:12 AM.
    Gameplay Suggestions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjUuaVXTJsY


    Old Pennsylvania Discord: https://discord.gg/MjxfZ5n

  6. #6
    SUWAROW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Russia, Moscow
    Posts
    174
    Good idea!

  7. #7
    SUWAROW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Russia, Moscow
    Posts
    174
    Why you are not gamedesigner of War of Rights?

  8. #8

    CSA Captain

    Sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    399
    OR....you could just join a Company, problem solved.
    ''I'm here to play an American Civil War era combat game, not Call of Duty with muskets.''.

  9. #9
    RhettVito
    Guest
    I would really like to see this !

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Sox View Post
    OR....you could just join a Company, problem solved.

    Yes but it also makes it easier for companies to take ranks. That doesn't mean they always would. Most people are going to join a random big tree, more likely if they know the player. This just gives them the power of leaving, joining someone else's, or starting their own.

    Quote Originally Posted by SUWAROW View Post
    Why you are not gamedesigner of War of Rights?
    I don't think anyone would want to work for me. burns.gif
    Gameplay Suggestions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjUuaVXTJsY


    Old Pennsylvania Discord: https://discord.gg/MjxfZ5n

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •