Marine Hierarchy: Chain of Command

the_x5 · July 2007

<div class="IPBDescription">visually and officially intergrated in the game</div><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ Jul 20 2007, 09:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1639837"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Again I reiterate, it's the commander who should be controlling the orders, deployment, armament, resupply, and RTS tech tree paths for the marine team. That's the commander's job, everything related to real-time strategy, except with real players as units.</div>

<span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><b><span style="color:#00BFFF">Here's an example of marine hierarchy</span>:</b></span>
1. <span style="color:#FF0000"><b>Commander</b></span>
<i><u>Job</u></i>: controls the orders, deployment, armament, resupply, and RTS tech tree paths for the marine team
<i><u>Rank</u></i>: Highest ranking officer, but should also listen to other soldiers in he field
2. <span style="color:#FFFF00"><b>Squad Leader</b></span>
<i><u>Job</u></i>: Coordinates the detailed tactics on the ground with his/her troops. While the commander worries about overall strategy the squad leader is concerned with actual tactics in battle. He/she should offer suggestions and critical information to the commander on occasion but is primarily one to be
<i><u>Rank</u></i>: Probably the highest ranking enlisted like a Sergeant.
3. <span style="color:#00FF00"><b>Squad Member</b></span>
<i><u>Job</u></i>: The core of the attacking force, takes order from the commander and the squad leader in that order.
<i><u>Rank</u></i>: likely to have other ranks within but in terms of the game they are just your normal player

<span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><b><span style="color:#00BFFF">Why it matters</span>:</b></span>
Without this chain of command you get rambo's and idiots running around like chickens with their heads cut off and you are not likely to win unless the alien team is equally or even more poorly coordinated and skilled. This will streamline the order system into a more natural form and also allow for far more efficient tasking behaviors among players in a public setting. The commander will be able to focus on strategy, the squad leader can get some fighting with his/her troops and command the specific tactics, and the squad member will know what they are supposed to be doing.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The Chain of Command is a very important part of any organization. It's there for a purpose. Strictly so any one person is not snowed under with work such as trying to process all the reports of the organization. For instance: Say you have five levels of communication with 10 divisions of each level. Level five has to process 10 reports. If he wasn't there to do this work level four would be processing 100 reports. Again, if level four manager was not there level three would be processing 1,000. Same scenerio, Level 2 would be prcessing 10,000 reports and level one, 100,000 reports.
Could you imagine trying to process 100,000 reports by yourself?

Now another important thing about the chain of command. If each group under the 5th level OIC (Officer In Charge) had 10 people each, this OIC is responsible for 100 persons. If only two people of the 100 persons under the 5th level OICs decided to go over everyones head and contact the level 1 OIC directly, this OIC would have to respond to 20,000 requests for information.</div>

Chain of command is efficient, organized, and solves disputes over strategy. Now in NS a lot of this is dependent on individual player behavior which will vary widely, but server admins should be given better tools by the development team of NS2 to reinforce the chain of command by adding this.

<span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><b><span style="color:#00BFFF">Solution</span>:</b></span><ul><li>Create a new rank called a squad leader, designated by the commander when he creates squads</li><li>Improve source code squad CTRL-# binding to make it less buggy (comming unbound or bound too or becomming bound to something stupid like an observatory by accident) and more stable like the WCIII system.</li><li>Create a streamlined GUI to allow the commander to select which of the players in that squad is going to be the squad's leader</li><li>Give the squad leader the ability to order his individual squad</li><li>Give the squad leader and member a "say_squad", different than say or say_team to give specific tactical orders</li><li><strike>Possibly give the squad leader an added slight bonus of some kind: a bonus 10 armor points to max, a bonus 2.5% damage, an aura of some sort that boosts near by allies (this part is more of non-mandatory part of this idea. It would establish some authority and desire to be choosen by the commander as a squad leader on public server. An aura my be best as it would make the squad innately wish to stay together. Aliens could have a similar aura system centered around packs and pack leaders)</strike></li><li>Keep the 5 squads maximum, so that way there can never be more than 5 squad leaders in any game. Possibly restrict it so that you have to have at least two soldiers in a squad to designate a squad leader.</li></ul><span style="font-size:24pt;line-height:100%"><b><span style="color:#FFFF00"><div align="center">~EDIT~</div></span></b></span>

