Jobs

[Articsledder]

So, as you may know in my recent thread "This is why we can't have nice things" We were pondering how to give people a sense to what they were doing without implementing classes. So, why not have a job system while still letting players chose there equipment. This could either be a game-mode or Gamewide, and servers could turn it on or off.

Upon startup after choosing your team, you are presented with a job selection screen. Jobs are as follows:

Builder
Defender
Recon
GI

Builder's: build. This can range from defensive towers too offensive bridges.

Defender: defend the teams territory. This typically mean's they won't see too much action, and can help build in there spare time.

Recon: Basically act as a scout to monitor enemy movements/disrupt said movements. If Mortars are implemented, call in strikes on enemyies.

GI: Basically serve as the all around soldier. They can hang back and defend, or go out and set up forward bases. The only issue is they may be too bland, and end up acting like current decues do, running into battles and dieing. Hopefully if the other team has efficient defender's and builders, they will need to rely on teamwork with other GI's.

To keep everyone from playing certain jobs, each job has a limit.
Limits:
Builder-4
Defender-6
Recon-4
GI-8

Note that these don't add up to 16. This allows for flexibility and different styles of team.

"But wait, what if I don't want to be this job?"
If you somehow end up unlucky enough that you get an undesirable job, I would just try and wait it out. Someone will disconnect at one point, and if not, it will teach people to be patient, and that they can't always be a single job. Being stuck outside of a combat class is impossible at the moment, you will at least have 3 extra combat slots. If you want to be a builder, don't worry. A benefit of this system is flexibility. Even if you don't get to build, you can join defender or G.I. and at least kind of help builders, by not necessarily building at base but on the front lines.

Now here's the other issue. X isn't doing his job! instead of doing recon, he's building!
The first thing would be to nicely ask them to change job. If they aren't complying, just votekick.

Your whole team isn't doing the right jobs?
You may be in the wrong kind of server.

Everyone on Every Server isn't doing there job!
Well, this is not an issue. We are back at square one, just as we are today. Because everyone has equal equipment, we might as well not even have the system there. It is something that isn't necessary, but a nice addition to teams who want to get a working system together.

[Paratrooper]

So this would basically just be a title above your name?

I mean, no one is really forcing you to stay in one job. There aren't any pros or cons in choosing a job.

[Articsledder]

So this would basically just be a title above your name?

I mean, no one is really forcing you to stay in one job. There aren't any pros or cons in choosing a job.

Yeah pretty much. In the map view mousing over someone could also provide a name and job along with mousing over them in game too.

[Priok]

this sounds cool, maybe they could all have some special thing, not really like team fortress classes, but just things like an extra grenade, or a few more blocks, I don't know. I would like to see how this works, maybe a bunch of people could all play with "recon" in their name, to see how things go.

[Gorman]

Seems pointless and it has arbitrary restrictions.
Forcing people to do jobs they don't want, and forcing them to play a certain way, and then telling people to votekick them if they don't play "right" is a very bad situation.

*me pushing up the middle of Pinpoint*
deuce: "stop building cover, wait for the builder to do that"
me: "but I'll die!"
Deuce has initiated a votekick against Me: He is building but not builder!!!!

So much rage.

Classes and pigeon holing are terrible, just let people play how they want to play, and if they don't feel like they have enough direction then let them think "ok today I'm just gonna build"...

[MrMeow]

Nah, Just use squads.

EXAMPLE: /Squad Reconnaissance

Easy, Huh?

[Articsledder]

Seems pointless and it has arbitrary restrictions.
Forcing people to do jobs they don't want, and forcing them to play a certain way, and then telling people to votekick them if they don't play "right" is a very bad situation.
.

*me pushing up the middle of Pinpoint*
deuce: "stop building cover, wait for the builder to do that"
me: "but I'll die!"
Deuce has initiated a votekick against Me: He is building but not builder!!!!

So much rage.

did you read the post. Seriously. I put it in bold. The entire point of this suggestion is it is a flexible way of suggesting people to work together. I can guarantee not one of the genuine non troll AoS players would ever consider doing a votekick like the one you described, even if they were 3 years old.

Now that I think about it there shouldn't even be a reason to Votekick because someone wasn't doing there selected job. the entire thing just suggest you do a certain job. The way limits would be balanced, there should never be an issue with someone not doing what they want to do, unless they are an illiterate kid who just picks Recon "for the lulz". Even then, if someone wanted his recon spot they could just do the job as a GI.

Classes and pigeon holing are terrible, just let people play how they want to play, and if they don't feel like they have enough direction then let them think "ok today I'm just gonna build"..

