[Suggestion] Commander

[Nosfe]

I've been in the beta for the past few days and I noticed that the teamplay is close to zero, especially in deathmatch modes. I'm aware that the nature of spawning after death drives people not to adopt long term tactics and in the future voice chat and clans will make coordination easier but I have an another suggestion.

What if a player is designated as a commander. He/she would have access to an overall map and can give orders. Of course team mates wouldn't have to follow the orders but there maybe some reward doing so, such as gold etc. I don't know, there maybe a better way of making people follow orders. He may or may not  restrict classes/weapons/tactics. Also he maybe a spectator or an ingame player. That would add more flavour to battle mode as people will try to defend/attack the commanders. There is a game called Savage that uses this kind of gameplay mechanics. I have only played it for an hour so I don't know exactly how it works.

I'm not sure if adding a commander would be against the spirit of the game but adding at least simple abilities to a designated player would make clan matches so much easier.

 

[Wu-long]

I've been in the beta for the past few days and I noticed that the teamplay is close to zero, especially in deathmatch modes. I'm aware that the nature of spawning after death drives people not to adopt long term tactics and in the future voice chat and clans will make coordination easier but I have an another suggestion.

What if a player is designated as a commander. He/she would have access to an overall map and can give orders. Of course team mates wouldn't have to follow the orders but there maybe some reward doing so, such as gold etc. I don't know, there maybe a better way of making people follow orders. He may or may not  restrict classes/weapons/tactics. Also he maybe a spectator or an ingame player. That would add more flavour to battle mode as people will try to defend/attack the commanders. There is a game called Savage that uses this kind of gameplay mechanics. I have only played it for an hour so I don't know exactly how it works.

I'm not sure if adding a commander would be against the spirit of the game but adding at least simple abilities to a designated player would make clan matches so much easier.

would the commander be random choice?

 

[godot]

I would probably avoid such a server. 

Most players are willing to follow good ideas no matter who calls them.

 

[Wolfinacup]

I've been in the beta for the past few days and I noticed that the teamplay is close to zero, especially in deathmatch modes. I'm aware that the nature of spawning after death drives people not to adopt long term tactics and in the future voice chat and clans will make coordination easier but I have an another suggestion.

I disagree, i myself have coordinated some small time tactics, and have listened to others coordinate them, but it is true that this mainly occurs on battle servers where being smart and having your team win is the point instead of team death match were as long as one is getting kills they are being helpful to the team.

Also having one person who is omniscient completely destroys any stealth or flanking tactics, and takes away from the realism of the game.

This is just my honest opinion and I would love to hear some counter points.
P.S also this could be modded in for those who want it.

 

[gypsydevil]

I'll chime in and say I've seen a lot of teamwork, mostly, "Camp the village!", "Go Left", "Go Right"..stuff like that, but in general people do seem to listen if they are losing.

 

[Faranox]

Perhaps this sort of thing could be a new gametype?

 

[Archonsod]

We had some good teamwork going on the EU team DM server last night, although some of it was just pure synchronicity.

The team smart enough to stick together always wins, you don't necessarily need a commander for that, just a demonstration of how effective it is. And yeah, the reason most people don't co-ordinate has less to do with the lack of a command mode and more to do with the lack of team chat use.

Although it's always hilarious when someone announces your sekrit plans to the enemy during siege because the muppet hit the main chat rather than team. They're hiding in the gatehouse? Cheers

 

[Gobblecoque]

Although it's always hilarious when someone announces your sekrit plans to the enemy during siege because the muppet hit the main chat rather than team. They're hiding in the gatehouse? Cheers

What I find fun to do is giving an order on the main chat, then using team chat and giving a contradicting plan.

 

[paulbergel]

I was actually thinking this same idea the other day but have been afk for the holiday weekend.  Here's what I'd suggest for the commander option:

The commander...

• would be chosen by a team-only poll.  Perhaps the top 2 players with the highest kill ratio get automatically selected and you just have to press 1 or 2 for whom you'd want as your commander?
• would have access to the old school command HUD with the exception that s/he couldn't see the enemy dots.
• would be able to control where s/he wants his/her soldiers to go, not only through team chat but a green (or whatever color) circle or line would appear on the ground visible to the team where you are expected to line up (which would be highly effective for phalanx-oriented maneuvers)

Failure to listen to the commander and to sufficiently piss off your team could just result in being kicked from the server by team-poll.

Paul

PS: Along the lines of this idea, it'd also be fun to have a type of server where each player controls an army of bots alla single-player battles but to fight against other human commanders in a multiplayer setting.

