We need more players who try to comm

spideycw · Post by **spideycw** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:42 pm

MrChaos wrote:QUOTE (MrChaos @ Jun 29 2007, 01:35 AM) /unsure.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":unsure:" border="0" alt="unsure.gif" /> Spidey but it seems to me the effect is inversely proptional to the amount of boots. Also a chronic butt munch doesnt seem to learn a damn thing IMHO. Many times the bootie ( especially if they are said butt munch ) causes so much havoc it's not worth the effort.
To the new guys who "like" comming but have a low number you wont like it much when you get the crap kicked out of you 30 times in a row on the main game. Only "special" personality types are willing to deal with that kind of loving.

MrChaos

Well in the end its always best to do what works best for your style of commanding. I know booting works well for mine now (I never booted all that often prior to 2 or 3 months ago). I know I booted Adam4 one time (who I rather like) and I've never seen him make the same mistake he made then. He just logged back in on my team and kept playing(on my team) without crying like half the people.

However what works for me may not work for you!

p.s. I do not condone nor endorse bootings!

Drizzo · Post by **Drizzo** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:15 pm

Of course you can do what I do, when you get fed-up with stupidity, start a game with high money settings and push a garr con into the enemy home.

Of course if the enemy is rix, there is a high chance they might up their garrison and get GS's and bombers... ugh.

MrChaos · Post by **MrChaos** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:40 pm

spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Jun 29 2007, 02:42 PM) Well in the end its always best to do what works best for your style of commanding. I know booting works well for mine now (I never booted all that often prior to 2 or 3 months ago). I know I booted Adam4 one time (who I rather like) and I've never seen him make the same mistake he made then. He just logged back in on my team and kept playing(on my team) without crying like half the people.

However what works for me may not work for you!

p.s. I do not condone nor endorse bootings!

/cool.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="

" border="0" alt="cool.gif" /> My favorite Allegiance insect of all time. I will put in the mental hopper, observe with interest, and re-evaluate coming up with an opinion no one wants to hear /doh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":doh:" border="0" alt="doh.gif" />

Myrddlin

While I almost never mute, 2-3 times since my return and never before, that's the easy solution to the "issue". Taking function away based on rank wont work

1) Guys who DO know what they are doing and can comm get chat locked out whenever the ranks reset ( I'm current a six for example )
2) There is enforcement in place for spamming
3) A simple please don't spam the chat is usually all it takes for most players
4) It smacks of an elitist mentality [ I'm sure that's not the intention of the idea ] and will turn off people.
5) What usually irritates me most is the typed spam not the voice chats. However I dont use speakers when playing.

This idea is a non-flyer in my opinion since many many times you need others who are playing cooperatively to send VCs. I am no way in agreement with removing VC content from the game.

Sycrus · Post by **Sycrus** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm

Heh, just spam in general irritates me. I lean a little more to the voice chats, even when I turn off the sound. Even then, when you're trying to talk to another person before a game ends? As soon as it ends, the convo is over because people spamming '`4', taunts, and especially for newbs, spamming to get another game up immediately.

Just to make it clear to any newbie reading this, Alleg doesn't start game after game within 5 minutes. If it does, then the GC comm launched it immediately, resulting in a draw from anger players who can't sit anymore... wait 10-15 minutes to start the game up again. `yt

Since my ban, I have grown a sense of patience /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" /> So I was nice /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

-Syc

Mryddlin · Post by **Mryddlin** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 3:22 pm

QUOTE While I almost never mute, 2-3 times since my return and never before, that's the easy solution to the "issue". Taking function away based on rank wont work

1) Guys who DO know what they are doing and can comm get chat locked out whenever the ranks reset ( I'm current a six for example )
2) There is enforcement in place for spamming
3) A simple please don't spam the chat is usually all it takes for most players
4) It smacks of an elitist mentality [ I'm sure that's not the intention of the idea ] and will turn off people.
5) What usually irritates me most is the typed spam not the voice chats. However I dont use speakers when playing.[/quote]

Hey Thanks for the reply, I would like to know any ideas that you have for improving the command structure and flow of information from command to players as that is what this discussion is really about, spamming is just one of the issues related to information flow in the game. Your points don't really address the issue of players spamming orders when they shouldn't and confusing people who are trying to help.

