Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 73

Thread: 4 Months of Whoever Grabs the Officer First...

  1. #11

    CSA Captain


    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by Poorlaggedman View Post
    Playing time really doesn't matter. Like Matt said you can idle in the game first. It'd be better than the current situation but why not refine the concept a little more.

    The issue is two-fold: Are you qualified? Do players respect you? If those two answers are yes than you're ahead of the curve. Jump in a server and you'll find that the answers to those are often 'no' for the guy in the role.


    I've got visual proof of bums off the street from December 3rd being respected and doing a fair job at the officer role being totally unqualified. I've also got footage of people very experienced who are totally unqualified or not respected and doing a very poor job. Game mechanics can't measure that, only the players present can. There's currently no way to measure it. You're just stuck with whoever you get. That's what the OP is complaining about from a very underrepresented player base in this forum. It's kind of not fun when from 75-100 players on a team the guy who gets officer class is the first one to click two buttons. It's been that way more than four months - from the beginning actually.

    Democracy requires respect and I believe that would drastically improve it but people want to say it won't ensure qualification?! As if we should go back to accepting nobility and the Divine Right of Kings just to settle the question of who's ruler because the best qualified person won't always get elected. Like Quaker said.... it's the worst way of doing things, besides every other way tried.


    Being pro-public isn't exactly anti-company. Unless your version of pro-company is anti-public? That's a rhetorical question for the readers of this thread.
    If we go to a democratic system, II Corps and 1st Texas will get officer class any time they're on in force. That's a far greater disservice to public players imo.
    Currahee!

  2. #12

    USA General of the Army

    Oleander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    608
    Quote Originally Posted by Poorlaggedman View Post
    Should I put this in my signature for future reference?
    If it will make you feel important, go for it. Quite honestly I feel like I speak for everyone else here when I say you can shove it up your ass.

    The alternative that came out in the password thread is probably the best option for private servers where classes can be reserved for certain people, it just mean manually having to keep that text file up to date. On public ones I would leave it open cause I don't see a clear way to decide leaders that is going to be effective.

  3. #13
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Oleander View Post
    If it will make you feel important, go for it. Quite honestly I feel like I speak for everyone else here when I say you can shove it up your ass.

    The alternative that came out in the password thread is probably the best option for private servers where classes can be reserved for certain people, it just mean manually having to keep that text file up to date. On public ones I would leave it open cause I don't see a clear way to decide leaders that is going to be effective.
    I hope "shoving it up your ass" is not what you took away from my post explaning our reasonings of now going to implement password protected servers.

    Please keep a civil tone.

    We have no immediate plan in regards to introducing other ways of selecting officer slots so please do keep the suggestions going, thank you.

    - Trusty

  4. #14

    USA General of the Army

    Oleander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    608
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post
    I hope "shoving it up your ass" is not what you took away from my post explaning our reasonings of now going to implement password protected servers.
    No, it wasn't.

  5. #15
    Matt(Fridge)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Secessionist Maryland
    Posts
    145
    Random leadership will always be inherent to public play to at least some extent. Elections wont solve the problem. Like LaBelle said it would instantly turn into mob rule where large organized regiments would rule everything much to the dismay of career pub players who want this system so bad. There is no definite way for the team to objectively identify a player as being a qualified officer. That is subjective in a lot of ways anyway. The idea that a team of 75 (soon to be 100 hopefully) random people are going to come together like members of a senate and decide that one guy has what it takes is a fools dream. What this would likely bring is an entire teams members voting for 11 different guys and someone wins by a plurality. This hardly creates a team unified under a good officer. I get that this is the worst possible example of how the system could be used but there is good reason to believe it would go down like this more often than not.

  6. #16
    I play almost every night and I guess I am lucky because a lot of the same leaders have been playing at the same time. Last night, there must have been a server crash or something because after I came back to the game no one was taking officer or nco slots and then populations were unusually low.

