Leader for Battles

[DeletedUser]

Leader for Battles

Detalis:I'm from an Romanian server and I'm not sure how you guys lead your battles and your tactics, but one thing I'm sure about its that you have a leader, a player who lead you into the battlefield. But this leader have nothing to prove it's a real lider and don't have anything but a chat to lead, so I come to this idea.

Ranks

1. The leader rank can only be put by the general.
2. There's only two leader ranks.
3. The ranks who can be leader ar: Captain and General.

Leader functions

Mark a sector

GIF HERE

1. The leader can select one or more sectors.
2. You can't see the enemey's leader selected sectors.
3. Only the leaders can have this function.

Mark an enemy player

GIF HERE

1. The leader can mark an enemy player for the team to react.
2. Only one player can be marked.
3. The player can't shoot automatically when an enemy player it's marked, it's just visual effect for attention.
4. Only the leaders can have this function.

Player's targets

GIF HERE

1. The leader can see where a player from his team put the target in the battle or before battle.
2. Can see offline players and online.
3. He can't see enemy's target.
4. Only the leaders can have this function.

Achivments

"You lead 250 battels into victory.​

Title:
Leader Fl0oo
​

Benefits: More easy leadership.
Downsides: Lagging , maybe ...

 

[asdf124]

one possible other down effect is for those who cannot lead efficiently, would their be a lead to victory, heroic loss etc achievements? If so, that would be against a lot of other players who want them but cannot get em.

 

[DeletedUser]

one possible other down effect is for those who cannot lead efficiently, would their be a lead to victory, heroic loss etc achievements? If so, that would be against a lot of other players who want them but cannot get em.

That archivment it's a bonus ... Maybe if we change the number to 10 from 250 battles ... but still it will be hard to get it for 80% of players. Let's ignor the archivment and focus on the idea. :laugh:

 

[DeletedUser37898]

I like the idea, I lead a fortbattle from time to time on the Dutch servers and this feature would be a great thing to have implemented for fort battles would probably make it more easier for leaders to make sure everybody knows what he's talking about ! I'm not sure if this would be a hard thing for inno to implement, guess not because like you said its only needed for 2 people.

Oh and i don't know if this would have any input on you're idea but maybe you can also add a function to change the leader so people can change the leader if the previous one doesn't have time to lead the battle anymore. (Not sure if that is already implemented but i didn't read it in your proposal !)

PS: Is that trumpet also a feature of you're idea? xD. Would also be a cool thing to put in so people can actually see who is the leader before the battle starts !.

 

[DeletedUser]

I like the idea, I lead a fortbattle from time to time on the Dutch servers and this feature would be a great thing to have implemented for fort battles would probably make it more easier for leaders to make sure everybody knows what he's talking about ! I'm not sure if this would be a hard thing for inno to implement, guess not because like you said its only needed for 2 people.

Oh and i don't know if this would have any input on you're idea but maybe you can also add a function to change the leader so people can change the leader if the previous one doesn't have time to lead the battle anymore. (Not sure if that is already implemented but i didn't read it in your proposal !)

PS: Is that trumpet also a feature of you're idea? xD. Would also be a cool thing to put in so people can actually see who is the leader before the battle starts !.

I think I said the General put the rank leader

The leader rank can only be put by the general.

I wanted to make more achivments, but people don't like the idea for only the leader of battles to take it. Maybe a Hall of Fame for leaders in graveyard or on the forts flag, that will be great and fair ... without achivments. :unsure:

 

[DeletedUser36559]

This could encourage players to step up and lead but many players are unwilling since they don't have enough experience/ can't type fast enough for the orders and then you will end up with the same people leading, this could get more players to lead maybe...

 

[DeletedUser22685]

This could encourage players to step up and lead but many players are unwilling since they don't have enough experience/ can't type fast enough for the orders and then you will end up with the same people leading, this could get more players to lead maybe...

I don't think the main goal is to try and get more people to lead, but to give current leaders (or future ones, it's irrelevant) a greater range of tools to more effectively organise and direct their troops.

That said, I'm not sure if being able to see where everybody on his team has set their target would really provide much benefit. It's only really useful to know where an offliner has targeted, but there isn't much time between rounds for the kind of micromanaging that it would allow. There have also been numerous instances in the past where suggestions to allow generals to see offline targets before a fight have failed to pass the voting stage here on the forum, for various reasons. The main one is realism, but I never have and never will accept that as the lone reason to decline something. This is a game, after all.

Anyway, on the whole, I think it's a good idea and would be a positive change overall.

 

[DeletedUser34408]

Not a bad idea, I specifically like the sector marking/highlighting where a leader can highlight a certain sector and instruct everyone to move there the following round.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm all over this idea! Back when I used to lead battles over at .se I would've been thrilled to have these tools.