Given this recent concept mockup:
<img src="http://www.unknownworlds.com/images/news/NS2_commander_mockup.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
It is clear that UWE <i>is</i> invested in the idea of squads for NS2. This is great news Iâ€™m sure we can agree, but it leaves important questions unanswered. Questions that reminded of this topic again --> Iâ€™ve noticed something critical is missing here... the SQUAD LEADER

Anybody with combat training or that has played on a competitive sports team can tell you the importance of having a leader of the squad, on the ground. The TSA commander in NS is like the â€œeye in the skyâ€, but sometimes he/she needs to be able to devote attention to strategy, researching tech, and emergency resupply. He/She canâ€™t be telling each squad verbally over voice communication how to progress, who to weld, where to concentrate fire, who should suppress, whoâ€™s reloading, etc. and still be effective at commanding. So the squad leaders are important individuals to taking the commanderâ€™s strategic orders and translating them into effective tactics.

It reduces the burdens on the commander tremendously and the chain of command gives the marines both something to aspire for and a clear line of communication for micromanaging specifics from generics. Plus, it set marine gameplay up for more streamline tactics which can be massively fun. I mean you got your squad leader / sergeant who can be the bad ass who leads the group. Maybe even a bit of friendly competition between sergeants for who has the more effectively bad ass squad, with the added incentive of getting an achievement if you lead your squad to a certain level of domination. There's just something better about having a leader who stands with his/her troops.

So please, put the whole idea in NS2, not just the squads themselves, but the chain of command.

<span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><b><span style="color:#00BFFF">New extensions to this idea</span>:</b></span>

<b>1.</b> <u>Auto-squad forming via a customizable .cfg on the client machine</u>
You referenced you were trying to figure out squad grouping in the podcast. Why not allow the commander to client default choose friends via STEAM ID's? (ie: client loads a few people as squad leaders per stored preferences) The client stores these SteamIDâ€™s in a ANSII .cfg file (much like banned.cfg), and then when they jump in the command chair for the first time that game, if any of those players are in the server it can automatically form squads and squad leaders and all they have to do is add the remaining players.

<b>2.</b> <u>Music-reinforced behavior trend shaping</u>
In the original Ghost Recon they had something that few other games before or since have had. It's a minor addition, but it could cue the other members of a squad to know when their squad leader died. The original Ghost Recon sound files are almost perfect for marines with their percussive, string, and brass tones:
<a href="http://www.xzianthia.net/sound/death1.mp3" target="_blank">death version 1</a>
<a href="http://www.xzianthia.net/sound/death2.mp3" target="_blank">death version 2</a>
<a href="http://www.xzianthia.net/sound/death3.mp3" target="_blank">death version 3</a>
<a href="http://www.xzianthia.net/sound/death4.mp3" target="_blank">death version 4</a>
<a href="http://www.xzianthia.net/sound/death5.mp3" target="_blank">death version 5</a>
<a href="http://www.xzianthia.net/sound/death6.mp3" target="_blank">death version 6</a>
The aliens would need something more along the lines of "loss of nature", perhaps wind, string, and choral instruments would be best to use here.

CanadianWolverine · July 2007

I like this idea, if only for the "feel" of it, the sense of being a TSA Marine rather than Duke Nukem. Anything to add to the team play and comradery of the game is a bonus.

Might I suggest the "Squad Leader" has a down side as well as the upside, like say, getting a special scanner that allows you to point out / highlight targets for your squad in return for not being able to use a heavy weapon.

Or maybe only squad leaders get only get the way points, then they have to decide "on the ground" how to carry out the orders of the commander as a squad. Less micromanagement for the Commander, allows them more time to see the whole battlefield rather than just a narrow section of it.

CanadianWolverine · July 2007

Perhaps you could involve a "Squad Leader" in the weapon / gear load out process as well?

Svenpa · July 2007

I gotta get it into my head this is for NS2 and not NS.

Sounds good, if we are likely to have bigger teams in NS2, but 6-8 players can handle it on their own.

This is all pointed towards competive play right? Public usually have trouble following a unknown leader unless forced or severely rewarded, so the "inspirational aura" seems to be a good thing to have. I suggest something passive, small, yet useful.

