Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 73

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

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by themanfromalabama View Post
    The two regiments now spawn in all mixed up. Make the spawn in more organized.
    Definitely, almost every round begins with a team trying to organize quickly into its regiments. That's why I'd like a planning phase of 1-5 minutes, a server-side variable. Both teams are separated at the start and have a short time to plan which does not affect the game clock. Mad dashes from spawn are useful to gain an advantage and they detract from organization.


    Quote Originally Posted by Matt(Fridge) View Post
    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.
    Then stop responding? Why you guys follow me around on here is beyond me. That's what you said in the other thread when I picked apart your reasons against elections. You shouldn't worry because I'm sure nobody else can understand me either. No retort needed. The OP made it very clear that he's worried about Public servers. So certain types of folks want to argue that this is irrelevant? And it doesn't even effect them? And that's their whole argument is "It doesn't matter because you can't organize without companies."

    I've been pretty consistent in my posts on here since the beginning about the dangers of not having a vision beyond a heavily-controlled closed server environment. I literally said many times in the last two years that this is the great trap that realism gamers fall into and that it will wreak havoc on player numbers. And that the closed-server events will be less-than-competitive because they rely on artificial restrictions. Those closed-server events have been the only way to play games like this for forever. We'd all be a lot better off in every way we play if this wasn't needed so badly. The leadership question is a huge part of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sox View Post
    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?.
    First... they don't pick 'one,' Sox, they can pick multiple. Also... just because they're not clan players doesn't mean they're strangers. I routinely see the same players in servers. Players deserve the right to input on who their team officers are. The game is suffering because they can't. An officer isn't a stranger very long after he tells us to volley and then charge 150 yards with unloaded muskets.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sox View Post
    At some point you are going to have to admit that you are arguing your points just for the sake of it.
    tehlaugh.gif

    Quote Originally Posted by Sox View Post
    Just exactly how does one 'qualify' as a leader???
    When other players are impressed with their leadership skills and consent to their leadership. Just because someone doesn't have a following already doesn't mean they have to keep their mouth shut on the firing line and that they won't build one. This happens constantly... You have leaders on the line... then you have the guy in the officer role. Players learn to know the difference but the team is still forced to go along to get along. If a real crappy one is picked... if the guy is just not visible... if he's quiet... if he went AFK, he could easily be replaced. The rank means nothing at present! Literally nothing. And it is so old and damaging to gameplay

    Quote Originally Posted by Sox View Post
    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.
    I'm confused. You're in favor of totally random leaders? First-come, first-serve? "Whoever grabs the officer first" as the title says?



    Quote Originally Posted by Sox View Post
    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.
    #1.... clans do play on public servers. #2 One huge fundamental missing in the game is leader quality control.
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 04-21-2019 at 02:32 AM.
    Suggestion: Formations, Suppression, Spawning, Leadership https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqPsbvyD8s


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

  2. #22
    My idea for an election system is like this:
    1. The election for officers applies to all official servers. Private servers can choose to turn this off if they want.
    2. Players can only vote for people that run for officer in THEIR regiment.
    3. While voting, players can see the following stats for each of the candidates: W/L Ratio, Time Played, Company, and Reputation.
    4. The W/L Ratio will be based on the amount of games in which the candidate was officer by the end of the game. This does not apply to Picket Patrol servers.
    5. The time played will show the total amount of time that the candidate has played as officer on the Skirmish game mode.
    6. This is not a necessity, but there should be an in-game company tool to display the candidate's company. This could prevent players from certain companies always obtaining officer positions.
    7. At the end of each game, players are shown the list of officers on their team. They can rate each officer with a thumbs up or down. The total reputation for each candidate will be shown to the players.
    8. The candidates with the most votes wins.

    I know that this might complicate the beginning stage of the game, but this is a necessity to ensure that players can always receive the best officers. Hopefully, the voting process won't take long. I understand that the W/L ratio, time played, and reputation may not necessarily reflect the skill of the officer. However, I believe that with all of these attributes shown together, it might counteract this. I also understand why some companies do not want to have officer elections on their servers. This is why I believe it should be toggle-able.

