Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vetting commanders?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Vetting commanders?

    Really the only time i've had my frustration in bad starts would be with a non-responsive commander. Usually the lack of response can be attributed to inexperience or the very rare technical problem. I think the 10 minute limit works in keeping with the "let's wait and see" attitude as i've been a part of many games where all hope seemed lost but we ended up winning.

    My suggestion would be to implement a requirement for commander. I know we've got the mod that excludes rookies from commanding if there are a certain number of rookies on the server. I have no idea if there is a mod that allows for testing awareness for commanders. I know we have the sudo rule of having a mic to command, yet many commanders on the server are without mics. This can mostly lead to ineffective coordination of team members. Maybe a mod that incorporates a checklist for the commander to prove he is worthy of commanding would prevent the type of bad start i've encountered a few times on the server.

    I have no idea if such a mod exists but would help with the flow of games. I wish our player base was large enough to dictate that you at least need to sign the primer to command, but that would be too restrictive during the day when mostly new people play on the server. I hope we can find a happy medium.

    Just my two cents.

  • #2
    Re: Vetting commanders?

    What about a mod which required that commanders be voted in by the team?

    I'm not sure how that would be implemented yet, and I know that the implementation details may sway some folks' opinion of the very idea itself, but consider first the merit of the idea.

    If we like the idea, is this something we'd want all the time? Only when the server is mostly strangers? Only when it's mostly regulars? What would the vote ratio have to be for success?
    Steam Community? Add me. | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

    Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Vetting commanders?

      What if there is an auto end to the match if the commander is ejected before the WinOrLose function can be implemented at the 10 min mark? We could set the same number of votes to eject the commander as a WinOrLose so it's really a majority of the team decision rather than the normal 3 votes it takes to eject a commander. This may at least help with bad starts due to unresponsive commanders.

      And really it would be used in rare instances as commanders get rarely ejected on the server, so I dont think there would be much abuse. More often than not a bad commander will voluntarily leave the chair over getting ejected. This may allow for proper dealings of trolls that take up commanding rather than having the entire team wait 10 minutes to restart the match.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Vetting commanders?

        I'm worried about it facilitating greifing. If a commander is unresponsive we should eject and explain why. If the become responsive after being ejected, well, then it applies double to them. In fact if ANY player is unresponsive, it is totally fine to kick them, after trying to reach out. Making it a policy that the commander is responsive within the first minute of the game is a good cutoff.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Vetting commanders?

          Right. Unresponsive commanders should just be removed (after swift and polite attempts to make them responsive); silently dropping stuff isn't good enough, but somewhat-less-frequent-than-you-would-prefer communication from an otherwise competent commander is.

          My concern is being lead by someone who's a stranger to everyone. I'm all for it (nothing beats a surprise and effective leader!), but I'd prefer to judge them first, even if only very briefly, and even if it's only to prove they're communicating effectively (mic or not). And that's because, despite my enthusiasm for good experiences following strangers into battle (even if they're new at commanding), my experience is that it more often happens, among total strangers, that it's disappointing instead of satisfying.

          Does anyone see merit in somehow judging/evaluating/voting strangers before they lead?
          Steam Community? Add me. | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

          Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Vetting commanders?

            I have no problem with an unknown commander so I wouldn't want to have to vote them in. Maybe when they try to log in to the chair have a message that explicitly explains to them the requirements of being a comm on this server and the results if those requirements aren't met, then (insert vote if decided one will be implemented) and they have to log in again for the station to accept them.

            And if anything is implemented I would naturally expect it to exclude S/P members, and possibly only have recognized (by the server) players getting to vote.
            aka Roland tHTG

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Vetting commanders?

              Given that the "not responsive" problem is a different problem, I love the idea of making strangers click twice to enter the command structure, with a quick rules advisory along the way (and a notification to the team that the stranger has been advised of the rules and should be held to them).
              Steam Community? Add me. | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

              Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Vetting commanders?

                Originally posted by Wyzcrak View Post
                Given that the "not responsive" problem is a different problem, I love the idea of making strangers click twice to enter the command structure, with a quick rules advisory along the way (and a notification to the team that the stranger has been advised of the rules and should be held to them).
                If something like this was implemented it should only be for for the pregame. Having to click twice to enter the command station during a round could disrupt the game.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Vetting commanders?

                  I concur.
                  Steam Community? Add me. | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

                  Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Vetting commanders?

                    I could see something that requires that you sign our PRIMER before commanding, but not something that keeps you from being commander if your not vetted by your peers, that would hurt some peoples feelings most likely.

                    I like the idea of anyone commanding, sure you get some bad commanders but you also find some really good ones that like the server because they find loyal troops to command. By taking that away, you are removing some of the functionality of the game and new people joining the community.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Vetting commanders?

                      I had a fairly long post about my thoughts on this, but the forum decided to eat it because zero URL's exceeded some sort of filter, or something.
                      /sigh.

                      Long story short, I don't agree with this. I don't think it'd really solve the problem, and the best solution is to just ask the commander if they're able to command.

                      Comment

                      Connect

                      Collapse

                      TeamSpeak 3 Server

                      Collapse

                      Advertisement

                      Collapse

                      Twitter Feed

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X