Vote for new officer

[cpl.baconfusion IIV]

We've all had those games where the officer has no clue what he's doing. Or two officers are arguing giving commands to their fellow officer's battalion. It would be good if we could vote in game to someone who's giving actual good commands as a private or NCO. Blackwake has a vote before a game starts. I had a game just recently where we had to defend a point, and our officer kept telling us to flank the attackers and charge at them even though we had good defensive position. It was frustrating and takes away the immersion. Some who knew what to do listened to me and stayed back. But majority followed their commanders in a AAA FPS manner.

[Poorlaggedman]

I feel like voting might indeed be the best option. Somewhere convenient like the spawn screen. There are some decent rookies I've seen in the last few months that I woudln't have guessed would be any good.

Let's say the officer crashes though and we still want him when he comes back while someone else has taken the role? What's a way we can make it work without all the work without requiring another voting mess?

I'm starting to think this game needs a good old-fashioned squad mechanic-style mechanism with the player who creates the squad being the dictator of it, other players allowed to join or leave squads at will and if his 'squad' gets big enough he can take an officer role and designate NCOs (unless the server admin locks it in which case the team leader can force all that and players to take roles and they can't leave them). All that can happen in the spawn menu. Squad mates names show up in a slightly different color when you bring up the interface in game.

It would happen the first time people spawn in players can freely associate with whatever one they want to while respawning and according to their choices unless the server gave a role to an officer who could dictate both regiments and their structure

[A. P. Hill]

I don't see this as being a part of the game, more so a part of the Company Tool. You've got 45 minutes (currently,) in game and you're supposed to be fighting for a point of contention.
When are you going to find time to vote?

Sadly there are times when the officer of a unit can't make it to a fight so his second needs to step up … this of course under controlled situations. On an ad hoc pick up server where no one knows who the next guy is, I don't see this happening.

You want a leader then join a company that has a leader. This of course may take you 2 or 3 tries to find a leader that suitable to your liking.

[LaBelle]

I don't see this as being a part of the game, more so a part of the Company Tool. You've got 45 minutes (currently,) in game and you're supposed to be fighting for a point of contention.
When are you going to find time to vote?

Sadly there are times when the officer of a unit can't make it to a fight so his second needs to step up … this of course under controlled situations. On an ad hoc pick up server where no one knows who the next guy is, I don't see this happening.

You want a leader then join a company that has a leader. This of course may take you 2 or 3 tries to find a leader that suitable to your liking.

Voting would take all of ten seconds if the election was something like Blackwake's system. You want to play as the officer, press F9. Your name appears in a menu, and people can use their mouse to vote for you. Maybe even show your percentage of wins next to your name.

[Poorlaggedman]

It could be part of a short planning phase. You could also use it to chart out the hierarchy. I'm just saying everything would be by free association. Following someone is voluntary so why not make it organized.

So when I come into the map I start a 'squad' and take dictator of the squad. If nobody joins it, I'm just a private. If 5 guys join it I'm a corporal. Ten guys a sergeant, and I get to appoint a corporal or even cede someone else command of the group. Twenty guys a Lieutenant and it becomes a company. If too many people switch out of your 'squad' then you start having to respawn next as a rank down. I'm not set on it for sure, just an idea that might work as far as roles go that would work in a lot of situations. I'm not sure where flag bearers would go. Perhaps if someone picked the flag bearer then it creates a color guard and four other players can join it. They may become a formality of course if an outsider retrieves the flag.

This way if you have an organization with 20 guys in the server you're guaranteed to get the officer role assuming you can command as much. It would help if the screen was accessible even outside of death so you can make adjustments. Perhaps a server admin could permanently put people in squads or set a team dictator (who may not be an admin, just a team leader) who could set people into squads and perhaps even have the option of being given kicking or banning powers on his own team. It would help for events to be able to appoint someone with that kind of power and it would add some tools to make organization a little faster.

The next person in line becomes the officer if the previous guy leaves. Or whoever was appointed the next rank by the creator of that squad

As far as gameplay goes, nothing changes just the player names perhaps change to be color coded by 'squad' and the special roles are dispersed based on who chooses to associate with them.

So the first 30 seconds on the new skirmish area you'd see a list of people creating squads with a chat feed. Then it starts letting people join squads. Not everyone starts their own squads because it won't let you spawn until you get other people to join it. After 90 seconds into the round the players spawn (maybe even in their squads (that might be too ambitious)) and the rest of the planning phase commences where players can't shoot or stab or leave the immediate area.

Then after that planning phase ends (a server setting length perhaps) then the round goes live. It would help a lot and I think people would like something like that.