  3. #23

    CSA Major

    Cpt. Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post
    I hope "shoving it up your ass" is not what you took away from my post explaining 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
    I have a sneaking suspicion that the "shove it up your ass comment wasn't directed at you though I could be wrong.

  4. #24

    USA Captain

    [1st Cav] Shifty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    34
    I say its fine the way it is, if its a public battle great people who want to can lead, if its a company or organised battle you have server rules and if a pub does get the officer and refuses to give it back you can kick

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by [1st Cav] Shifty View Post
    I say its fine the way it is, if its a public battle great people who want to can lead, if its a company or organised battle you have server rules and if a pub does get the officer and refuses to give it back you can kick
    Amen!

    Longstreet's I Corps
    1st Brigade Commanding Officer

  6. #26
    If it’s “fine the way it is” where’s all the players for 80% of the week.

    Okay, I accept the Officer issue alone isn’t keeping everyone away, but it’s certainly a big part of the inadequate gameplay issue.

  7. #27
    I am new to the game and only have played a dozen or so Matches, but I am fine with the way it is. Would see it as a part of the roleplay If you have an officer with no clue. See him as the snobbish rich son who just got the command because Daddy knew who to ask.
    Maybe the ability to give every officer a review at the end of a match. This wouldn't have any outcome in the beginning, but maybe most people care if they get bad or good reviews.

  8. #28
    I think I've played enough now that I now recognize good officers when I see their names at the start. But, it does take a few battles on a few different maps to make that judgement. I know that snatching up an officer position is the worry, but there have been more than a few times when there is no officer at all, or one group has one so everyone follows them. I've also been in several times with no leader where we as non-officers manage to organize among ourselves, it's rarely successful but it does show great initiatives on the part of the players. That's a good sign to me.

    I think a good officer is not just one who leads their guys to victory. It's the strat they use in getting there that tells me much more about them.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Oelmann View Post
    Would see it as a part of the roleplay If you have an officer with no clue. See him as the snobbish rich son who just got the command because Daddy knew who to ask.
    Solid State Drives = Victorian Privilege

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Vankovski View Post
    Solid State Drives = Victorian Privilege
    That's great. Made me smugly smile, with my posh SSD and serviceable internet speeds, and I haven't taken an officer slot yet.

    Interesting thread, and some thoughtful ideas on what might work in game to weed out "duds" in the officer slot. I'd just say that whatever solution is chosen should keep faith with the amazing historical vision that this game clearly has at heart.

    The company level officer of 1861-1862 were elected by their men for the most part. That's worth keeping in mind.

    Currently it seems like there are one or two servers up with enough bodies to make for a good match on most nights so shopping for a match with a different set of leader selection rules isn't much of an option, and clan matches and private servers should be free to do whatever they want as far as officer and nco slots go.

    Perhaps a solution might involve the NCO slots. Let's say that players can ask for a leadership position at the start of a round, maybe even specify if they want NCO only. Have the game pick an officer randomly from the applicants, and make the others ncos. Any unfilled leadership slots remain open, first come first serve as it is now. Proceed to match or planning phase from that point.

    During the match, if the ncos unanimously vote to kick the officer, current officer goes to the ranks at the end of his current life. The new officer is chosen randomly from the ncos. If a player is relieved of command or is an nco who voted to boot an officer, they are ineligible for any leadership slot on that server after the current match for X hours or matches, or until they serve as flag bearer for X minutes, whatever comes first.

    It would give a way for incompetent officers to get the boot while making it something of team kill on steroids to do so, give everyone a chance at the leader slots, give the NCO ranks more weight, and maybe motivate those who think they know what's what to pick up the flag themselves instead of hollering at everyone else to do it.

    It honors the spirit of elected officers and amateur volunteerism. It also gives the NCOs a chance to get rid of a Captain Sobel at the cost of their stripes.

    Probably too screwy to work, and I sure as Hell haven't thought through how this system could and would be gamed, but one of the devs asked for ideas so he's going to get mine as well as any good ones.

Posting Permissions

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