locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
I don't know if you can accurately rank people because there are generally easy ways of intentionally and unintentionally gaming the system(TF2 achievement servers, SC 7v1 comp Stomp, consistent team stacking on servers). If 95% of players played as intended then many it would be worthwhile. I think it would be better to encourage positive behaviours though achievements then try a straight ranking system. They can still be gamed, but at least the player will have an idea of what to do to get better.
<!--quoteo(post=1699565:date=Feb 5 2009, 05:32 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Feb 5 2009, 05:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1699565"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->After reading through the <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=105614&view=findpost&p=1699177" target="_blank">Commander Rank</a> thread I thought of some, in IMO, good achievements for the commander that might be better than a straight ranking system. This is different from acheivements that help teach new players the game, but should still overall encourage positive behaviours in players.<ul><li> Healing Touch - Drop X medpacks directly onto marines heads</li><li> Candy Man - Drop X cat packs directly onto marines heads</li><li> Armed and Dangerous - Drop X ammo packs for marines who have requested it</li><li> Heavy Metal - Research and dispense X heavy armor/exoskeletons</li><li> Aerial Commander - Research and dispense X jetpacks</li><li> All Seeing Eye - Scan and de-cloak X kharaa</li><li> The Gatekeeper - Open X doors for marines</li><li> Insatiable Greed - Cap and keep every resnode on a map</li></ul><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- The newbie probelm is partitially solved by not displaying the exact stats. For example you can have a golden comm chair icon for the very experienced comms that are way above the average. Meanwhile the average comms don't look any different from the newbies. It doesn't completely remove the issues, but gives you a good idea if you've actually got a very decent comm in your team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You might be surprised to find that that would solve absolutely nothing. Rather than the dialog being to kick the n00b comm, it'd just be that one would say he's got a golden comm icon and everybody on the marine team would simultaneously vote to kick the current comm with the exception of the comm himself. All you've done is to divide the comm players into "comm players we'll take if we can't find better" and "comm players you'd kick the current comm to have." It's the same effect except you're probably also having relatively experienced comms kicked over comm players with golden comm icon as well as complete newbs.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- The ranking based on pure wins gets abused, but for example a purely game time related rank is more difficult to use on wrong purposes. You could also force certain requirements before a player can be recognized as 'experienced'. For example an experienced commander must constantly break 60 actions per minute (APM) before he gets the icon. Almost every mouse click or key pressed counts as actions, so 60 is still ridiculously low for a decent comm. In comparsion a decent starcraft player fluctates somewhere around 200 APM, if not more.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you really think you wouldn't then have players click in random places just to maintain 60 APM? Again, you might be surprised to find that you could probably set the APM limit to levels which no reasonable player would achieve naturally (veteran or otherwise) and you'd still have players achieving those levels simply by clicking in order to meet whatever requirements you think are necessary to be considered a talented commander. Probably any system you could think of could either be abused or would not properly represent comm player talent in some fashion (or both). I challenge you to find a ranking system to the contrary. If you can, I'll concede my argument.
<!--quoteo(post=1713433:date=Jun 22 2009, 05:00 PM:name=NurEinMensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NurEinMensch @ Jun 22 2009, 05:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1713433"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think it's fair to compare StarCraft to NS comming. StarCraft has dumb units and is all about micro managing them. That's why a high apm is an indicator of skill. NS has has intelligent (mostly) units, that can actually finish missions, and instead of micro management it's delegation and leadership that make a good pub com, which is why I believe apm doesn't matter as much.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Good leadership often makes a big deal of public commanding, but some skill is still required for maintaining a decent support and scouting. The required APM can be kept really low, just enough to ensure that the guy actually has the capability to do the basic stuff. On NS1 logic that would mean the ability to keep an eye on the base and general map situation and keep the team somewhat supported with med and ammo. I can't see that kind of requirement as a bad thing as long as getting regocnized as a good commander is still an award and not a necessity.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You might be surprised to find that that would solve absolutely nothing. Rather than the dialog being to kick the n00b comm, it'd just be that one would say he's got a golden comm icon and everybody on the marine team would simultaneously vote to kick the current comm with the exception of the comm himself. All you've done is to divide the comm players into "comm players we'll take if we can't find better" and "comm players you'd kick the current comm to have." It's the same effect except you're probably also having relatively experienced comms kicked over comm players with golden comm icon as well as complete newbs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do people eject when they see a pro comm in the team nowadays? No. There's no guarantee that the guy with the icon even wants to command a round, not to speak of a round someone else started. Neither there is any actual confirmation that the commander is actually better than the present one.
