Extension to prevent novice players as TL/SL causing team defeat

If you have any suggestions or complains about our servers or group or players on the server, post here.
User avatar
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 9:53 am

Wed Jul 24, 2019 11:26 am

Well, this is how it works if enabled. I just wanted to show you how it is implemented.


We do have a lots of players visiting our servers. Some of them don't play daily or even weekly, but are still loyal RO2 fans. We have no means (other than server messages) to reach most of those players. Therefore, this new feature can also be somewhat confusing to some players.

But I'm sure we will follow the discussion and possible public demand for this.

Edit: I forgot to mention that the feature can be configured to be active only when X human players are present, leaving all key roles (Commander, Squad Leader, Tank Commander and Engineer) free for all during quiet times. Level requirements (1 - 99) are configurable too ofc and changing them does not require a new version of the Divided RO2 Extension.

Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2019 10:05 am

Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:53 am

That was pretty interesting. Yet the message shown indeed doesn't make it clear enough what the problem is and why the user is about to get the boot.

For someone with "minimalistic" english skills and an incomplete grasp of game mechanics, it would come across as he just died for some unknowable reason beyond the reach of human ken.

It should go better if put like this:

"This role is for experienced players only. You will now die to select another class."

This rather brutally phrased warning should maximize the information that gets through.

Note the use of both "role" and "class" terms, for one is used in the RO2 menus and the other is commonplace in other FPS games like Battlefield and CoD. It specifically features words like "die" and "select" in order to make it as obvious as possible that the death which follows is somehow related with a player choice.

Having learned english myself only after age 12, I can well remember how I managed to decipher what my N64 games were trying to tell me. So, I phrased the message above thinking of how I derived sense from familiar "keywords" rather than full syntax back then. I also used only words that I would have recognized at least in part or by context at that age.

I have a Bachelor's Degree in "Game Planning and Design", so naturally I tend to think a lot about stuff like this. :ugeek:

User avatar
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:59 pm
=D= Paul.’s avatar

Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:59 am

I think that kicking low level players for not having the required player level would discourage them from joing our server. "Why did the admin kick me? I was doing great". Even though we might not agree with them we really need new players.

I also don't think the problem is that big. On prime time I rarely get a low level SL/TL, simple because there are enough vets to take the roles. If we do get a bad TL you always have the option to start a vote kick and rally the team to get him kicked. I also don't see a problem in asking the opposite team to join the votekick, they probably already noticed no arty is coming down.

During the day there aren't much high level players around and this results in low level players taking the important roles. You can also see this as an opportunity for those players to learn this game.

Keep in mind that we just had a big steamsale resulting in a lot of new players. So the situation will get better in the following weeks.

Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2019 10:05 am

Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:14 pm

I also don't really like the idea of kicking players who most often never realized they were doing anything wrong in the first place. Doing so has been the "accepted" method only because there is nothing else that can be done, rather than to accept defeat or switch teams (which frustratingly, many choose to do)

During EU prime-time, there is indeed less of the problem, as with more players online as a whole, there will be more experienced ones and a larger chance for one of them to take up the big jobs.

But a server isn't full only during those hours. Even with the ping disadvantage, there are many on the other side of the "pond" that join up, even if just because of the watering-hole effect. (full servers attract more joiners than empty ones)

The servers tend to remain full (players drain from the non-campaign ones to top up the others) for the most part of a 24-hour cycle. It is only during the Pacific Gap hours that the server gets less than full.

For various reasons, experienced users tend to stay curiously longer on the same server than the newer ones, This makes it so that when the servers get busy to the point of have a queue in front of their doors, the ratio of experienced to new players swings strongly towards top-heaviness.

Because of this, in the "weaker" hours, even if though the server is full, or near enough, veterans aren't as present in large enough numbers to stop a frequency of 1:3 matches being compromised by a completely unresponsive player in a lead role. The issue then becomes an ever present plague, which reduces a campaign's outcome to sheer luck of the draw.

The unfairness which results is highly frustrating, especially to the middling players who have already figured out the basics enough to know that a team cannot survive without competent artillery and tank support. Yet these players have not mastered the art and science of esc -> kick voting -> find offender -> boot.

It is in my opinion that this is the largest unresolved issue the game suffers from as a whole. And any server which offers a workable, non-kicking solution to it would be host to the finest possible experience of the game that can be had.

So again I would put forward my suggestion to implement this not as a kick-based system, but as a role replacement. The roles of the volunteering new commander and the guileless offender should ideally be swapped.

This could be done even in a manner which is not at all based upon experience points. Any player whom volunteers to replace a bad leader, and receives the previously mentioned "second opinion confirmation" from one (or maybe two) of his teammates should be able to fill in the role.

It would be a fine compromise between fairness to all and fairness to the efforts of the team. And no-one would have to get kicked off the server.

It would be a bit of extra work, of course. But worth doing, I believe.

User avatar
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 9:53 am

Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:52 pm

Just to clarify the existing (not active) functionality a bit more. In my video the player got eventually kicked. But if he switches to another class after the first warning (msg only) or after second warning (msg + auto-suicide) he will not get kicked ofc. So player has plenty of time to react.

I'm ofc only speaking about the technical UE3 implementation here in the forum, the bigger question is whether this feature would be good or not in the first place.

Post Reply