I'm a bit negative as only looking at NS and its 1 and only commander seat have caused conflicts, adding even more might just be too organized.

N_3 · July 2007

This has been suggested before, after the release of bf2. The size of teams in ns (6, or upto 8 or 10 in pubs i guess) is very small so you could have at best 2 very small squads or 1 squad (which kinda defeats the purpose). The teams are also small enough for a single (competent) commander to organize his whole team w/o the need to break it down. Whilst it is common to see 'squads' of marines moving around on ns maps (often led by a natural leader) it is tricky to make them permanent through out the game. Marines die, others come and join, some stay behind to build res; different groups or marines join and separate all the time. Also, i don't see how this addresses/solves rambos and idiots as you suggested.

the_x5 · July 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(N_3 @ Jul 22 2007, 01:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1640133"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>This has been suggested before, after the release of bf2.</div>Not in this capacity, not like this at all. If I'm not mistaken, it was something were Zunni and others in the NS1 I&S suggested that a command system would be useful but that was it. I try to search for such things.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The size of teams in ns (6, or upto 8 or 10 in pubs i guess) is very small so you could have at best 2 very small squads or 1 squad (which kinda defeats the purpose). The teams are also small enough for a single (competent) commander to organize his whole team w/o the need to break it down.</div>
Missing the point?
First, that's now how the populated servers are running these days, large populations, with exception of JigglyPuff which is 8v8 max.
Second, dynamic balance would solve this and has been suggested before.
Third, and the actual point here, this is about streamlining options to make the commander's job far more <i>efficient</i> and thus can focus better on overall strategy more effectively.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(N_3 @ Jul 22 2007, 01:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1640133"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Whilst it is common to see 'squads' of marines moving around on ns maps (often led by a natural leader)</div>
Haha! Yeah right! In clan play perhaps, but <i>extremely</i> rare in public play which is the core of your community's experience. I realize some will be too stubbon-minded to accept that it is the foundation of any gaming community, but even if one argues the degree of importance, it doesn't mean its not important.

So to answer Svenpa's question: yes this would add more depth to competitive play, but no it's not just for competitive play. In fact, this would have possible a great deal <i>more</i> benefit to improving the public scene.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(N_3 @ Jul 22 2007, 01:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1640133"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Also, i don't see how this addresses/solves rambos and idiots as you suggested.</div>
Lies. Where did I say that? I don't see anybody else in the thread saying that either. This seems imagined. No, nothing will "solve" rambos and idiots, but anything that is handy, useful, adds something valuable to the gameplay, and promotes teamwork should be implemented.

Radix · July 2007

Cool idea, but please stay away from giving any form of "proximity bonus" to a player for sticking with their squad. I believe it would create a dangerous precedent for "gameplay on rails" that NS would greatly suffer from.

Letting one player be in charge of a group of players, and maybe making a voice bind that only sends to your squad would be awesome though. You would have a much greater chance of having players listen because the game would feel so much more immersive by virtue of having small (clan-or-smaller-sized) squads.

Sarisel · July 2007

You will need huge maps for this. America's Army size at least.

the_x5 · July 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jul 28 2007, 01:12 AM) [snapback]1640974[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'>Cool idea, but please stay away from giving any form of "proximity bonus" to a player for sticking with their squad. I believe it would create a dangerous precedent for "gameplay on rails" that NS would greatly suffer from.
</div>How so? I believe something like this would be needed encourage people, especially in a pub, to recognize and reinforce the squad leader's rank authority. Granted people try to backseat command even today, but that's because the commander can't handle ALL of the details as well as he could. Sharing the work load with a few "on the ground" field officers who can focus on tactics.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Jul 28 2007, 01:39 AM) [snapback]1640980[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'>You will need huge maps for this. America's Army size at least.
</div>Ah, that's a good game... prefer GRAW in someways though.

Larger maps would be more adventurous, make troop delpoyment more critical, and enhance the value of ugrades that allow you to get from point A to B faster.