You could also change it so that the golden cc is only visible while he's actually comming or something in case it gets abused.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you really think you wouldn't then have players click in random places just to maintain 60 APM? Again, you might be surprised to find that you could probably set the APM limit to levels which no reasonable player would achieve naturally (veteran or otherwise) and you'd still have players achieving those levels simply by clicking in order to meet whatever requirements you think are necessary to be considered a talented commander. Probably any system you could think of could either be abused or would not properly represent comm player talent in some fashion (or both). I challenge you to find a ranking system to the contrary. If you can, I'll concede my argument.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 60 APM might be too much or just fine depending on NS2 comming. The main idea is that the number is still very much at anyone's reach if he decides to learn the basic comming skills. If someone spams over it to get some neat and shiny comm icon, then so be it. However, if a few people bother to learn the hotkeys or get interested in the comm micro, it's all good. I can see some gain and very little negative effects as long as the requiriment is kept at reasonable limits.
Good APM and accurate clicking is necessary for comms because for one, they need to drop meds. Dropping meds next to the Marine and onto the Marine makes a world of difference when he's fighting.
True, and perhaps that even defined what it meant to be at least partially a decent commander in ns1, though I secretly pray medkit dropping will not be a viable strategy in ns2 for all the sense it makes.
<!--quoteo(post=1713403:date=Jun 22 2009, 08:32 PM:name=BadMouth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BadMouth @ Jun 22 2009, 08:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1713403"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Of course, it is also the newbie's own responsiblity to know abit about comming and the strategies involved before jumping in the first time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because everyone reads game manuals before playing, amirite.
This is really a good idea but for it to work properly their would have to be servers for new coms to practice and you know their will be tons of them... and whether the enemy are bots or real players, you still learn.
Perhaps when we get CO their can be a commander role also. Basically a com that doesn't have to drop guns or cap res but still gets to learn the interface... and drop tfs and sieges and pgs like with buildmenu. It would really help people out i think.
Obviously we should extend it further that the com can see if your a good player or not and drop a gun based on that.
Well I think it would be great to have some master record players statistics. This should include commanding stats too. Then servers could use the information to eg. filter out players from com chair. There would be always servers where beginners could train, so it wouldn't be a drawback at all. Then unexperienced players couldn't cause such a big havoc for regulars. Not to mention that servers would be free whether to use filters.
Bad commanders can spoil the game for everyone else. This makes FPS-RTS'es unattractive to some players. Also, this is hard to do on server basis, because then only those who have been commanding on the server before can command. The issue would be faking but it can be contained by requiring the game to have atleast eg. 10 players to be counted.
I doubt there's any harm from collecting such stats unless you happen to have bad self-esteem, eg. C&C First Decade does it. Go has it. Many games have it.
And sadly, those people who think teamplay can outscore the commander are not looking at the subject on from wider perspective. Not to mention that commander has huge impact, but the fact that many NS servers suffered from wasted rounds because of a bad commanders. I remember my one friend trying out NS and just quiting because most comms had no clue at all.
<b>Bad rounds</b> will have an aggregate impact on the picture and number of players that will stay in the game. Keep this in mind whatever is implemented.
And to all the people who are saying "I don't see the good sides of this" etc. should know that giving the servers and players information about players does not commit them to anything. The servers and/or players will <b>ultimately</b> have the power on the commanders. Don't blame knifes for stabbings.
It could also be just how many games the person has played.
I think something like this should be implemented on a personal basis:
For instance you get a message "You are the best/most experienced/coolest Commander on your team." If you have some good comms on the team it won't matter that much, but if noone on your team knows how to comm and you're like me (can comm, but would rather be a regular marine is someone else is good at it) then it would be very helpfull to know at the start of the game...
Personally I think there should be a system which rewards progress but does not impede those who are still learning and does not prevent them from also progressing.