You might just end up with one large random squad for each regiment in the round but you at least leave the option open of people saying "this guy's an idiot let's start another one"

[Hinkel]

Voting would take all of ten seconds if the election was something like Blackwake's system. You want to play as the officer, press F9. Your name appears in a menu, and people can use their mouse to vote for you. Maybe even show your percentage of wins next to your name.

While I support a voting system, it could also be misused and take away the chance for "new" officers.
Imagine a new player joins the server and 2 companies playing as well. These 2 companies just voting for their own officers to be able to lead. The new guy, a talented young officer, is not able to show his skills sadly :)

[SwingKid148]

While I support a voting system, it could also be misused and take away the chance for "new" officers.
Imagine a new player joins the server and 2 companies playing as well. These 2 companies just voting for their own officers to be able to lead. The new guy, a talented young officer, is not able to show his skills sadly :)

If the "new" soldier is talented, then they should join the a company if they want to lead. :cool:

[Charles Caldwell]

While I support a voting system, it could also be misused and take away the chance for "new" officers.
Imagine a new player joins the server and 2 companies playing as well. These 2 companies just voting for their own officers to be able to lead. The new guy, a talented young officer, is not able to show his skills sadly :)

Then surely he'd go to another server to test his skills then?

For me a voting system, along with a 5 min deployment phase is the best option. After each round we could have a pop up 'Keep current Officers - Yes/No' or 'New Vote'.

[Soulfly]

Then surely he'd go to another server to test his skills then?

For me a voting system, along with a 5 min deployment phase is the best option. After each round we could have a pop up 'Keep current Officers - Yes/No' or 'New Vote'.

You see, this is exactly what I experienced on US servers so far...an officer giving orders and then there were always guys discussing this and knowing everything better, in the end we lost because half the team did what they wanted and of course the "young officer" was to blame.

Give everyone a change, the best officer I had so far was "mudcrab" without any clan tag......I really really hope that those "regiments" will not grow an elite status in their heads

[Sox]

I'm starting to think this game needs a good old-fashioned squad mechanic-style mechanism with the player who creates the squad being the dictator of it

^^^ THIS. It's really the only thing that makes any sense at all. The Company tool lets you join/form a Company, but then the actual game itself does nothing at all to help you to fight/form up with the Company that you are a part of. This system would fix that, and not only for officers, but for flag bearers as well.

[Charles Caldwell]

Give everyone a change, the best officer I had so far was "mudcrab" without any clan tag......I really really hope that those "regiments" will not grow an elite status in their heads

With enough servers, private and public everyone will get a chance at Captaining. However on Private servers you follow the clan/owners rules, if they insist on their Officers then you either accept it or move on, simple.

[McMuffin]

New players who want to learn a role will have a much harder time trying to learn if they keep getting kicked from the role. And judging by how this community has a pretty visceral reaction to anyone who they deem as 'not good' for leading, whether that's because they cannot do the proper drill commands, or because they don't know the maps as well as you may or any other reason.

On the flipside, there are quite a few legitimate reasons why someone may want to kick an officer. Abuse of the role, just blatant teamkilling, or just being a general dick who decides to shoot people who don't listen to him.

Honestly, for every reason I think of to not implement it, I can think of a good reason to implement it.

[Benjamin F. Ogle]

People have already said this over and over including me but you could just link company tool and make companies that have 20+ people allow their officers to access the officer class as well with NCOs. If you want to keep the class open cool maybe you could make public servers this way but I know for the 72nd server we hate it when randoms jump into an officer spot and take it from our officers and they're incapable of leading and we either deal with it or have to kick them if they don't leave the class when asked to. Voting system could work for public servers but I think there should be a optional whitelist system or something for private servers such as the 72nd one.

[Poorlaggedman]

While I support a voting system, it could also be misused and take away the chance for "new" officers.
Imagine a new player joins the server and 2 companies playing as well. These 2 companies just voting for their own officers to be able to lead. The new guy, a talented young officer, is not able to show his skills sadly :)
You're assuming people would always want to do the officer role. I've seen a lot of full servers at times almost entirely void of company players. That's why I argue that a more complex system where players freely associate with others where you start a 'company/squad' in-game and people join it, allowing you to unlock a role if enough join, would be better. It would also mean that the NCOs technically have hierarchy role in that since they would have squad mates of some sort.

People would be voting in a sense by choosing whose in-game company or squad to join or leave. Once you get enough people to join the one you started you unlock a set role (NCO or later, officer), which you can also cede to another player and appoint other players as Corporals or Sergeants. It sounds complex but I don't think it needs to be something beyond just an enhanced role selection page.


Then surely he'd go to another server to test his skills then?