Radix · July 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ Jul 29 2007, 09:23 PM) [snapback]1641254[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'>
How so? I believe something like this would be needed encourage people, especially in a pub, to recognize and reinforce the squad leader's rank authority.</div>

There are far better ways than proximity bonuses to assert authority. Give the fieldcomm the power to hand out weapons - whatever you like. If you add proximity bonuses the game becomes one-dimensional: "Follow Boss. Shot skulk. Beg. Get. Follow Boss." over and over. That's a huge step backwards from where NS is in its current form.

Players need the option of taking the initiative to do things on their own, especially in pubs. While I love the idea of setting up a microcosm team within the squad (in order to build atmosphere and camaraderie, among other elements), doing it in such a way that players gain points for playing "on the rails" is, in my opinion, a very restrictive and unnecessary game feature.

the_x5 · July 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jul 30 2007, 01:21 AM) [snapback]1641277[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'>There are far better ways than proximity bonuses to assert authority. Give the fieldcomm the power to hand out weapons - whatever you like. If you add proximity bonuses the game becomes one-dimensional: "Follow Boss. Shot skulk. Beg. Get. Follow Boss." over and over. That's a huge step backwards from where NS is in its current form.

Players need the option of taking the initiative to do things on their own, especially in pubs. While I love the idea of setting up a microcosm team within the squad (in order to build atmosphere and camaraderie, among other elements), doing it in such a way that players gain points for playing "on the rails" is, in my opinion, a very restrictive and unnecessary game feature.
</div>
Well I can kind of see what you are getting at with initiative, but I don't you are thinking of the same kind of auras I'm talking about. And frankly come to think of it this could be also adapted into a very cool alien equivalent counter. It could even be something that the commander would have to research for the team, and on aliens it would an ability you could evolve based on your lifeform class...

I don't see what else would be as effective at creating the microcosm team within the squad as giving the squad leader a natural authority and one of those aspects being something like an aura -- a reason his/her buddies will want to stay close to them, and something the aliens would want to target. Remember me talking about <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=101442" target="_blank">customizable models late in this thread</a>? See how this comes full circle now? You can identify who's who by having observant scouts, or try to appear as twins to throw the other team off. The aura doesn't have to be much, just something more to reinforce those communications, the authority the commander has given this person, something to make people strive to be the commander's squad leaders, and something to make people want to stay with their squad leader and not rambo off like fools. If you have a better addition that accomplishes that better, please, share with us. Until then, I think the way I presented this idea in the pilot post is practically perfect, I did give it a lot of thought. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> You'll find I don't just create these ideas without thinking them through. I have most of my counter arguements already considered.

A con of this whole idea that I'd love to hear because I'd know how well this benefits the game is hearing players who the Commander doesn't choose to be squad leaders whining about not being picked.

the_x5 · May 2008

<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=102053" target="_blank">This post has been updated and now includes a new additional idea that adds on to this current one.</a> (click link to jump to context)

CanadianWolverine · May 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ May 28 2008, 01:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1679642"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=102053" target="_blank">This post has been updated and now includes a new additional idea that adds on to this current one.</a> (click link to jump to context)</div>

Ahh, good update, referencing the mock ups we have to conceptualize with now.

Basicly, I would agree that squad leaders are important as a way to have flow, to ease micro management so a position can acquire focus:
Commander = Strategy
Squad Leader = Tactics
Marine = Specialist (roles determined by equipment loadout)

In this way, you could bridge the gap that may exist between RTS and FPS, so that players can be both individual and a part of the whole team, advancing towards the goal of having fun.

The same can be said of Kharaa gaining Hive Mind and attacking with Pack mentality.

spellman23 · May 2008

This sounds a little like how Rising Eagle has implemented its command structure. While I'm uneasy on how good of a game it is, I suggest people take a look at its implementation.

That being said, I'm a fan of squads, and a specific squad leader. empires using a similar system to help break things down, and there's nice bonuses for sticking with your squad and/or squad leader like extra levels and the leader's aura. Of course, this doesn't force players to stick with their squad, and often times in public games people go running wild. Being a player who often doesn't take leadership unless I really have to, I have led some pretty awesome squads both as and not as a squad leader. It's about making the most of whoever's around.

I personally like this idea. Also, it doesn't require giant maps to make sense, it's just at tool to help manage your team, which definitely gets harder the more players are involved.

the_x5 · May 2008

yay! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />

But I'm curious, what did you all think about the SteamID .cfg personal presets for clients?
I think it would add a whole new dynamic to scrims and competitive play.