The only time the amount of wins would be available to a team is when they reach a certain point. For example, if I have under 30 wins, all that would be implied is that I am under 30, I could have 29, 0, or 17 wins, it wouldn't matter. The idea is that people with wins under this amount may still have many wins (even 29!), essentially giving everyone the benefit of the doubt while allowing players who have reached a very difficult and uncommon milestone to be recognized. If you think about it, constellation members MAY be seen as people who could be more serious about NS than casual gamers. But I don't see people ejecting non-constellation members to let a constellation member command. Maybe this recognition wouldn't just be for commanding, maybe having 50 kills would be like winning 10 matches as commander, etc. The title given could be "Hardened" or maybe even allow the players to affix their own subtitle if they want (within appropriate bounds). Merit would be acknowledged and newbies still provided a fair and cultivating environment to learn the game.
Since the Achievement system seems popular these days, let's have Achievement awards for NS2 and make achievements for wins when playing as commander. Eg, 50 wins as comm gets you a special unlockable pink skulk or something.
Achievements may encourage to stay in the game, but it doesn't really address the issue of bad games.
Bad games happen when a commander who has no clue goes to the chair. Well atleast he has the most impact among out of all other players. The good comms are not a problem, but the bad comms. Giving pink, green or gold icons to some of the good comms does not really address the problem.
I don't think NS should itself implement any kind of restrictions on comchair by default. Rather provide servers with information about players so servers can use either some cvar-enabled or LUA scriptable plugins to limit the chair usage if they want. This would enable to have servers where you could have higher "enjoyable rounds" ratio.
I understand beginners are crucial for the game, that's not the point. I just don't think the chair is the place to start. There are lots of other game classes, so its not an issue if something has to achieved to get into the chair.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Personally I think there should be a system which rewards progress but does not impede those who are still learning and does not prevent them from also progressing.
The only time the amount of wins would be available to a team is when they reach a certain point. For example, if I have under 30 wins, all that would be implied is that I am under 30, I could have 29, 0, or 17 wins, it wouldn't matter. The idea is that people with wins under this amount may still have many wins (even 29!), essentially giving everyone the benefit of the doubt while allowing players who have reached a very difficult and uncommon milestone to be recognized. If you think about it, constellation members MAY be seen as people who could be more serious about NS than casual gamers. But I don't see people ejecting non-constellation members to let a constellation member command. Maybe this recognition wouldn't just be for commanding, maybe having 50 kills would be like winning 10 matches as commander, etc. The title given could be "Hardened" or maybe even allow the players to affix their own subtitle if they want (within appropriate bounds). Merit would be acknowledged and newbies still provided a fair and cultivating environment to learn the game.
Hawkeye, I would like your input on this matter.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It'd help, but I don't think it'd eliminate the problem. You're more likely to have more people booted from the comm chair for having < 30 wins than you'd see people tolerating < 30 wins because nobody knows the exact number. Perhaps if the ONLY information made public were the number of wins a player has made as comm, and even then I'd make a nice safe number like 50 wins be the number by which no player can know if you've made less than that as to allow the majority of players to have this whether they've made wins or not. Theory being that it'd take an experienced (but not necessarily always effective) comm to achieve more than 50 wins, thereby allowing the team to pick their commander by experience, not by the wins to losses ratio.
I agree - rank based systems are best left for server level, not game level implementation. It provides a barrier between skill and inexperience that will not help facilitate the strong community here. It will separate skill from noob and make it harder for a new player to integrate without being attacked by less tolerant elitists. I like playing with a good range of skill categories and letting the new player try commanding every so often - even if that means an inevitable loss. Often some very unexpected things happen with inexperienced commanders that end up being quite fun to play out.
<!--quoteo(post=1713928:date=Jun 25 2009, 07:39 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawkeye @ Jun 25 2009, 07:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1713928"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It'd help, but I don't think it'd eliminate the problem. You're more likely to have more people booted from the comm chair for having < 30 wins than you'd see people tolerating < 30 wins because nobody knows the exact number. Perhaps if the ONLY information made public were the number of wins a player has made as comm, and even then I'd make a nice safe number like 50 wins be the number by which no player can know if you've made less than that as to allow the majority of players to have this whether they've made wins or not. Theory being that it'd take an experienced (but not necessarily always effective) comm to achieve more than 50 wins, thereby allowing the team to pick their commander by experience, not by the wins to losses ratio.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny thing is I was thinking 50 originally as well, but because of what else I had written in reference to 30 kills I kept 30. But yes commanding should not be the only way to recognize high achievement. I believe anyone that plays this game will achieve something within a span of time if they come to tolerate the gameplay. It's a process of natural selection; the people in the end who do not achieve anything will be those who could not survive the rigors of the game and ragequit or were not attracted to its style. Anyone who does not leave the game means they DID survive, and thus will play eventually to attain an achievement. Everyone is expected to get there at some point in their specific gameplay role, just as everyone in halo 3 is expected to pass training before they can play online (also like America's Army). The developers assumed everyone would eventually pass. What I am trying to defend here is that this system SHOULD NOT be aristocratic but recognocratic.
