Author Topic: Mission "Leader" (Read 1274 times)

Dennis · « **Reply #15 on:** January 29, 2003, 04:10:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wotan
if he was unreasonable then folks in the mission can "quit" and rtb.

This is not reasonable. Someone who "quits" and rtb without orders is deserting, no? I would think this would bring unpleasant repercussions.

But I agree someone must be in charge. That's the way it was irl. The game will have provision for attaining rank. I must assume those with rank will have some control over those with lower rank, as it was/is irl. I will also assume HT has thought this one out (or is thinking it out).

Splash1

BNM · « **Reply #16 on:** February 03, 2003, 11:28:26 PM »

Leader? I might have missed it but I thought all the missions came from AH. You are a virtual "pilot" earning his wings, promotions, etc... You will basically take orders as far as I can figure. You are scored based on your performance and the degree of success of the mission. No where does it say you will "lead" or "be lead" by another player other than AI. ????

Kweassa · « **Reply #17 on:** February 04, 2003, 12:59:02 AM »

....

that might also mean a wise-cracking smart prettythang would refuse to follow the mission lay outs the planner had in mind, and ruin a nice mission, inviting the enemy to have a nice good turkey shoot.

Following orders is a very important part of RPG concept designed to simulate combat conditions. Hey, there's a dic*head leading your squad, but what can you do about it?

While we aren't in the military, and no single player should have the power to force others into submission, still there should be some sort of incentive/penalty system that urges the players to willingly follow the orders of a squadron leader, no matter how stupid you think it is..

.... and with it, there should also be some sort of basic evaluation system to judge people fit for a squad leader.. so that unable, idiotic leaders will fall behind in rank or lose favor of other people, and will be ruled out/demoted/penalized over time.

..

The last thing anyone would want, if he should ever become a squad leader, is having a wing man who thinks he has control over something which he does not, wrecking havoc to the mission - refusing to cooperate, needless provocations, endless 'suggestions', 'little generals', idiotic behavior and etc etc.

Easyscor · « **Reply #18 on:** February 04, 2003, 03:22:21 AM »

I imagine the most likely senario is a list of applicant pilots for the CO to choose from. If a guy is blitzed or he's being a jerk, the CO can pass him over but if it's just a matter of talent, sooner or later the CO will need to concider giving the guy a ride.

If it's a personality thing or the COs just having a bad day, the player can get an assignment with another CO or the AI command.

Batz · « **Reply #19 on:** February 04, 2003, 09:50:27 AM »

BNM the only thing you are missing is the fact you didnt read the thread. It isnt about describing a feature but a request.

The missions need some structure.......HT has meantioned "court martials" all though without much details.

The purpose of completing missions is to advance in rank. Like Kweassa said part of the "rpg" element is to simiulate the "experience". There were "squad leaders" in real life.

The idea that the "squad leader" would go on a ramdon boot cycle just to screw up your mission is stupid because he cant expect to gain rank acting like that.

In events theres a chain of command. AH2:ToD as described so far will be a structured enviroment. Whether "eject" authority is given directly to the highest ranking guy in the mission or theres a "vote system" to boot out those who jeopardize or disrupt the mission, or to eject those who may avoid contact with the enemy and allow the rest of the folks in the mission to do all the work, would be a good thing.

Jebo44 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 04, 2003, 01:30:06 PM »

Alot of the leadership in AH from my experience has not only decent tactical ability but, most of all they have the ability to surround themselves with people that see things the same way that they do. Keeping that in mind I beleive those that we have come to respect as leaders in the MA will become to AH2 as what they were in AH.

I do not believe the ability to boot someone from a mission will be productive at all and will only add to any negative views of AH2.

The best way to deal with hell raisers in the missions is to let them be. Since they most likely will be single individuals and the missions will have numerous people to try and accomplish the mission, one person acting like a fool will not matter and that fool will be only hurting themselves.

Pongo · « **Reply #21 on:** February 04, 2003, 03:47:04 PM »

I aggree with Jebo.
The worst thing that could happen to the TOD is for the system to assign real game authority to people based on thier performance. The only way that could work is through nomination from the comunity.
The highest ranking people in this game are some of the most unstable. Period.
We would quickly end up with the totally realistic situation where the Flying Officers job is to count the kills of his flight leader.
I would imagine it possible to have Tour Administrators like there are training team members and CT admins..but not individual pilots that 'earn' the capability to seriosly impact other players games...

Midnight · « **Reply #22 on:** February 04, 2003, 03:49:46 PM »

Maybe a system similar to the on-line auctions could be used.

Every player will have the ability to rate every other player. A player's rating ability will depend on how favorable that player's rating is.