This is a terrible mentality. As horrible as it sounds, if we "just let people play how they want to play" the game would be shit, with no teamwork at all, considering more then half of the players aren't interested in helping others, and just want those high Kill streaks and airstrikes. This system is barely affecting people, it just places them in a category, making it easier for teams to organize. Not to mention servers wouldn't even be forced to use this system.

[MrHaaaaaaxFF]

Improve teamwork using this, it's not a bad idea. Also, people SHOULD know what they have to do. Wait, wrong job? No no no no no, we have to be adapt to it. Using only a job will(sometimes)kill you. See for yourself.

[Paratrooper]

I guess people could "roleplay" as their jobs.

[Gorman]

did you read the post. Seriously. I put it in bold. The entire point of this suggestion is it is a flexible way of suggesting people to work together. I can guarantee not one of the genuine non troll AoS players would ever consider doing a votekick like the one you described, even if they were 3 years old.

Now that I think about it there shouldn't even be a reason to Votekick because someone wasn't doing there selected job. the entire thing just suggest you do a certain job. The way limits would be balanced, there should never be an issue with someone not doing what they want to do, unless they are an illiterate kid who just picks Recon "for the lulz". Even then, if someone wanted his recon spot they could just do the job as a GI.

I read the post, but there is no way that you can consider restrictions to be more flexible than no restrictions. As simple as that.

People votekick all the time for stupid reasons, and you are specifically telling people to votekick for stupid reasons, I can 100% guarantee that someone will votekick for that.

Classes and pigeon holing are terrible, just let people play how they want to play, and if they don't feel like they have enough direction then let them think "ok today I'm just gonna build"..

This is a terrible mentality. As horrible as it sounds, if we "just let people play how they want to play" the game would be shit, with no teamwork at all, considering more then half of the players aren't interested in helping others, and just want those high Kill streaks and airstrikes. This system is barely affecting people, it just places them in a category, making it easier for teams to organize. Not to mention servers wouldn't even be forced to use this system.

In other words, this suggestion is a pointless complexity?

This is why I don't like these kind of ideas. Either they are too enveloping and gamebreaking, or they are too meek and pointless (take the example of randomized damage: either it is too much and the game is all about luck, or it is too little and it has no effect on the game, there is no real middle ground possible).

In this case we have a case of "it's optional", "it should be flexible", "it's just a title that does nothing else", so clearly what we have is a pointless suggestion that will never have any effect on gameplay and just attempts to pigeon hole people needlessly.

Sorry but I don't buy that there are only 4 ways to play this game.

You should play some organized matches, it seems like you have only played pubs before.

By the way, if you ever think "servers won't have to do this" you are thinking of a script, not a game modification.

[ThisFrickinSite]

i think that this in combination with the commander suggestion would proabbly work well together because then you could target certain people on certain jobs to handle missions so that there would be less risk of the entire team attacking one objective and everything kinda just goes to shits. i think that this should be toggle able by the server owner if it gets implemented or maybe a game mode.

[Moonkey]

Off-Topic: How I classify Gorman: Hardcore Critic. In other words you say THIS, and Gorman grabs what you said and throws it back at you. Professional work I tell you, don't mess with the Gorman. (xD)

On-topic: Trololol? Basicly: This is Classes renamed "jobs". Or so I read. I tell you, the community just want good descripts of this.

[Gorman]

Off-Topic: How I classify Gorman: Hardcore Critic. In other words you say THIS, and Gorman grabs what you said and throws it back at you. Professional work I tell you, don't mess with the Gorman. (xD)

I don't think there is much use in agreeing with people. Sure it makes them happy but it hides flaws and logic attached to an idea. It is better if we can explore the idea, and especially better to help everyone understand the idea and the effects and implementation if I aggressively criticize the idea.

If it can stand up to my words then it is probably very well thought out and a worthy addition :P

[Moonkey]

Off-Topic: How I classify Gorman: Hardcore Critic. In other words you say THIS, and Gorman grabs what you said and throws it back at you. Professional work I tell you, don't mess with the Gorman. (xD)

I don't think there is much use in agreeing with people. Sure it makes them happy but it hides flaws and logic attached to an idea. It is better if we can explore the idea, and especially better to help everyone understand the idea and the effects and implementation if I aggressively criticize the idea.

If it can stand up to my words then it is probably very well thought out and a worthy addition :P

And this is why I'm annoyed today. *goes to sleep*

[Gorman]

Sorry for not mindlessly agreeing with you because I like pretty lights :I