Just to convince some of you I do actually still work. For CRS, too. On WWII Online.
I recently lobbed this at the production team as a possible option for replacing the current auto-leader selection. Shouldn’t take me more than a few hours to implement.
. Missions gain a new flag: “electing”, indicating that leadership is up for grabs.
. “/takelead” allows players to volunteer during this phase
. At the end of the electing phase, a new leader is elected in descending order of preference:
— highest ranked, most tom, volunteer
— existing mission leader
— highest ranked, most Time On Mission (TOM), non-afk, spawned player
— highest ranked, most TOM player
— first player in mission list
. If a mission goes into “electing” and the leader types /takelead election is over
. If the mission leader leaves the mission without automatically assigning a new leader, mission goes into “electing” mode
. If a mission leader does not post /orders within X seconds (e.g. 90 or 120) of becoming leader, mission goes into “electing”.
. If a mission leader fails to approve OR deny Y con reports in a row, mission goes into “electing”.
. If you lose leadership while remaining on-mission through an election you get an N minute window in which to resume control by typing “/takelead” (ran to door to get pizza? missed some con reports, you can take the mission back from Poor Newbie)
. [If you lose leadership by exiting the mission, e.g. cthl/ctd, you get a similar window of opportunity: Pointless, how would you know? KFS1s mission becomes GOPHURs mission]
I’ve also thrown them a concept for replacing the “mission” system. We’ve always planned for the mission system to be something more elegant and – most importantly – achievable/scorable.
Warning: This is based on my initial draft proposal, is not modified or adapted to feedback by other Rats, and is not officially sanctioned by Those In Charge.
My concept is to split the current concept of a mission into two parts. A “company” that you join, which has a particular meta-focus, such as capture Antwerp or capture the north depot. It’s really primarily a grouping and spawning mechanism. Once in, you can more or less do what you like.
But, the mission leader will have a list of sub-goals that he can detail to the men in his company.
Think for a second about a group of soldiers trying to capture an enemy position. The commander realizes that there is an enemy machine gun pinning his men from the northeast. He details 3 men to go deal with it while the rest of the company continue trying to reach their main objective.
So if you are capturing the north depot and you need someone to go blow the bridge 50ft away, you don’t have to create a new mission or company. Because its in the area of your company, it’ll be on the mission leaders list of possible details. He simply clicks it and all company members would be able to see it on their own mission details (in the map/hud, without despawning).
If the player wants to do it and get scored for it, he clicks the equivalent box in his mission display (with or without despawning at his discresion). Once its done, and within various scoring rules (to stop people getting points for stuff they aren’t actually doing), he can switch back and that goes to the database as a successful/completed detail. He gets points, etc. But best of all, he never actually left his company, he stayed on the same radio channels, he kept the same leader, the same organization, the same friendlies on map, the same everything. Perhaps we’d add a “/DETail” command for talking to others on the same detail within the company channel.
Individual details would be the basic verbs of the tactical play: Capture depot, Defend depot, Destroy bridge, Maintain bridge, Resupply vehicles, Destroy firebase, Defend firebase, Fire sector, etc. Each would have a fairly simple, easily defined and player-visible rule set. Points for killing enemys from within 100m of this depot. Kill enemy tanks from within 500m of this position. Transport friendly infantry from near this position to near that position. Deploy a mobile spawn at this location. Etc.
Simply put: Brigade = Strategy, Company = Goal, Detail = Tactical/Assignment
I don’t think the typical MMOGs group concepts work fully in WWII Online, because conditions change too rapidly. Groups need to have some breathing room that doesn’t require an awful lot of UI fiddly or chopping and changing.
I don’t think you should have to change company in order to do something that is beneficial to your goal but not, stricly, “on task” – like repairing a bridge to allow armor from another company to cross a river and support you, 50ft from the depot you’re trying to defend.
Another feature of my initial draft is that each detail, on the company leader’s list, would be a second check box allowing him to tell other company leaders that he needs this detail done.
Consider: East of the depot you’re at is a bridge your guys can reach and take out. You check box 1 that says “make this a detail of my company”.
To the west is another bridge which is out of range for your men, but bombers or another company might be able to take it out and secure your position. You check box 2 and other leaders/commanders now see a waypoint/con report indicating another company would like it destroyed.
Language independent communication.