LosButch · May 2008

I really love this idea. I think it would work even with small squads of three players.
I'm not entirely convinced about the aura though. Yes it probably make the squad stick together, but it might also make it stick too much. If the bonus for sticking with the squad leader it too great, creative tactics will vanish. Like "You circle around back and attack the from behind while we move in from the front" wouldn't really be used as the person going around back wouldn't be in the aura. On the other hand, if the effect is too low, theres really no point in having it.
I think a good balance could found during the beta test and I would really like to see this implemented :-)

The personal presets could work really nicely, at least if you play on the same server often, with most of the same players. There has to be some interface to handle the .cfg file ingame though.

dudepuppet · May 2008

posably instead of 10 armor bonus a 10% damage increase on all weapons

CanadianWolverine · May 2008

Why the aura even aka +whatever bonus to this or that for proximity? I think communication of information from on high would be reason enough to have a Squad Leader, tactical information in an improved Heads Up Display could mean the difference between getting ambushed and ambushing the enemy. Tactical instructions like formation, level of forward movement, fields of fire, linked targeting systems, marching order, division of equipment, flanking maneuvers, spawning (remember that podcast?)...

I know it sounds complicated put like that, but what I am basicly describing is 1) seeing a squad member through a wall outlined and 2) arrows on the floor and a mark. Who is in the best position to give quick situational tactical decisions based on the strategic instructions of the Commander/Hive Mind? A squad leader/pack alpha. This was inspired by the way we used to get to plan in Rainbow Six games but even more so by watching Left 4 Dead videos where the survivors can see blue outlines of each other through walls and the infected players can see path indicator arrows on the ground.

Improved access to information and coordination could be all the bonus you would need really. Oh, and perhaps there could be a carrot at the end of stick for following instructions / helping out your team, better flow of personal $whatever-its-called$ to equip and tweak your equipment/biology for your character.

Harimau · May 2008

I hate to be the one to say this but, this thread suffers from tl;dr.
Having skimmed through the first post, although at first I didn't like the idea, for some reason I like it now. So yeah, vote yes, I suppose.
edit: skimmed thru a bit more and, not really sure about the squad leader proximity aura; for one i feel it's kinda pointless, considering that squads will be formed automatically <i><b>through</b> proximity</i>.

SentrySteve · May 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I hate to be the one to say this but, this thread suffers from tl;dr.</div>
Thatâ€™s because 70% of the words in this thread are useless.

I read everything you posted, x_5, and still have no idea what you actually want done. It seems like youâ€™re suggesting implementing some kind of arbitrary naming system where one marine could get a bonus while the others donâ€™t. If I remember / heard correctly, in one of the podcasts it was revealed that marines may spawn with their squad in order to help keep them together. Assuming I heard right, thatâ€™s enough of an advantage for squads. To me, youâ€™re just saying vague generalities of how things should work in a perfect world. Without nick picking, I honestly cannot see one tangible benefit to what you suggested. Instead I see needless bureaucratic confusion especially if you want menus or some other pop-up on a UI to be implemented along with this.

I do like the idea of squads, and I think the idea of a squad leader could be beneficial, but weâ€™d actually have to say what weâ€™d want him to do. Squad management could be a fitting role for the squad leader. So what does squad management include? Iâ€™d be willing to chalk it up to dropping meds / ammo and leave it at that. If the health/ammo request from a squad went to the squad leader who could then approve them, that would actually cut down on some of the work of the commander -- maybe even make him seem like less of a babysitter. If the squad leader dropped health / ammo for his squad, and if the marines buying their own guns system stays in, then thatâ€™s a significant chunk of the commanderâ€™s duties taken care - allowing the commander to focus on strategy and upgrade paths. That's just my example of saying what you'd actually want done, rather than an out-of-context chain of command and how it would apply if everyone played along.

aNytiMe · May 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SentrySteve @ May 31 2008, 11:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1679909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>If the health/ammo request from a squad went to the squad leader who could then approve them, that would actually cut down on some of the work of the commander -- maybe even make him seem like less of a babysitter.</div>
Why are so many forum users so intent on claiming that commanders are busy people? I'm guessing that most people on these forums don't like competitive star craft either. If you compared NS and SC side by side, you'd see a remarkable thing - a skill curve. The most remarkable thing about these two games is that there is no cap on the skill curve. Most forum users are dead-bent on adding a cap. Why? Do you want EVERYONE to do the exact same job at commanding? Do you want the commander to <u>only</u> control the very general strategy?

