I have a small idea that I think could make larger games more organized, more strategic, and add some extra roleplay to the server.
When there are only a few players, things generally work perfectly fine as they are. But once you start getting 5, 6, 7 or more players per team, I’ve noticed that fights can become much more disorganized: everyone goes their own way, several people give different instructions in chat, some players just play completely on their own, etc.
On the other hand, some of the best games are often the ones where one player naturally takes the lead on each team. Movements become more coordinated, fights are more interesting, and it actually feels like two organized teams fighting against each other.
The idea: an optional “Commander Mode”
Once there are enough players per team — for example 5v5, 6v6 or 7v7 — the server could automatically suggest a quick vote at the beginning of the game:
“Would you like to enable Commander Mode for this game?”
* Yes
* No
So the mode wouldn’t automatically be forced whenever there are a lot of players. It would simply be offered, and only activated if the majority of players agree.
Electing a commander for each team
If the mode is accepted, each team would then have a few seconds to vote for one player to become their commander.
For example, in a team of 5 players:
1 commander + 4 other players.
The commander would still keep his normal regiment, regardless of what he picked — artillery, cavalry, infantry, etc. He would still play normally; “Commander” would simply be an additional role.
The commander could keep the role for the next three rounds, instead of having to hold another vote before every round.
There could also be a simple rule to rotate the role:
A player cannot be commander for two games in a row.
This would give different players the opportunity to try the role and prevent the same person from constantly taking command.
The commander’s main role would simply be to coordinate the team:
* suggest a strategy;
* indicate where to attack or defend;
* organize movements;
* ask certain players to hold a position;
* prevent five different players from all going in five different directions.
Obviously, for the system to really work, players would also need to play along a little and be willing to follow the commander’s instructions.
The idea isn’t for the commander to completely control the team, but simply to become the main tactical reference for the team during the game.
For example, when the commander sends an order or message to his team, it could appear much more prominently on the interface — maybe in red, similar to how some admin messages currently appear in pink directly on the screen.
This would allow players to immediately notice important instructions instead of having them disappear in the middle of the regular chat.
I think this system would mainly be useful during larger games.
With 2, 3 or 4 players per team, it probably isn’t necessary. But once you start having 6 or 7 players on each side on the same map, even a small amount of coordination can completely change the quality of the battle.
It could bring:
* better coordination;
* more strategic battles;
* fewer players running off alone and doing their own thing;
* a more organized chat;
* more roleplay;
* and most importantly, battles that feel more like two organized teams fighting each other rather than just a collection of individual players.
Obviously, I have no idea how complicated this would be to implement technically, especially when it comes to the voting system, temporarily assigning the commander role, and displaying special commander messages.
But if it’s technically possible, I think it could be a really fun feature to test, especially on EU Commander, where the concept fits the spirit of the server pretty well.
Thanks,
Jtencule
When there are only a few players, things generally work perfectly fine as they are. But once you start getting 5, 6, 7 or more players per team, I’ve noticed that fights can become much more disorganized: everyone goes their own way, several people give different instructions in chat, some players just play completely on their own, etc.
On the other hand, some of the best games are often the ones where one player naturally takes the lead on each team. Movements become more coordinated, fights are more interesting, and it actually feels like two organized teams fighting against each other.
The idea: an optional “Commander Mode”
Once there are enough players per team — for example 5v5, 6v6 or 7v7 — the server could automatically suggest a quick vote at the beginning of the game:
“Would you like to enable Commander Mode for this game?”
* Yes
* No
So the mode wouldn’t automatically be forced whenever there are a lot of players. It would simply be offered, and only activated if the majority of players agree.
Electing a commander for each team
If the mode is accepted, each team would then have a few seconds to vote for one player to become their commander.
For example, in a team of 5 players:
1 commander + 4 other players.
The commander would still keep his normal regiment, regardless of what he picked — artillery, cavalry, infantry, etc. He would still play normally; “Commander” would simply be an additional role.
The commander could keep the role for the next three rounds, instead of having to hold another vote before every round.
There could also be a simple rule to rotate the role:
A player cannot be commander for two games in a row.
This would give different players the opportunity to try the role and prevent the same person from constantly taking command.
The commander’s main role would simply be to coordinate the team:
* suggest a strategy;
* indicate where to attack or defend;
* organize movements;
* ask certain players to hold a position;
* prevent five different players from all going in five different directions.
Obviously, for the system to really work, players would also need to play along a little and be willing to follow the commander’s instructions.
The idea isn’t for the commander to completely control the team, but simply to become the main tactical reference for the team during the game.
For example, when the commander sends an order or message to his team, it could appear much more prominently on the interface — maybe in red, similar to how some admin messages currently appear in pink directly on the screen.
This would allow players to immediately notice important instructions instead of having them disappear in the middle of the regular chat.
I think this system would mainly be useful during larger games.
With 2, 3 or 4 players per team, it probably isn’t necessary. But once you start having 6 or 7 players on each side on the same map, even a small amount of coordination can completely change the quality of the battle.
It could bring:
* better coordination;
* more strategic battles;
* fewer players running off alone and doing their own thing;
* a more organized chat;
* more roleplay;
* and most importantly, battles that feel more like two organized teams fighting each other rather than just a collection of individual players.
Obviously, I have no idea how complicated this would be to implement technically, especially when it comes to the voting system, temporarily assigning the commander role, and displaying special commander messages.
But if it’s technically possible, I think it could be a really fun feature to test, especially on EU Commander, where the concept fits the spirit of the server pretty well.
Thanks,
Jtencule