<!--quoteo(post=1713986:date=Jun 25 2009, 02:58 PM:name=Drown)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Drown @ Jun 25 2009, 02:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1713986"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree - rank based systems are best left for server level, not game level implementation. It provides a barrier between skill and inexperience that will not help facilitate the strong community here. It will separate skill from noob and make it harder for a new player to integrate without being attacked by less tolerant elitists. I like playing with a good range of skill categories and letting the new player try commanding every so often - even if that means an inevitable loss. Often some very unexpected things happen with inexperienced commanders that end up being quite fun to play out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not want to play a losing game because of a new player, I'm sorry. Also, as a responsible newbie I wouldn't want to inconvenience a community because of my lack of experience. Yesterday no one wanted to command on mineshaft and someone got in and dropped a TF in base, we criticized him and he left and I hesitantly took over and we won. There's a certain degree of leeway I'm willing to give. But when a new player takes matters into his own hands as a commander and does not ask assistance from his team, then I will not support him in ruining the experiences of an entire team. When I first commanded a few years ago on Ns_Nancy I asked my team how to play and drop structures and we ended up winning.
I <b>hate</b> bad commanders.... I <b>hate</b> them from the very depths of my soul. Any system at all that gives me at least some indication of the experience of a commander would be very, very welcome. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any developer support for this feature in my forum sifting thus far.
I would like to see some sort of indicator that a player has experience in being a commander, be it through playing matches online or by completing a tutorial or something.
One thing I would like is for there to be an option to join the team as commander. Would be nice to eliminate the kind of games where everyone joins a team, only to find that no one on marines wants to comm.
Edit: I do like the ranks idea, but I think it should be optional. Just need to store the ranks somewhere.
<!--quoteo(post=1713986:date=Jun 25 2009, 02:58 PM:name=Drown)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Drown @ Jun 25 2009, 02:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1713986"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree - rank based systems are best left for server level, not game level implementation. It provides a barrier between skill and inexperience that will not help facilitate the strong community here. It will separate skill from noob and make it harder for a new player to integrate without being attacked by less tolerant elitists. I like playing with a good range of skill categories and letting the new player try commanding every so often - even if that means an inevitable loss. Often some very unexpected things happen with inexperienced commanders that end up being quite fun to play out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree and I would also add that not every sub-community is going to be noob intolerant. The group of guys/gals that I use to play with would often let a new player COM so long as they were able to take advice and healthy criticism from the team. It ended up being a pretty good com training ground.
Incase this is not yet obvious, you sort of have to be nice to the inexperienced players or you will eventually kill growth of the fan base.
<!--quoteo(post=1714006:date=Jun 25 2009, 06:27 PM:name=Leader)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Leader @ Jun 25 2009, 06:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1714006"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I do not want to play a losing game because of a new player, I'm sorry.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Better not play the game then because there will always be new players, everyone is one at some point. What will really help the community survive the onslaught of newbies (players new to both games) is avoiding intolerant or callous attitudes towards new players. I want to win - but I also want have a fun time playing out the debate of who will win. Yelling at the new commander and calling him an idiot noob and ejecting him right away will just stop him from wanting to learn the nuances of the multiplayer game and either cause him to quit or spread that negative attitude himself. One example of how infections hate can be can be found at <a href="http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/" target="_blank">http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/</a>
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Superfly)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Superfly)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Incase this is not yet obvious, you sort of have to be nice to the inexperienced players or you will eventually kill growth of the fan base.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also, this is right on the money. Foster a community with good sportsmanship.
