Keep track of a very minimalistic decency in commanding, show it during cv vote

Not a massive epeen counter, just a "this guy commanded at least a couple of games decently." statistic.

something like;

any game with more then 8 players on each team, longer then 20 minutes, allows people from your team to upvote or downvote next to each name that sat in the CV at one point or another in the game, only one vote for all commanders so you cant upvote everyone. and there is no requirement to vote.

people start with 0 points every game update.
To get your first point, you need 25% of people on your team to upvote you.
To get any further points past your 1st, you need 50% of your team to vote you.
To get any further points past your 3th, you need 75% of your team to vote you.
If you ever get 3 points, your minimum points now becomes 1. (you have proven to be a somewhat capable commander)

Every time 50% or more of your team downvotes you, you lose a point.

-people with score of 1 have a bronze badge next to their name during cv voting.
-people with score of 2 to 3 have a silver badge next to their name during cv voting.
-people with score of 4 to 5 have a gold badge.
-if people are trickster they always have points, and have a rainbow flag as badge.

there is no other way to see how many points people have then these badges, and only during cv voting.

Scores are kept per steam stats and every major update anyone is reset to their minimum (3 or more -> 1, else 0)

perhaps for Epeen fags add in achievements depending on ever getting one of these badges.

Why
To make it more obvious who is new to commanding and who isnt, this will improve pub games.

Wont this cause the same people to be commander over and over and newbies never to get to be commander?
No, people still have to opt in or opt out, and since it resets back to your minimum every major update there will always be people with no points or 1 point. and it will be pretty easy to get your first point, thus equalising you every update with 'the vets' (the actual ones, not the people who played empires since forever but suck like me)

 

matchmaking in empires when (i don't want to be queued with newbs)
and also when half of the team just joined and didn't seen me in action or some people just don't like me and will downvote me how is it good?
and how one vote for all commanders you played with recently or what?
code it by yourself and see

 

We don't need to rank commander(especially by voting).

We only have to make sure the comm knows what he's doing.

 

Will this tell people I'm the best commander ever? If not, I am against it!

 

i dont see a reason not to get a point. it means you were good enough for 26% to upvote you

i think i might be for this. it doesnt rank people at a level where one person is way above everyone else so there isnt a competition for it. the points are invisible. keep the limit at 5. and let people turn it off of course if they desire

get rid of that 1 being the new default after 3 points though.

 

I think the post is pretty clear, if you get 26% upvotes and you have 0 points you will get a point

lower points is more forgiving.

 

is there a problem with new players winning com votes over vets, though?

 

nope, i often saw the opposite - known names get votet quite often regardless if they are good or not!
so some sort of "stats" or "ranking" would be nice - but i think voting would be to complicated and just as awkward like mapvotes xP
(i mean that up-/downvote concept discussioned here, not the comvote!)

steam offers a good amount of statistic features to be shared between player account and gameclient ;-)
(just look at other source game mods - "Alien Swarm" as example, it's possible but idk about the effort needed!)

 

fuck yeah, lol I lose half the comm votes for some reason.

 

Yea, when there are some decently populated games and you get noobs in who don't know how to play and then it kills the server because they don't know how to do anything.

 

yes, especially when it matters

there are plenty of games when it does not, and i couldnt give a rats ass who is commanding, but sometimes a server suddenly goes from half full to full over 1 game, if the next game some idiot takes the command seat and fucks it up the server will be empty and people will be annoyed. Its the biggest server clearer

 

Or you could keep track of Com's win/lose ratio? Would make coms want to win more so good commanders would be forced to give advice to noobies to try and prevent losing.

 

Well, if you don't place a VF and it's 20 minutes in... it kind of is your fault. Plus, research is pretty important but it would be the com who wins it if it were counter based, but it still is pretty important.

 

We don't need comm metrics, we need lower barrier to entry on commander.

Problem is, comm metrics is an easier task and less likely to piss off our most dedicated of players - but I've never seen a satisfactory proposal on how to deal with them. This one is one of the better ones. But as Security said:

Anyway, I think efforts are better invested in a cure, not a band-aid. We'd be better off talking about what we can do to make commanding a less confusing experience. Word of mouth is the only way that info like 'get an armor first, then an engine, then a weapon (cannon or mg) followed by maybe another weapon if you're feeling spiffy and then meds' and so on and so forth gets around. And no, I don't consider word of mouth or making it the vets' responsibility much of an acceptable solution.

 

i feel your solutions are just pipedreams.