    I actually find it interesting in a social experiment kind of way, to see random leaders pop up and see how the crowd reacts. Predictably, unless the officer is known and has a reputation, it seems tone and pitch of their voice matters a lot in the beginning. As interesting to me as it is to see how people react to a leader, I'd prefer of course, experienced competent ones.

  7. #17
    It is interesting for a while but it does get old


    Quote Originally Posted by Matt(Fridge) View Post
    The idea that a team of 75 (soon to be 100 hopefully) random people are going to come together like members of a senate and decide that one guy has what it takes is a fools dream. What this would likely bring is an entire teams members voting for 11 different guys and someone wins by a plurality. This hardly creates a team unified under a good officer. I get that this is the worst possible example of how the system could be used but there is good reason to believe it would go down like this more often than not.
    By a plurality? If you understood what I'm pushing, it has absolutely zilch to do with 'majority' winning a vote. Once again: ranks would be divided based on each leader and how many vote for him. Zero vote for him? He's a private. Five? A corporal. Ten? A sergeant. Twenty? A Lieutenant. And the higher you go in rank the more ranks you yourself get to designate and take away from your own followers who joined you. If you crash, the next highest rank or most senior player who joined you takes over.

    Players do not convene 'a senate.' They select someone to follow when they select their role, or they bid to lead themselves. Many may initially just pick the guy who already has the most followers. If they end up following an idiot, at any point they can go to that screen again and switch it to someone they find more appealing or who they like the sound of their voice. You bump into some Sergeant with a few guys and you like the way he goes about his business, if he asks you to, then you might just swap to him. And the next map and the next time you play you might just skip straight to a guy you like. It's not really that complicated. Instead of picking a role you'd pick a "squad" of sorts and thereby endorse the guy running it to obtain more rank.

    There could also be a function in game where you approach a player (any player), press a button, and swap to his squad on the spot. The more that squad leader gets, the greater rank he gets to spawn as. Players aren't just going to scatter each new map and recreate the wheel. Organizations aught to be able to navigate that quite easily in public or private environments. If they can't, they've got other problems.



    Quote Originally Posted by LaBelle View Post
    If we go to a democratic system, II Corps and 1st Texas will get officer class any time they're on in force. That's a far greater disservice to public players imo.
    It definitely does sound like a great disservice to pubic players when you put it that way. Although II Corps may not appreciate your characterization of them. As I talked about above, you might have 40 company guys on a team of 100. And so? The other sixty players can follow and appoint whom they wish.


    The other obvious troll-bait from Malfoy over there speaks for itself. Too bad I've seen it all before. I only wish more people would participate in the forums. A lot of people cite the dysfunction as a reason they don't.

    As someone very wise once told me on these forums (paraphrasing here): Quite frankly, you aren't even a member of the [public player] community and your experiences are not really valid in this discussion
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 04-20-2019 at 02:07 AM.
    Suggestion: Formations, Suppression, Spawning, Leadership https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqPsbvyD8s


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

  8. #18

    CSA Captain

    Sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    379
    This is a question just for Poorlaggedman: Please explain to everyone just exactly how do 100 strangers pick one stranger to lead them based on merit?. Also, you champion the cause of the underdog, the guy who wants to lead but has not had the chance, if people vote for the same leader all the time just exactly how does this system help him? At some point you are going to have to admit that you are arguing your points just for the sake of it. Just exactly how does one 'qualify' as a leader??? Everyone, no matter who they are, is going to make mistakes/get beaten at some point, so the guys following at that point in time will probably not vote for him again.....the system you are advocating is a none sense my friend.

    The actual combat in War of Rights is fantastic, quite honestly it's given me some of the most iconic moments I've ever had in a video game, but the rest of it is so poorly thought out, it's ridiculous. When something as simple as picking roles & spawning in as a squad/unit/company/regiment is almost entirely random, well to put it mildly, something is lacking. These things should be sorted out BEFORE you spawn in, is it really acceptable that the only way of getting organised is spawning in and shouting ''where are you''?