<!--quoteo(post=1714290:date=Jun 27 2009, 01:01 AM:name=Drown)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Drown @ Jun 27 2009, 01:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1714290"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Better not play the game then because there will always be new players, everyone is one at some point. What will really help the community survive the onslaught of newbies (players new to both games) is avoiding intolerant or callous attitudes towards new players. I want to win - but I also want have a fun time playing out the debate of who will win. Yelling at the new commander and calling him an idiot noob and ejecting him right away will just stop him from wanting to learn the nuances of the multiplayer game and either cause him to quit or spread that negative attitude himself. One example of how infections hate can be can be found at <a href="http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/" target="_blank">http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A person can lie about being new and purposely ruin the game a la griefing. If a player is not receptive to help and if the server does not invite him to learn, yes, there will be problems and new players will be driven away. There needs to be a balance between tolerating mistakes and supporting the development of new players and being wary of unreceptive, griefing players who exploit the concept of a new comm to ruin the game.
Comments
<!--quoteo(post=1699565:date=Feb 5 2009, 05:32 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Feb 5 2009, 05:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1699565"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->After reading through the <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=105614&view=findpost&p=1699177" target="_blank">Commander Rank</a> thread I thought of some, in IMO, good achievements for the commander that might be better than a straight ranking system. This is different from acheivements that help teach new players the game, but should still overall encourage positive behaviours in players.<ul><li> Healing Touch - Drop X medpacks directly onto marines heads</li><li> Candy Man - Drop X cat packs directly onto marines heads</li><li> Armed and Dangerous - Drop X ammo packs for marines who have requested it</li><li> Heavy Metal - Research and dispense X heavy armor/exoskeletons</li><li> Aerial Commander - Research and dispense X jetpacks</li><li> All Seeing Eye - Scan and de-cloak X kharaa</li><li> The Gatekeeper - Open X doors for marines</li><li> Insatiable Greed - Cap and keep every resnode on a map</li></ul><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You might be surprised to find that that would solve absolutely nothing. Rather than the dialog being to kick the n00b comm, it'd just be that one would say he's got a golden comm icon and everybody on the marine team would simultaneously vote to kick the current comm with the exception of the comm himself. All you've done is to divide the comm players into "comm players we'll take if we can't find better" and "comm players you'd kick the current comm to have." It's the same effect except you're probably also having relatively experienced comms kicked over comm players with golden comm icon as well as complete newbs.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- The ranking based on pure wins gets abused, but for example a purely game time related rank is more difficult to use on wrong purposes. You could also force certain requirements before a player can be recognized as 'experienced'. For example an experienced commander must constantly break 60 actions per minute (APM) before he gets the icon. Almost every mouse click or key pressed counts as actions, so 60 is still ridiculously low for a decent comm. In comparsion a decent starcraft player fluctates somewhere around 200 APM, if not more.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you really think you wouldn't then have players click in random places just to maintain 60 APM? Again, you might be surprised to find that you could probably set the APM limit to levels which no reasonable player would achieve naturally (veteran or otherwise) and you'd still have players achieving those levels simply by clicking in order to meet whatever requirements you think are necessary to be considered a talented commander. Probably any system you could think of could either be abused or would not properly represent comm player talent in some fashion (or both). I challenge you to find a ranking system to the contrary. If you can, I'll concede my argument.
Good leadership often makes a big deal of public commanding, but some skill is still required for maintaining a decent support and scouting. The required APM can be kept really low, just enough to ensure that the guy actually has the capability to do the basic stuff. On NS1 logic that would mean the ability to keep an eye on the base and general map situation and keep the team somewhat supported with med and ammo. I can't see that kind of requirement as a bad thing as long as getting regocnized as a good commander is still an award and not a necessity.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You might be surprised to find that that would solve absolutely nothing. Rather than the dialog being to kick the n00b comm, it'd just be that one would say he's got a golden comm icon and everybody on the marine team would simultaneously vote to kick the current comm with the exception of the comm himself. All you've done is to divide the comm players into "comm players we'll take if we can't find better" and "comm players you'd kick the current comm to have." It's the same effect except you're probably also having relatively experienced comms kicked over comm players with golden comm icon as well as complete newbs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do people eject when they see a pro comm in the team nowadays? No. There's no guarantee that the guy with the icon even wants to command a round, not to speak of a round someone else started. Neither there is any actual confirmation that the commander is actually better than the present one.