 

[Regendur]

This sounds rather interesting. It could be certainly be used as a new gametype.

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

The people I join with on Ventrillo are actually very much about teamwork....especially Sero.  As Wolfin said, battle maps tend to be better for cooperation between members...as is siege, CTF, and Conquest.  Deathmatches are rarely so.

To give you an example, one time a group of us on ventrillo literally formed a phalanx to stop the Khergit from winning either through archery or lancer charges (we were Swadian Infantry).  Our shield wall of at least 8-10 people(made of the best shields possible) stopped the arrows and when the lancers came our pikes took care of the.  Any Khergit that tried to flank us on the side of town were stopped by a couple Infantry in place to bar them.

It is up to the individual.  Teamwork is great but it is hard to reward.  The enjoyment of the participant is the only realistic form of reward.

 

[Temesta]

Commander is not only necessary, it's mandatory for this game!

Even now, nearly all players and all teams discusses and decides tactics within teams for next rounds, and most of time they abide with the decision. But when the plans get more complex, like seperating in groups or flanking and even ambushing (yes, i saw many successful ambushes! i was in it!), team need coordinates, groups and more important, orders for advancing or retreating. So, by now, tactics are decided by Players before rounds via Chatting, but these tactics aren't enough after first moments.

(FYI, I saw horsemen charging in a V formation, many Line formations and Shiled walls through game, and even been on a solid square formation! These are solely decided before battle, and almost all players loves to do such tactical things )

If you say "if players can chat and decide, what should commander do?", then i'll say, he'll listen all suggestions from players and organizes them in a better way. Now that's necessary against chaos.

So, here's my suggestions for Commanding
It can be in Battlefield 2 way,
-Commander has no overpower from a standart player. He/She only has an extra "tactics" screen, and when he's on that screen, he can't move his/her char, of course. That's his main disadvantage.
-When he killed, there's no more orders received from him. Maybe, a Second Commander can take his rank to end of the round, but that's not necessary.
-He has a top-down map which same as original Mount and Blade commanding screen, but shows heights, rivers and marks of other important things.
-He can make request/quota for Classes, so if he thinks he needs more archers, players get informed for next round.
-He can discuss for tactics with players in another chat screen, but that also is not necessary.

And here's for choosing a commander:
-Player X starts a poll for Commanding, if there's majority on poll, he'll selected. If no one selected, then next poll needs 1/3 of votes to pass.
-If team is disappointed with commander, they start a vote to take him down. So another player can starts a vote for Promoting.

Yes. That's what in my mind for now. Soon i'll add some new suggestions that i forgot

 

[22nd_Chuck_Norris]

I guess you would need an incentive to be commander, or I'm sure that after a month of playing commander would seem somewhat not as fun as it was at the start, as from what you described, he/she could not move and therefor would be an easy kill unless the whole formed a circle/square around him. Perhaps make it a scaled down version of that, perhaps give him a minimap that he could pull up but still move in order to keep up with his moving team. just an idea.

 

[rageshrub]

I'd be against a commander. Adequate chat is all you need to co-ordinate a team. If someone has a sound plan, it's likely to be followed.

Perhaps instead of a commander, a short phase before the battle begins could be implemented in order to establish tactics. Not so much for deathmatch, for for siege and battle game modes. It would allow teams to co-ordinate without having the problems associated with having one player given charge.

 

[cdvader]

I'd want a commander who I could follow. Like Temesta said, he should be chosen by the poll in-game, and the commander would have access to the Tactics screen and better equipment, so he wouldn't die so easy.

I'd really like to see this implemented.

 

[Rongar]

Failure to listen to the commander and to sufficiently piss off your team could just result in being kicked from the server by team-poll.

First, I would try kick commander.

Perhaps instead of a commander, a short phase before the battle begins could be implemented in order to establish tactics.

And look around, and scout map, and normally choose equipment.
Something about minute or half.

 

[RF Nigth]

If i want a commander i would want him to ride/walk behind the unit
He would have 2 selected guards. He can split the unit in 2-3 groups give them orders to

move,Attack, deffend, hide one the map it show up as a mark/Flag?

He can select some formations square, V formation, line.
That group who is selected and receive Form square will see a gray lined square one the map..

He can also blow a horn fore Regroup. Whistle to the formation to switch ranks.
Ore each group have a commander.

I think no minimap command map is needed.

Ore it just some voice commands that is needed fore team play
:follow me. Charge.move.hide.form square.form V formation. deffend here.

And receive gold fore assist kill.