Accredited Officer Designation

[Quaker]

Public players are more than a little cynical about the quality of some of the people stepping up to lead.

Afterall, anyone can spawn as an Officer or NCO. Many people taking on the role are new and well-intentioned, but they don’t have a good understanding of the game and are not qualified to lead.

So is it possible for CG to consider giving experienced/reputable players a special designation in-game to show they are experienced when they spawn as an Officer or NCO? It could be as simple as a different coloured name or a special symbol. With this designation new players would be more likely to listen to them. CG could also pin a list at the top of the Steam forum of accredited officers.

I read elsewhere there used to be an Officer school thread but it died. It’d be great if that could get going again and graduates could become accredited.

[Kyle422]

I find it hard to play at times when those that try to command do not know the proper civil war commands. I dont think just anyone should be able to spawn as an NCO or officer. Most the people who command dont even know how to play the game and have played way too much Napoleonic wars to know the correct commands.

[Wigster600]

It's a nice idea, but good luck finding a decent way to implement it.

[Dman979]

I find it hard to play at times when those that try to command do not know the proper civil war commands. I dont think just anyone should be able to spawn as an NCO or officer. Most the people who command dont even know how to play the game and have played way too much Napoleonic wars to know the correct commands.

Even if the commanders knew the drill manual by heart, there's no way they would be able to teach it quickly enough for multiplayer skirmishes to use it. How do you convince a random assortment of players to line up in column of four instead of moving as individuals together?

The tactical blob will reign supreme except for events. It simply takes too much time too use the proper commands for them to be effective.

Best,
Dman979

[Redleader]

...

Afterall, anyone can spawn as an Officer or NCO. Many people taking on the role are new and well-intentioned, but they don’t have a good understanding of the game and are not qualified to lead.

So is it possible for CG to consider giving experienced/reputable players a special designation in-game to show they are experienced when they spawn as an Officer or NCO? It could be as simple as a different coloured name or a special symbol. With this designation new players would be more likely to listen to them. CG could also pin a list at the top of the Steam forum of accredited officers.


It's true that fairly new and "less" experienced players take on the officer role, however not fully grasping game mechanics and map strategies it usually results in a loss.
Some manage to get a firing line up (in the open) and most of them have the best of intentions.

We all had a learning school and some lessons are tough to learn :)
We asked CG before to have some form of implantation of the company tool (while CT also has some issues it pretty straightforward).
Als some sort of voting system was suggestion or a system based on experience, but those are all coins with two sides.

For the new people I suggest checking out the drill camps, reading up on the civil war and commands/strategies (doesn't have to be fancy though) and slowly climb up the ranks :)

[Redleader]

Even if the commanders knew the drill manual by heart, there's no way they would be able to teach it quickly enough for multiplayer skirmishes to use it. How do you convince a random assortment of players to line up in column of four instead of moving as individuals together?

The tactical blob will reign supreme except for events. It simply takes too much time too use the proper commands for them to be effective.


Very good point, the difference between comprehending the theory and implementation in a game could prove difficult.
Having drills certainly helps and someone who translates those tactics to an "ingame solution" is great, most people are trying to improve and if they get some explanation in the why and when … you'll get there eventually :)
For now people usually tend to follow the blob or implement some line infantry (standing in the open and shoot), I'm sure this will advance when we're some weeks further into early acces.

[Melonfish]

I like that there are officers that don't know what they're doing, it's just like the real civil war, many wealthy gentlemen were given commands they had utterly no right in holding, some did well, others not so much.

[Dman979]

Also, it's important to note that Early Access hasn't even been out for a week yet. Give people some time to get past the learning curve, and you'll see them get better.

I mean, you can see that players are worlds better than they were on Monday!

Best,
Dman979

[John Cooley]

The greatest stumbling block I see is ...
Who is in charge of this magical "Accreditation"?

Standards and Acceptable Conduct are VASTLY different from unit to unit, state to state and nation to nation.
It would be a system accused of favoritism and nepotism, as well as, seen to be a platform to exert pressure and deliver personal vengeance.
Whether or not it actually acts that way ... the optics will always be skewed against those in power.

[McMuffin]

I get why you want to do it, but I strongly disagree with implementing it. How are they going to learn if people don't follow them? It'll just not be fun for them. I know people are bothered by losing, but some people play the game, actually quite a few, just for the experience, not winning or losing.

[Poorlaggedman]

That's why I don't think the morale loss based on your line status is the best way to go. Because not everyone's playing to win and you're invariably pitting people who don't care against people who do in attempt to force gameplay.

Long time ago I had a game server called "PLM's Teamplay Server" and the idea was that certain players were allowed to take NCO slots on demand and you had to follow them, like a never-ending competitive event style gameplay. Everyone had to 'agree' to the rules with a little plugin when they came in the server that asked if they agree'd or disagreed and booted them if they hit 'disagree.' The problem was that the people who prior had been trustworthy stopped playing eventually. The attrition of people wanting to do things like that is higher than you would believe.