As for you points, I think so of them are fair and some are a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of 'losing' features aka "a nerf"

1) This is a fair point and I would personally recommend a flaggable option over limiting by rank (flag option for 'officers' with a value, i.e. 4 officers) and the commander can enable the player to have full access. Comms should have the right to choose who their staff is and not have players just 'feel' like they know better. For new players this is a huge issue, for voobs and vets not such a big deal since we can tell where and what needs to be done but it can still cost the team valuable time as people get sorted out and we know that seconds are valuable in this game.

2,3,5) These points are basically the same one, that their isn't a problem with the game systems but a problem with people. They don't offer any solutions other than status quo which this thread is basically stating doesn't work.

4) I am not sure how you see this as elitism, a leveling system is already in place (i.e. stats) and giving a reward to leveling is a good thing. People LOVE to level in games (hence the success of WoW and other MMORGP, people eat it up if they put time in and GET something from it in game). Think of it more as a player matures they get access to more options/controls in game and are expected to live up to it. Reaching Vet status should mean more than just a number, it means you are a leader in the community and should have access to more than a 0. Right now there really isn't any real reason to level up your rank other than bragging rights, most people don't care about that, they want phat l00t /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

Please keep in mind that I just want to get a dialogue going with players before working on a design doc and mockups for the dev team to review. I really like the idea of the commander having the control to delegate authority in game with the game systems backing it up.

I would like it to go as far as allowing the commander to delegate roles to people and assign a percentage of payday income to that person. i.e.
- Commander assigns Miner Control & Build Authority to a player and assigns 5% of the payday income to that player for miner replacement.
- That player propagates the Miner Control authority to his 'wing' (for lack of a better word) and those players can order miners around.
- Commander assigns Cons Control & Build Authority to a player and assigns 10% of payday to the player
- That player would be able to build outposts, teles, etc and issue orders to them, same as above for people in their 'wing'

etc,etc I haven't really worked out the areas of authority that could be delegated in game (I know people already do this, you have to command well but building systems into the game structure I believe would help alot of the frustration that goes into commanding). Part of this is to allow the commander to spread the 'blame' around when a team loses, it would also help in training commanders and getting people interested in commanding, you would basically be assigning mini-commanders through the game engine, instead of verbally.

Thanks for the reply man and any ideas that you or anyone has would be welcomed, whether they are for or against.

Cheers!

Evincar · Post by **Evincar** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:35 pm

what about a shared money pool?

Mryddlin · Post by **Mryddlin** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:47 pm

Shared money pool as in the commander assigns a percentage to the mini-comms to share?

Great idea, would be easier management in game, less screwing with totals. Just drop a wack load into the shared team pool and the mini-comms can assigned money from bombers and capships to players and miners and cons if needed.

That would be alot better! thanks, good idea.

guitarism · Post by **guitarism** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:53 pm

No. No sharing the money. No extra bold. When you start the game, you are COMMANDER. It is YOUR final decision what to do. Anything else in there is trying to shift away your responsibility. Nothing more, nothing less. DONT. Do. It.

Wise up and get it together.

nug_diggum · Post by **nug_diggum** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:54 pm

Narg wrote:QUOTE (Narg @ Jun 26 2007, 09:39 AM) Get high rank -> use hider -> pull stack

Edit: people will think you know what you're doing.

lol

Mryddlin · Post by **Mryddlin** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:24 pm

guitarism wrote:QUOTE (guitarism @ Jun 30 2007, 12:53 PM) No. No sharing the money. No extra bold. When you start the game, you are COMMANDER. It is YOUR final decision what to do. Anything else in there is trying to shift away your responsibility. Nothing more, nothing less. DONT. Do. It.

Wise up and get it together.

guitarism: really? I would have thought you would be for some changes to the command interface. Please keep in mind that I am not suggesting forcing this on people, I am suggesting a switch that could be turned on by the commander if he/she so chooses they want the extra command features for their team (ideally the toggle would be on a per team basis not a over all game option).

By your own statement it is the Commanders final decision, whats really wrong with having tools to help do something that commanders already do?

I completely agree with you that it's the commanders game, 100%. They are the ones putting their ass on the line, the ones taking all the flak and back seat commanding. Think of it from your own perspective, as a person who commands if you could ensure that the only people who touched your miners or cons where people YOU trusted and only the people you trusted could even move a miner. Imagine a windows that you could bring up with each pilot and the current requests and approve/decline the ones you wanted without having to deal with order spam.

that's what I am talking about, stuff that would make your life a bit easier to when commanding. I don't advocate forcing people to play this way, I just believe that the command interface can use some work. It's been a problem in Allegiance since the start of the game and it will always be a problem if we never think to change it and try and make it better.

Cheers