Let's face it: the current system of having to make a new callsign when booted is unintuitive and illogical, but for now, we're stuck with it.
New players have a lot to absorb and chances are they'll miss the messages about creating multiple callsigns.
We should present this information where it is most apt - at callsign creation.
This way, new players already know what's up when they get booted, and what to do about it, and have the callsign ready at hand.
I suggest having a second, non-obligatory field for the alternative callsign, with a pic of the 'bootscreen' so the newbs will recognize it when they see it.
add second callsign on ASGS registration page
-
Bunnywabbit
- Posts: 965
- Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 7:00 am
- Location: Amsterdam, the Netherlands

current version r158 new beta as of jan 23 2012When you start to play on allegiance, you got a mesage that say unlinked account are forbidden, and you dont know what is a "linked" account, so you think you cant create another account.
And why not ask a vote for boot people ? Comm should explain to team why he wants boot someone and this someone could understand why the comm want boot him. (and if there is no good reason, there is no more abused boot)
And why not ask a vote for boot people ? Comm should explain to team why he wants boot someone and this someone could understand why the comm want boot him. (and if there is no good reason, there is no more abused boot)

"What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men." Some ZLs about me
I approved this
Make it a reverse bootiny! If the vote to boot fails, the comm should automatically be mutinied by the person they tried to boot, and then booted themselves.clint wrote:QUOTE (clint @ Jan 25 2012, 10:46 AM) And why not ask a vote for boot people ? Comm should explain to team why he wants boot someone and this someone could understand why the comm want boot him. (and if there is no good reason, there is no more abused boot)
... No, seriously that's a terrible idea. The commander should have some form of authority over their team, and they shouldn't have to wait for a vote every time they need to make a decision, especially since sometimes -- like if someone's about to give away your HTT run or whatever -- there's no time for it. The important thing is to ensure enforcement of the proper rules around booting, like making sure comms respect the no-newbie-booting rules, and that those comms who break the rules get punished properly.
-
Bunnywabbit
- Posts: 965
- Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 7:00 am
- Location: Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Back to topic. Please dont start discussing a very complicated, convoluted proposal when a very simple on is on the table.
As mentioned, people tend to miss or ignore text during installation and first contact with a new game. when their attention is focused on callsign creation is when the the topic of multiple callsigns should be brought up.
Right?
/derail
As mentioned, people tend to miss or ignore text during installation and first contact with a new game. when their attention is focused on callsign creation is when the the topic of multiple callsigns should be brought up.
Right?
/derail

current version r158 new beta as of jan 23 2012-
RHINO_Mk_II
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:47 am
- Location: Dallas, TX
I agree that new players should be aware of how they can rejoin with a hider before their first kick. I would like to think that the rules against booting newbies unless they are intentionally trying to screw over their team is enough, and by the time they lose the (0) they would know about hiders, but that probably isn't the case. It would probably help player retention if the information was more accessible.
If you can choose to be decisive or correct, always choose decisive. Otherwise, this can happen to you:

"Totus vestri substructio es erus nobis iam"

"Totus vestri substructio es erus nobis iam"
I believe ASCS or whatever it's called is being tested THIS WEEK so it might be sooner than we think!
I decided to relive the days gone by in my new blog.
---
Remember, what I say is IMO always. If I say that something sucks, it actually means "I think it sucks" OK?


---
Remember, what I say is IMO always. If I say that something sucks, it actually means "I think it sucks" OK?
Cookie Monster wrote:QUOTE (Cookie Monster @ Jan 31 2012, 03:09 PM) True story.
Except the big about dorjan being jelly, that's just spidey's ego.


Dont forget most of the boot have done cause the comm rage, and with the time of vote, he should calm down.
And the too-much autority is bad, when you are a vet and you are booted by a noob commander, you dont wanna play anymore ^^
And the too-much autority is bad, when you are a vet and you are booted by a noob commander, you dont wanna play anymore ^^

"What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men." Some ZLs about me
I approved this
No.clint wrote:QUOTE (clint @ Jan 26 2012, 10:24 AM) Dont forget most of the boot have done cause the comm rage, and with the time of vote, he should calm down.
And the too-much autority is bad, when you are a vet and you are booted by a noob commander, you dont wanna play anymore ^^
When this has been implemented in other games it leads to stupid vote wars where half the team doesn't know why someone is being booted and so don't vote for the boot to happen while the person spoiling the game merrily goes on ruining the game for others.
End of.
Clint - if you want to discuss this further start a new topic somewhere else, and don't pollute a thread about a simple Site code change.
Will raise an AR for OP post - it's a good idea.
Last edited by notjarvis on Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