For me a voting system, along with a 5 min deployment phase is the best option. After each round we could have a pop up 'Keep current Officers - Yes/No' or 'New Vote'.
Five minutes might be too long if you're just playing around with friends. A server-side variable would be better or perhaps one just depending on the server population - 2 minutes minimum - 5 minutes max for a fuller server.

[John Cooley]

Because Elections are always fair and never manipulated by small groups steeped deeply in their own self-interest.

I agree that 'something' needs to be changed but what exactly is anyone's opinion.

Have to agree that Private Servers will fix much of the problem but ...
If only someone had warned that animosity and elitism (if not overcome) would see the Community fracture into 257 companies with 257 servers with 257 unique rule sets ... all playing by themselves.
Oh, wait ... we did.

[Leifr]

Perhaps a white-list feature would suffice for the time being? Folk who run their own servers are free to nominate who they like and the community servers are open to all. If there is no-one present on the server who validates the slot, the role is open until they log on.

[thomas aagaard]

Maybe a vote at the end of the game?
And the user is blocked from spawning as an officer in the next map if the vote is sufficent bad.
(so it need an active no vote)

[LaBelle]

Because Elections are always fair and never manipulated by small groups steeped deeply in their own self-interest.

The nature of this game is beneficial to this situation. If people like how someone leads, they'll be in his company. If they didn't, they wouldn't be in his company. Therefor, the people who a part of your "small group" would have voted for the commander they like to begin with. This is also solved in public servers by showing a percentage of games won while that player was in command. Public players won't vote for [1stTX] Lt. Col. General President LaBelle if his win percentage is 12%. They will vote for BigWomenMakeMeHappy420_69 though, because his win percentage is 99%.


Perhaps a white-list feature would suffice for the time being? Folk who run their own servers are free to nominate who they like and the community servers are open to all. If there is no-one present on the server who validates the slot, the role is open until they log on.

That's a solution for the private servers, but I don't see how it'd work on public servers. I do like the idea of having a white list that's deactivated when no white-listed players are on, though. Gives the white-listed priority but doesn't close the class completely.

[Leifr]

That's a solution for the private servers, but I don't see how it'd work on public servers. I do like the idea of having a white list that's deactivated when no white-listed players are on, though. Gives the white-listed priority but doesn't close the class completely.

I suppose it doesn't really have to be enabled on public servers, by definition and all.

[Poorlaggedman]

Perhaps a white-list feature would suffice for the time being? Folk who run their own servers are free to nominate who they like and the community servers are open to all. If there is no-one present on the server who validates the slot, the role is open until they log on.

I thought this was the way to go originally but generally my server (Old Pa) is full of random players. Some of them who I don't know are quite good at trying to run the show. Some old-timers seem to be going through burnout and not coming around as much.

Now I've largely ignored 'modern' shooters of all types for a long time. I did have a free demo (and then later bought without opening the package)of Battlefield 2. I appreciated its squad mechanism. Anyone could create a squad, you could even lock it (invite only). Make it like that but so the role you have (Corporal/Sergeant/Lt/Captain) depends on how many willingly join you. Seems simple and fair and allows for all sorts of cross-overs and coalitions. You could still have multiple officers you'd just have to have people join you. And players would have to join something to spawn in that regiment.

I maintain the officer class is essentially a pistol with binos class but the role playing dogma of the average gamer is such that you'll get a crowd following you if you remotely try just for nabbing the class first. It will never mean anything until it means something.

It would mean something if it meant that X number of players willingly joined your squad in that round to the point you got enough to be an officer. Then people automatically know you having the role means something more than just literally whoever picked it first in the round. I'd have liked to see WoR not have an officer role until the class meant something. It's just a bottleneck to creative thinking half the time as it is.

[Oleander]

I don't know how I feel about voting systems. In other games I've seen people vote for option 1 without even looking at it. The mentality of most players, IMO, is they just want to get in and start shooting as fast as possible. They put trust in people that take officer class to assume they know what they're doing, but after the 3rd suicide charge that opinion sours quickly and it turns into a mob.

The percentage thing may work, but it might be more misleading than anything. I've been in matches where one leader is really good and the other isn't. If their side wins the match, their percentage goes up. Are they a good officer? No. But, if a person even bothers to look at the numbers they may assume the person is a good leader.

That being said, I don't have a solution for it other than Company Tool integration where whatever your rank is gets reserved. Since I believe companies now need 30 members to become mustered that would serve as the "vote" for officers. Of course it could always coded into the admin tools where that can be turned off.

[Sox]

A voting system will not work, and for EXACTLY the same reason friendly fire does not work, and this really should be obvious by now, the internet is choc full of idiots. The same dude who amuses himself by shooting you in the back of the head, will vote to keep someone useless in command.