 

[DeletedUser35533]

workaround works fine but this way would help a lot of people with bad English skills lead well enough. +1 also DanielFl0oo is right from 250 battles to 10

 

[Dubjean]

It says that only generals and captains can be leaders but we've had to use privates at times. I think generals should be able to choose anyone to lead their battle. The same with only generals choosing a leader, sometimes a captain needs to step up and handle defenses.

The option to see where someone has targeted is a useful function when a battle is overfilled. You can choose offliners according to where they will be most useful. It is up to the leader to determine if it's a waste of time or not to use this function. Maybe those voting against it in the past are those that don't set targets according to where they will most likely be killed.

 

[DeletedUser]

Like the idea of battle leaders getting some achievements, they should.
It might encourage others to lead even if thats not its main intention so that would be great.
Some way of seeing where off liners are going would be very useful I would think


dont know if this is right place but all battle related stuff should have achievements to it - digging, leading and ranking battles

 

[DeletedUser36927]

I've heard many players say they cannot lead because they don't type fast enough. This idea may help resolve some of that, and in addition to that - it does seem to be a much easier way to 'Direct your Troops'.

On a side note, I've been to battles when there are no Generals at a fort to rank or lead, particularly in defense. You may want to consider if the volunteer lead should also get the options described here.

 

[DeletedUser34211]

I translated the idea into Polish :tumble: https://forum.the-west.pl/showthread.php?p=527096#post527096

 

[DeletedUser]

I translated the idea into Polish :tumble: https://forum.the-west.pl/showthread.php?p=527096#post527096

Nice, thank you! Now this idea it's on 3 forums, all with positive replies! :laugh:

 

[DeletedUser33955]

It says that only generals and captains can be leaders but we've had to use privates at times. I think generals should be able to choose anyone to lead their battle. The same with only generals choosing a leader, sometimes a captain needs to step up and handle defenses.

The option to see where someone has targeted is a useful function when a battle is overfilled. You can choose offliners according to where they will be most useful. It is up to the leader to determine if it's a waste of time or not to use this function. Maybe those voting against it in the past are those that don't set targets according to where they will most likely be killed.

It does say that, but wouldn't it be more courteous to make your leader at the very least a captain?

I too support this idea. I could do a copy pasta from Futu's reply, but that wouldn't be nice haha.
Well said indeed.

 

[DeletedUser36098]

It does say that, but wouldn't it be more courteous to make your leader at the very least a captain?

I too support this idea. I could do a copy pasta from Futu's reply, but that wouldn't be nice haha.
Well said indeed.

if the only 'leaders ' in the side are captains it is a little hard to upgrade a volunteer private to become a captain as captains cannot upgrade to captain in the same way generals cannot rank generals. nor can they derank said members of the same or higher ranks.

The idea is a good one and I like it but ... there always has to be a but ... how do you sort the issue of the volunteer leader being a private? ... none of the captains are wanting to lead and a private steps up to volunteer. does the battle have to rank this player up and how does it tell who is leader and who is not in this scenario with no general present. lots of little niggles to be thought out I think.

I have been in a number of battles where a private or even an unranked player, due to timing of logging in the battle, have had to take the role of leader due to others not being present. I have also been in a few battles where no generals or captains have been able to be online in time to rank and thus had a full compliment of recruits with a recruit having to lead the battle. how do you sort that out

things to think over and find a solution for I think.

 

[DeletedUser]

if the only 'leaders ' in the side are captains it is a little hard to upgrade a volunteer private to become a captain as captains cannot upgrade to captain in the same way generals cannot rank generals. nor can they derank said members of the same or higher ranks.

The idea is a good one and I like it but ... there always has to be a but ... how do you sort the issue of the volunteer leader being a private? ... none of the captains are wanting to lead and a private steps up to volunteer. does the battle have to rank this player up and how does it tell who is leader and who is not in this scenario with no general present. lots of little niggles to be thought out I think.

I have been in a number of battles where a private or even an unranked player, due to timing of logging in the battle, have had to take the role of leader due to others not being present. I have also been in a few battles where no generals or captains have been able to be online in time to rank and thus had a full compliment of recruits with a recruit having to lead the battle. how do you sort that out

things to think over and find a solution for I think.

It's simple members of the fort(any member) or random ... I have been in battles without generals too, thats something it deosn't need to happend, and if it's happening that's our bad organization.

 

[DeletedUser33342]

I don't think the main goal is to try and get more people to lead, but to give current leaders (or future ones, it's irrelevant) a greater range of tools to more effectively organise and direct their troops.

The biggest and most important advantage in my eyes.
+1

 

[DeletedUser]

Good idea!