You could also change it so that the golden cc is only visible while he's actually comming or something in case it gets abused.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you really think you wouldn't then have players click in random places just to maintain 60 APM? Again, you might be surprised to find that you could probably set the APM limit to levels which no reasonable player would achieve naturally (veteran or otherwise) and you'd still have players achieving those levels simply by clicking in order to meet whatever requirements you think are necessary to be considered a talented commander. Probably any system you could think of could either be abused or would not properly represent comm player talent in some fashion (or both). I challenge you to find a ranking system to the contrary. If you can, I'll concede my argument.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
60 APM might be too much or just fine depending on NS2 comming. The main idea is that the number is still very much at anyone's reach if he decides to learn the basic comming skills. If someone spams over it to get some neat and shiny comm icon, then so be it. However, if a few people bother to learn the hotkeys or get interested in the comm micro, it's all good. I can see some gain and very little negative effects as long as the requiriment is kept at reasonable limits.
Because everyone reads game manuals before playing, amirite.
Perhaps when we get CO their can be a commander role also. Basically a com that doesn't have to drop guns or cap res but still gets to learn the interface... and drop tfs and sieges and pgs like with buildmenu. It would really help people out i think.
Obviously we should extend it further that the com can see if your a good player or not and drop a gun based on that.
Bad commanders can spoil the game for everyone else. This makes FPS-RTS'es unattractive to some players. Also, this is hard to do on server basis, because then only those who have been commanding on the server before can command. The issue would be faking but it can be contained by requiring the game to have atleast eg. 10 players to be counted.
I doubt there's any harm from collecting such stats unless you happen to have bad self-esteem, eg. C&C First Decade does it. Go has it. Many games have it.
And sadly, those people who think teamplay can outscore the commander are not looking at the subject on from wider perspective. Not to mention that commander has huge impact, but the fact that many NS servers suffered from wasted rounds because of a bad commanders. I remember my one friend trying out NS and just quiting because most comms had no clue at all.
<b>Bad rounds</b> will have an aggregate impact on the picture and number of players that will stay in the game. Keep this in mind whatever is implemented.
And to all the people who are saying "I don't see the good sides of this" etc. should know that giving the servers and players information about players does not commit them to anything. The servers and/or players will <b>ultimately</b> have the power on the commanders. Don't blame knifes for stabbings.
It could also be just how many games the person has played.
For instance you get a message "You are the best/most experienced/coolest Commander on your team."
If you have some good comms on the team it won't matter that much, but if noone on your team knows how to comm
and you're like me (can comm, but would rather be a regular marine is someone else is good at it)
then it would be very helpfull to know at the start of the game...
The only time the amount of wins would be available to a team is when they reach a certain point. For example, if I have under 30 wins, all that would be implied is that I am under 30, I could have 29, 0, or 17 wins, it wouldn't matter. The idea is that people with wins under this amount may still have many wins (even 29!), essentially giving everyone the benefit of the doubt while allowing players who have reached a very difficult and uncommon milestone to be recognized. If you think about it, constellation members MAY be seen as people who could be more serious about NS than casual gamers. But I don't see people ejecting non-constellation members to let a constellation member command. Maybe this recognition wouldn't just be for commanding, maybe having 50 kills would be like winning 10 matches as commander, etc. The title given could be "Hardened" or maybe even allow the players to affix their own subtitle if they want (within appropriate bounds). Merit would be acknowledged and newbies still provided a fair and cultivating environment to learn the game.
Hawkeye, I would like your input on this matter.
Bad games happen when a commander who has no clue goes to the chair. Well atleast he has the most impact among out of all other players. The good comms are not a problem, but the bad comms. Giving pink, green or gold icons to some of the good comms does not really address the problem.
I don't think NS should itself implement any kind of restrictions on comchair by default. Rather provide servers with information about players so servers can use either some cvar-enabled or LUA scriptable plugins to limit the chair usage if they want. This would enable to have servers where you could have higher "enjoyable rounds" ratio.
I understand beginners are crucial for the game, that's not the point. I just don't think the chair is the place to start. There are lots of other game classes, so its not an issue if something has to achieved to get into the chair.