Example:

Player A is rated as 100 on a scale of 1 to 100 (100 being the highest)

Player B is rated as 30

Player C is new.

Player D is rated as 90

Player B is having a bad day, and decides to rate Player A negative, just because he can.

(using fuzzy math)

Player B's rating of 30 is divided by Player A's rating of 100 to get 0.3. Player A's rating now becomes 99.7

Player C decides to rate Player A, and because he is not yet rated, his rating has NO effect on Player A at all.

Player A meets Player D in a mission and likes him, so he rates him positive. Player D is then increased to a rating of 91.

If Player A decides to now rate player B negative, the same formula is used (this time 30 / 99.7 = 0.3) and BOTH player's ratings are reduced. So player A is now at 99.4 and player B at 29.7. (Basically, giving a negative rating to a player with a lower rating than you will reduce both ratings. This may reduce "gangbanging" a player's rating)

---

Basically, I am trying to define a system where players will rate each other either positive or negative. A positive rating will have a greater effect than a single negative rating. However, continuous negative ratings from other players will eventually show who the "bad apple" players are.

In every mission, the player ratings will be visible, so if a badly ranked player is trying to lead one, other players can elect not to join it before it takes off.

Dennis · « **Reply #23 on:** February 04, 2003, 04:09:00 PM »

Let the troops choose their leader? History teaches that it doesn't work. Early years of America's War Between the States provide a good example.

Command should not be a popularity contest.

I'm watching with interest to see how command/control will be handled in AH2. But avoiding speculation on same.

Splash1

SKurj · « **Reply #24 on:** February 04, 2003, 05:02:05 PM »

No to "leader"

and unlimited # of participants per mission will solve the squad reservation issues

SKurj

Batz · « **Reply #25 on:** February 04, 2003, 05:02:11 PM »

no one can make join mission where theres a guy you dont like, no one can make you follow a guy you dont like.

If the mission leader is being a d1ck you can rtb. The mission leader only got his rank by earning. If missions are set where they require a team effort then the mission leader isnt going to risk his rank by playing Patton.

Theres is a check in place to counter mission leaders who are d1cks.

The concern I have is 6 guys from my squad are in a mission with 1 nutbag who is looking to ruin our fun. Why should he ruin our fun?

If i am in a mission with the same nutbag as mission leader I'll withdraw and wait for the next one.

I am not talking about someone bossing folks around, no one will fly with a guy like that.

I am only thinking about the rare chance of some freak acting up and disrupting the rest of the guys in a mission.

A vote system like

"kick Batz"
y = yes
n = n

would work. If anyone in the mission could call it up.

But I dont like the idea for voting for "leaders".

an unlimited number of participants in the missions would lead to the same type of number in balance we see in the main.

Axis missions 8 guys

Allied mission 25

Those with numbers have an easier time earning rank. There needs to be a balance and hopefully mission numbers will be capped.

BNM · « **Reply #26 on:** February 05, 2003, 11:48:11 PM »

Never happen...

Mini D · « **Reply #27 on:** February 06, 2003, 01:30:59 AM »

Simulating rank without simulating structure is pointless. The trouble is, it does not appear there is a really good way to impliment the structure.

I would have liked to see the avatars be squad based. Basically, you are a part of the squad and fly with it. I don't even really care that you should be able to pick the squad... just that it should be a squad.

It seems that the arena is going to be set up to autogenerate missions for whomever is there. That means there is little allowable rigidity as far as squadrons and rank goes.

I'll be very curious to see how HTC attacks this problem.

MiniD

BlkKnit · « **Reply #28 on:** February 06, 2003, 07:29:58 AM »

Seems to me the structure will likely be "player implemented".

By that I mean that those of us who decide to follow rank and "chain of command" will do so without much prompting. The problem may be figuring out just who is the ranking player in the mission.....perhaps they could have thier id highlighted or something or have a CO, XO, etc added to the id for the mission.....something anyway.

Now I think the CO / XO/ Commander, should not really be given any "powers", but we would likely follow his "orders/suggestions" because it will help us to achieve the rank / mission completion and survival we will be looking for. Basically he would be an organizer, not a dictator.

Now those who have no wish to follow the CO will not last long anyway. I think that eventually it will be seen that the only way to progress in the game will be to follow before you can lead.

I kinda like the player ratings idea Midnight.

fffreeze220 · « **Reply #29 on:** February 06, 2003, 09:57:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by WldThing
I agree. I only follow and take orders from one person... And that is my CO

That causes the quaking we have right now.
Not generally u but these behaviour.
What is so wrong with following the rules and commands of a person creating a mission. Often 1 person have better overview the 20 other heads.