    We've come to this conclusion after your requests kickstarted an internal investigation of just what kind of players are actually the ones that primarily keeps the game servers populated on a day to day basis. We have found that roughly 20-30 percent of daily players (in the weekdays) are company players while 80 to 70 percent are non company players.

    Amazing, really? Aside from the obvious team killing problems & the random abuse, it should be kind of obvious why organised Companies do not play on public servers.......because they can't get organised!!! Stop championing the cause of public servers V private ones & talk about the fundamentals that are missing from this game.

    Picking the name of a regiment from a menu is not enough, it's too shallow. It leads to multiple problems, because players in a single regiment splinter into smaller groups they can't find each other once they get shot, it makes the flag re-spawn system useless, Officer/nco slots are often misused, timers start immediately thus giving players zero time to organise in a system where organisation is imperitive to game play....the list is endless! The game is crying out for a real system by which units, big or small, can be sorted out & set up WITH officers/nco's in place before they spawn in.
    ''I'm here to play an American Civil War era combat game, not Call of Duty with muskets.''.

  9. #19
    Maybe a system that looks like the modern games have. Like Jinx said organize before you spawn in. You have 2 companies each company has two platoons each platoons has two sections. So in total of 8 sections can be filled up that would need a corporal. Kind of like PS / Battlefield / Squad.

    The two regiments now spawn in all mixed up. Make the spawn in more organized.

    Regiment X on the left Regiment Y on the right

    Spawn in as a company in your platoon in your section as you organized yourself before the match started. At least you can begin the match a bit more organized. You would spawn in organized in formation.
    It is more clear who is in your section which makes it less overwhelming. It makes it clear who your cpl is. More unity as you spawn in together in formation. It does not solve the leadership concerns but it does make things more organized and that seems a good start to further develop the rest.

  10. #20
    Matt(Fridge)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Secessionist Maryland
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Poorlaggedman View Post
    It is interesting for a while but it does get old



    By a plurality? If you understood what I'm pushing, it has absolutely zilch to do with 'majority' winning a vote. Once again: ranks would be divided based on each leader and how many vote for him. Zero vote for him? He's a private. Five? A corporal. Ten? A sergeant. Twenty? A Lieutenant. And the higher you go in rank the more ranks you yourself get to designate and take away from your own followers who joined you. If you crash, the next highest rank or most senior player who joined you takes over.

    Players do not convene 'a senate.' They select someone to follow when they select their role, or they bid to lead themselves. Many may initially just pick the guy who already has the most followers. If they end up following an idiot, at any point they can go to that screen again and switch it to someone they find more appealing or who they like the sound of their voice. You bump into some Sergeant with a few guys and you like the way he goes about his business, if he asks you to, then you might just swap to him. And the next map and the next time you play you might just skip straight to a guy you like. It's not really that complicated. Instead of picking a role you'd pick a "squad" of sorts and thereby endorse the guy running it to obtain more rank.

    There could also be a function in game where you approach a player (any player), press a button, and swap to his squad on the spot. The more that squad leader gets, the greater rank he gets to spawn as. Players aren't just going to scatter each new map and recreate the wheel. Organizations aught to be able to navigate that quite easily in public or private environments. If they can't, they've got other problems.




    It definitely does sound like a great disservice to pubic players when you put it that way. Although II Corps may not appreciate your characterization of them. As I talked about above, you might have 40 company guys on a team of 100. And so? The other sixty players can follow and appoint whom they wish.


    The other obvious troll-bait from Malfoy over there speaks for itself. Too bad I've seen it all before. I only wish more people would participate in the forums. A lot of people cite the dysfunction as a reason they don't.

    As someone very wise once told me on these forums (paraphrasing here): Quite frankly, you aren't even a member of the [public player] community and your experiences are not really valid in this discussion
    I honestly dont know what your arguing most of the time due to most of your posts just being spewing stuff that does not make sense or is completely irrelevant.

Posting Permissions

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