The only time the amount of wins would be available to a team is when they reach a certain point. For example, if I have under 30 wins, all that would be implied is that I am under 30, I could have 29, 0, or 17 wins, it wouldn't matter. The idea is that people with wins under this amount may still have many wins (even 29!), essentially giving everyone the benefit of the doubt while allowing players who have reached a very difficult and uncommon milestone to be recognized. If you think about it, constellation members MAY be seen as people who could be more serious about NS than casual gamers. But I don't see people ejecting non-constellation members to let a constellation member command. Maybe this recognition wouldn't just be for commanding, maybe having 50 kills would be like winning 10 matches as commander, etc. The title given could be "Hardened" or maybe even allow the players to affix their own subtitle if they want (within appropriate bounds). Merit would be acknowledged and newbies still provided a fair and cultivating environment to learn the game.
Hawkeye, I would like your input on this matter.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It'd help, but I don't think it'd eliminate the problem. You're more likely to have more people booted from the comm chair for having < 30 wins than you'd see people tolerating < 30 wins because nobody knows the exact number. Perhaps if the ONLY information made public were the number of wins a player has made as comm, and even then I'd make a nice safe number like 50 wins be the number by which no player can know if you've made less than that as to allow the majority of players to have this whether they've made wins or not. Theory being that it'd take an experienced (but not necessarily always effective) comm to achieve more than 50 wins, thereby allowing the team to pick their commander by experience, not by the wins to losses ratio.
Funny thing is I was thinking 50 originally as well, but because of what else I had written in reference to 30 kills I kept 30. But yes commanding should not be the only way to recognize high achievement. I believe anyone that plays this game will achieve something within a span of time if they come to tolerate the gameplay. It's a process of natural selection; the people in the end who do not achieve anything will be those who could not survive the rigors of the game and ragequit or were not attracted to its style. Anyone who does not leave the game means they DID survive, and thus will play eventually to attain an achievement. Everyone is expected to get there at some point in their specific gameplay role, just as everyone in halo 3 is expected to pass training before they can play online (also like America's Army). The developers assumed everyone would eventually pass. What I am trying to defend here is that this system SHOULD NOT be aristocratic but recognocratic.
I do not want to play a losing game because of a new player, I'm sorry. Also, as a responsible newbie I wouldn't want to inconvenience a community because of my lack of experience. Yesterday no one wanted to command on mineshaft and someone got in and dropped a TF in base, we criticized him and he left and I hesitantly took over and we won. There's a certain degree of leeway I'm willing to give. But when a new player takes matters into his own hands as a commander and does not ask assistance from his team, then I will not support him in ruining the experiences of an entire team. When I first commanded a few years ago on Ns_Nancy I asked my team how to play and drop structures and we ended up winning.
At the beginning of the map, there should be a vote for commanders. Unless it's going to be a plugin that servers can use.
my $0.02
One thing I would like is for there to be an option to join the team as commander. Would be nice to eliminate the kind of games where everyone joins a team, only to find that no one on marines wants to comm.
Edit: I do like the ranks idea, but I think it should be optional. Just need to store the ranks somewhere.
I agree and I would also add that not every sub-community is going to be noob intolerant. The group of guys/gals that I use to play with would often let a new player COM so long as they were able to take advice and healthy criticism from the team. It ended up being a pretty good com training ground.
Incase this is not yet obvious, you sort of have to be nice to the inexperienced players or you will eventually kill growth of the fan base.
Better not play the game then because there will always be new players, everyone is one at some point. What will really help the community survive the onslaught of newbies (players new to both games) is avoiding intolerant or callous attitudes towards new players. I want to win - but I also want have a fun time playing out the debate of who will win. Yelling at the new commander and calling him an idiot noob and ejecting him right away will just stop him from wanting to learn the nuances of the multiplayer game and either cause him to quit or spread that negative attitude himself. One example of how infections hate can be can be found at <a href="http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/" target="_blank">http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/</a>
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Superfly)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Superfly)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Incase this is not yet obvious, you sort of have to be nice to the inexperienced players or you will eventually kill growth of the fan base.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also, this is right on the money. Foster a community with good sportsmanship.
Remembering the names of good players was always part of NS.
A person can lie about being new and purposely ruin the game a la griefing. If a player is not receptive to help and if the server does not invite him to learn, yes, there will be problems and new players will be driven away. There needs to be a balance between tolerating mistakes and supporting the development of new players and being wary of unreceptive, griefing players who exploit the concept of a new comm to ruin the game.