Nevertheless with the stock some people put in the officer class it would be very helpful if a server could designate people to bump people out of the officer slot (but not other designated people obviously). In a similar fashion where when you spawn in as the flag bearer that you can't do it afterward until the class becomes available again due to a flag being de-spawned or something. That's what would happen to the guy bumped out of the slot. He may remain in the officer role but along trots a qualified guy.

A "Message of the Day" introductory screen for servers might also help. To list server rules and such. I definitely wouldn't like the game or the company tool manipulating who can have what class.

[rapier17]

Afterall, anyone can spawn as an Officer or NCO. Many people taking on the role are new and well-intentioned, but they don’t have a good understanding of the game and are not qualified to lead.
The question that follows that statement, a Catch 22 if you will, is how will they then get the experience to lead? When someone steps up to command we don't know if they'll be a good or bad commander, but we also don't know whether the experience of today will make them better for tomorrow. So long as a commander can get the 'blob' to line up at the objective and shoot or charge the other side, then that is good enough start for them as a leader in my eyes.

[Sox]

The REAL problem here is that these players simply do not know the ticket system. They're assuming that both sides have and equal number of tickets, and that they will win if they simply kill more than the enemy does....while veteran players know that in WoR it's not as simple as that. This is especially true on the Confederate side, where you will see them leading suicidal attacks, while they're meant to be on defense, in almost every game. We yell at them to stop, they ignore us, rinse and repeat. Very few are willing to listen, even fewer are willing to learn.

Let's also be honest here, the 'tactical blob' was the way to go even in alpha, once players see a tcking clock they're immediately pressed into a state of semi panic...''not enough time, must rush, must rush'' and that's more a fault of game design than it is of leadership.

Leadership experience in WoR comes from learning the ticket system and learning the maps......NOT from spawning an Officer and leading a team to losses over and over. You'll learn more spawned in as a Private than you EVER will as an officer, and that's a fact.

[Quaker]

The REAL problem here is that these players simply do not know the ticket system. They're assuming that both sides have and equal number of tickets, and that they will win if they simply kill more than the enemy does....while veteran players know that in WoR it's not as simple as that. This is especially true on the Confederate side, where you will see them leading suicidal attacks, while they're meant to be on defense, in almost every game. We yell at them to stop, they ignore us, rinse and repeat. Very few are willing to listen, even fewer are willing to learn.

Let's also be honest here, the 'tactical blob' was the way to go even in alpha, once players see a tcking clock they're immediately pressed into a state of semi panic...''not enough time, must rush, must rush'' and that's more a fault of game design than it is of leadership.

Leadership experience in WoR comes from learning the ticket system and learning the maps......NOT from spawning an Officer and leading a team to losses over and over. You'll learn more spawned in as a Private than you EVER will as an officer, and that's a fact.


Interesting - is there a resource somewhere showing the ticket per side info?

I hope this and all other game-shaping info comes out soon in a comprehensive tutorial.

[Sox]

Interesting - is there a resource somewhere showing the ticket per side info?

I hope this and all other game-shaping info comes out soon in a comprehensive tutorial.

Nope, all we really know for sure is that the attacking side always has more tickets than the defenders, therefore it's not wise for the defending team to go on the attack under normal circumstances. There are, of course, exceptions to this, such as when a cap point has been over run for example.

[Landree]

Usually the problem I have are officers who try to swing their rank around as if I must listen to them or I've offended General Lee himself. Me and my guys aren't going to listen to their brilliant "plan" when they don't have a bone of leadership ability in their body.

You could do some sort of upvote/downvote rating system that could display as a number next to their name, but generally you are going to abandon a bad officer and stick around a good one.

[Timo420]

Usually the problem I have are officers who try to swing their rank around as if I must listen to them or I've offended General Lee himself. Me and my guys aren't going to listen to their brilliant "plan" when they don't have a bone of leadership ability in their body.

You could do some sort of upvote/downvote rating system that could display as a number next to their name, but generally you are going to abandon a bad officer and stick around a good one.

I like the voting idea, blackwake has a similar system, would be good to let people apply for the officers role before a round and let everyone vote on who they want :)

[anderon46]

Usually the problem I have are officers who try to swing their rank around as if I must listen to them or I've offended General Lee himself. Me and my guys aren't going to listen to their brilliant "plan" when they don't have a bone of leadership ability in their body.

You could do some sort of upvote/downvote rating system that could display as a number next to their name, but generally you are going to abandon a bad officer and stick around a good one.

There were plenty of terrible officers with next to no leadership skills in the ACW as there have been in every war in history. However directly disobeying them would result in a swift court martial and execution.

[Landree]

There were plenty of terrible officers with next to no leadership skills in the ACW as there have been in every war in history. However directly disobeying them would result in a swift court martial and execution.

...and unpopular officers would uncharacteristically find an early end the moment they got into battle.

[MajesticBiscuit]

...and unpopular officers would uncharacteristically find an early end the moment they got into battle.

True, it isn't that hard to just shoot an officer in the back of the head. A lot of chaos in battle, and if an officer is unpopular enough, nobody will care if it happens. It is next to impossible to get away with that today because we have technology and forensics. But in the 1860's, simply fragging a disliked officer is child's play.

