Leader Voting

[umgah]

There is a simple way to improve teamwork and strategy:

Add Voting for Team Leaders and add one line to the HUD for what the Leader says.

[ShadowNinjaDudeMan]

So, what would team leaders actually be able to do?

Perhaps they would appear on the helmet as a golden dot.
By any way, he would be able to carry like a beacon, which lets humans (and possibly aliens) know where he is.
Or his speech is doubly important, differen colour r something.
Perhaps as well as 'team say' and 'say' he has 'team command'.

But I think you must have an idea of what his purpose is to the game.
Its a good idea, but you need to clarify more.
(and this should probably be in the mods section   )

[Lord Baxter]

there are many times when i've wished that people would obey simple commands such as "stop feeding" or "repair turrets" or "dont go out of the base, rants are camping the corridor", the latter of which is ignored more often than the rest. many noobs suffer the delusion that they can take out 2   and an advanced with only a rifle

[Plague Bringer]

Agreed, if people cannot listen to the simplest commands, what makes you think they'll obey a leader?

What makes you think they'll even vote a leader?

What if the leader sucks?

[Glunnator]

Methinks it's a great idea but it would never works due to overload of nubs.

[_Equilibrium_]

if it worked, maybe i could get people to actually follow me for an attack.

[umgah]

> Agreed, if people cannot listen to the simplest commands, what makes you think they'll obey a leader?

When some random person starts shouting orders, people generally don't know if it's some idiot or not.  If a person had any official leader status, most people would listen -- especially those who voted and agreed to follow.  For those that don't listen to anyone, nothing can be done.  Still, this would be much improved.  At the very least, newbies and people who want to work as a team would have a central, agreed-upon authority to get direction from.  After a leader shows his worth and wins games, more people will gladly follow.

> What makes you think they'll even vote a leader?

Why wouldn't they?  Here is a simple implementation: Once per game, anyone can call a vote to install themselves as leader.  Everyone on that team gets a yes/no prompt.  If there is a majority of yes votes for any person, that person becomes the new leader.  It's a simple question: do you want this person to be responsible for directing the team this game?  People who choose not to vote get no say in it.  I think that most people would like to have their say.  If no one gets voted in, that team loses the advantage of having someone coordinating them.

> What if the leader sucks?

Easily remedied with a new vote.  Once a leader shows incompetance, people will stop voting for that person.  After many games, good leaders will stand out.

> So, what would team leaders actually be able to do?

Primarily, a leaders' speech would stand out.  This is all that's necessary for a huge increase in coordination.  A line of text saying, "Leader of the Humans says: everyone, stop feeding and stay in base," has much more weight than a random player saying it.  Having the leader stand out physically is also a good idea -- killing a leader, or at least keeping him busy by fighting could disrupt coordination of the enemy team.  I imagine that those two things would be easy to code.  Other possibilities come to mind that might not be so trivial: denybuild powers, kick from team powers, etc.  This could be an option for servers that want to force obeying leaders, but I don't think it would be necessary.  Most people are followers by nature.

[player1]

What about having board leaders teamchat echoed on HUD (in center of screen), and lingering slightly longer than the stuff that appears in the scrollchat? Sure killwhores would be in charge, but at least people would be listening to someone.

You need a war chief (board leader) and a medicine chief (desi builder) who both have their teamchat echoed for a slightly longer duration than normal. With a vote system, to pass a 'No Confidence/Impeach' ballot. And nominations and votes for new Attack and Defend leaders.

Players could check off their preference (Build/Defend/Camp or Destroy/Attack/Killwhore), which the Team Leaders could reassign. Players might even get some small reward for obeying commands (like stop yelling at me, Captain ALLCaps). Then everybody could ignore or abuse that, as they see fit.

Also, the Attack Leader (person with most kills at Stage 1>2 change), and the Defense Leader (designated builder or builder with oldest active turret at Stage 1>2 change) could both get a Beacon which they could place, which would show on their own team's radar. They could deploy this Beacon in any way they wish (and would get a new one, if it was destroyed, except in SD): converge on me here, attack enemy (structure/forces) here, defend here, reac/OM move to here, etc. Possibly the Beacon would be invisible to the other team. Thoughts?

[_Equilibrium_]

is this is implememnted, there is going to be even more bitching about how "THE LEADER SUX!!!" in-game.

[sleekslacker]

Agreed. Maybe what you want is to play in a server where the good tactical players are. Good players will recognize other good players, communicate vital info and lend help when needed. But then I doubt such a server exists. Getting people to play on your server is hard enough, what more getting only the good people in.

[Paradox]

Maybe resurrect teamtask?

[DHRUVINATOR]

This rases the question of team games such as capture the flag?

[Xonya]

... Good Idea ...


And lets spam more voting for 'not following the leader'...

Personally, I play @ publics with my own ways, almost always alone far away from others. So maybe join a clan if you want some leaded games. Or think some tactics by your self.

Good players realizes what OM down or no Eggs means, or whatever message and acts accordingly, but this happens only if people are wise enough to report whats going on. That is what Binds are for.

[DarkWolf]

I think it's a good idea, though there should also be a vote to have a game without a leader.

[Caveman]

That is not going to happen on the *wraths.
That is the same shit like voting for designated.

We want to play and not vote. And what is a leader w/o any power? right, powerless. So this topic is moot.

[TRaK]

This might simplify teamwork on larger servers. Usually, If there's more than 25 players in the game, the best you can do is 'rush at 40:00' or other very simple messages.

If the server is 20 and less, this feature isn't really needed.

[_Equilibrium_]

bigger servers means bigger chance that there will be a lot of people ignoring the leader.

[benmachine]

That is not going to happen on the *wraths.
That is the same shit like voting for designated.

We want to play and not vote. And what is a leader w/o any power? right, powerless. So this topic is moot.

This is pretty much how I view this too (except delete "shit" replace with "stuff" :P ). Even if it was actually worthwhile having a leader, and it was likely that the general population of a given server have any idea who would be good as one, 90% of the time all that time spent doing /callteamvote errr... leader err... (!listplayers once or twice) benmachine (cue 30 times "how do I teamvote?") would have been better spent spreading hot lead around the environment.

[Undeference]

The purpose of having votes is so that the server knows what people want to do. If the people already know they want to do what some player does, the server does not need to know. If they don't want to do what some player does, they won't regardless of whether the server thinks they should.

[black adder9]

stop playing bf2...

[RiffRaff]

i have enough leaders IRL to have to stand any fucker's wish to command overs in game. seriously, stop trying to put leaders/commanders everywhere, even clanwars or teams can exist w/o any kind of hierarchy.

[f0rqu3]

what? another vote?