Free Allegiance Forums

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.

When 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)

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)

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.

... 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.

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

Sorry. >_<

I agree with Bunnywabbit. I think it would make things a lot clearer for brand-new players.

Would such a change fall into Tigereye's zone?

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.

I believe ASCS or whatever it's called is being tested THIS WEEK so it might be sooner than we think!

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 ^^

Clint, comm rage doesn't subside that quickly.

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 ^^

No.
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.