[Ramirez Nicholas J.]

So the ideas are,

1. Leave officer as it is.

2. Let people vote on officer.

3. Unlock officer by completing some kind of achievement: e.g kills, or time played. (this ones my idea. :) )

[Gavsky]

It's difficult when you have an Alpha and lots of new players (especially ones who are CoD/Battlefield 'lone-wolf Rambo' types). I played last night and it was brilliant: officers who knew what they're doing and had VOIP; most players following orders etc. Really immersive.

Tonight it was depressing where I was! That might lessen as more join regiments and the Rambo idiots get bored. I wish there was more info for new players, that might help. I suspect some don't realise that there's a 'proper' way to play.

[Poorlaggedman]

So the ideas are,

1. Leave officer as it is.

2. Let people vote on officer.

3. Unlock officer by completing some kind of achievement: e.g kills, or time played. (this ones my idea. :) )
4. Servers designate people allowed to take or bump the officer role.



There were plenty of terrible officers with next to no leadership skills in the ACW as there have been in every war in history. However directly disobeying them would result in a swift court martial and execution.
Not really. Executions were rare in the Civil War, they had other means of punishments. Not a 'swift' execution. I'm sure there was one in the Civil War and I'd love to hear about it but I haven't yet.

Hoping people will just start understanding and leave the officer class to the pros (whoever they are) is a failing strategy.

[Quaker]

4. Servers designate people allowed to take or bump the officer role.


How would that work?

Voting seems to work okay in Blackwake.

[LaBelle]

How would that work?

Voting seems to work okay in Blackwake.

Some sort of white listing tied to steamid

[Quaker]

Some sort of white listing tied to steamid

That’s basically my suggestion in the OP.

And more people can be added to the list if they get accredited by going through a community-run Officer School.

[LaBelle]

That’s basically my suggestion in the OP.

And more people can be added to the list if they get accredited by going through a community-run Officer School.

Sounds like an expensive way to let everyone be an officer. Eventually, everyone that already wants to be an officer is going to go through this "Digital West Point," and then we're back to square one.

An easier way to do this, not that I agree with this mind you, is to have it set by time. Ten hours on the server? You can be officer on that server.

[Dman979]

Officer, schmofficer. It's just a class with a fancy uniform and different weapons, and the person playing it gives it status. People will listen to the players that have a command presence- you can see that already in any public match. Officer is important for events and to have in the game, but if you want a sword and a pistol to symbolize your authority, play the cavalry. Otherwise, it's just a guy with a line tool.

Best,
Dman979

[Quaker]

All that’s true, but ideally for game cohesion and consistency, you would prefer the guy who’s directing play to be an Officer.

[c0deNATE]

I do feel like this aspect of the game is currently making playing very un-enjoyable. We had a gentleman with no microphone take the officer slot and kept running off solo to fight by himself for the entire game with no option to do anything about it. Perhaps a vote kick system may make this easier? If an officer is not up to standard then they may be removed from the position with a majority vote.

[Quaker]

Here is an example of why I think this is a big deal and affects the game - a run of bad experiences with bad officers may turn people away from WoR.

We need a better approach to this.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/424030/discussions/0/1744480332708659055/

[cpl.baconfusion IIV]

I like that idea. Add a ranking system based on game time and games won that show your battle experience. What could go well with that is a voting system before game like BlackWake. I had a game where the officer (keep in mind we're defending with a very good position) kept commanding us to charge and flank the attacking enemies as though it's a AAA FPS game. It's really annoying.

[Quaker]

Officer quality control (or the absence thereof) is screaming out for change.

I’d put it up there as possibly the #1 thing that has to change because the (in)competence of the Officer more than anything else determines the quality of our gameplay.

And as per the latest thread in the Alpha Suggestions & Idea forum, having a quick election for an officer before spawning is probably the best (albeit imperfect) solution I’ve seen.

[LaBelle]

Sadly, it's becoming more of an issue lately. I'd like to be able to force switch people out of officer slots on my server, but alas I can't. A vote option would be nice, especially if we can turn it off on our servers. That way, if the 1st comes on in force on our server, I can turn elections on for the USA and off for the CSA, and vice versa.

[Quaker]

I’d also like to see the OPTION of a better VOIP filter so you have a choice (hotkey) of listening to Officer/NCO only. You can have a great Officer but if the dozens of guys you are playing with won’t shut up it can drive you crazy. It’s not practical to mute them all individually.

The game would improve out of sight with some tightening up around the Officer.

At the moment Officer quality is the game’s greatest asset and it’s greatest liability.

[SwingKid148]

I'd like to be able to force switch people out of officer slots on my server, but alas I can't.

Just give them the boot :)

[A. P. Hill]

Just give them the boot :)


That's not being friendly. But I suppose it does work to serve the purpose. :D

[SwingKid148]

That's not being friendly. But I suppose it does work to serve the purpose. :D

If you pay good money for the servers, your choice to run it how you want.