SentrySteve · June 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ May 31 2008, 11:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1679920"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Why are so many forum users so intent on claiming that commanders are busy people? I'm guessing that most people on these forums don't like competitive star craft either. If you compared NS and SC side by side, you'd see a remarkable thing - a skill curve. The most remarkable thing about these two games is that there is no cap on the skill curve. Most forum users are dead-bent on adding a cap. Why? Do you want EVERYONE to do the exact same job at commanding? Do you want the commander to <u>only</u> control the very general strategy?</div>

Seriously?

1) I never claimed NS commanders were 'busy.' In fact, I think the job is boring as hell.

2) How is SC relevant to NS? They're two completely different games, where one requires a high and accurate apm count and the other does not. The basic game mechanics are not even comparable.

3) I personally wouldn't want the system I described to even be in the game, but as I said.... "That's just my example of saying what you'd actually want done, rather than an out-of-context chain of command and how it would apply if everyone played along." I was trying to be nice and add something constructive.

4) Even if Squad Leaders did drop med packs, theres nothing saying a commander couldn't still drop them. Just like how marines buying their own weapons does not necessarily mean commanders are not allowed to drop them anymore.

If you want to cut through all the bull######, here's the bottom line. The marines' "strategy" is not even determined by the commander. How often do you just walk into a hive and ask for a PG? I do it all the time, the commander didn't ask me to go there, I didn't leave the base thinking "I'll set this PG up in this hive" but I ended up there none the less. How often do you disagree with the commander but then actually follow his order over your own idea? I see commanders asking for RT's all the time, yet the marines rather hunt down the gorge or fade.

A good commander will be able to communicate with authority what he wants done and the marines will listen. A bad commander will have his team lead, and hopefully the commander knows how to spend res. I usually end up rolling my eyes at all this talk about "general strategy," and other similar gibberish, because when you get right down to it the commander has little control over that. Instead, the general strategy is determined by everyone playing the game, therefore when you task one person with the 'strategy' role you only create frustration or boredom, depending on how seriously that person takes his role.

aNytiMe · June 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SentrySteve @ Jun 1 2008, 02:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1679953"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>1) I never claimed NS commanders were 'busy.' In fact, I think the job is boring as hell.</div> Okay, we're on the same page.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>If you want to cut through all the bull######, here's the bottom line. The marines' "strategy" is not even determined by the commander. How often do you just walk into a hive and ask for a PG? I do it all the time, the commander didn't ask me to go there, I didn't leave the base thinking "I'll set this PG up in this hive" but I ended up there none the less.</div>
Heh, perfect example of why marines need to be more submissive when it comes to listening to commander. This is a perfect argument for increasing commander power in essence.

Whenever I command marines, I see this all the time. I have 5 marines waiting in the farthest hive for about 2 minutes for a phase gate I'm never going to drop. Why won't I drop this phase gate? Simple, its pretty much a useless waste of 15 res + res wasted on mines + the position/skulk killing time/rt killing time I potentially lose because you should be closer to where I want you to be. Most of the time I also tell my marines to get out of the hive ASAP, but they usually don't and choose to linger there for a gate I'm never going to drop.

If movement skill in NS wasn't so much fun, I'd turn all marines into walking turrets where the marine only controls their upper body. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>How often do you disagree with the commander but then actually follow his order over your own idea? I see commanders asking for RT's all the time, yet the marines rather hunt down the gorge or fade.</div>
Mr. Zaps will solve this problem I believe.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>A good commander will be able to communicate with authority what he wants done and the marines will listen. A bad commander will have his team lead, and hopefully the commander knows how to spend res. I usually end up rolling my eyes at all this talk about "general strategy," and other similar gibberish, because when you get right down to it the commander has little control over that. Instead, the general strategy is determined by everyone playing the game, therefore when you task one person with the 'strategy' role you only create frustration or boredom, depending on how seriously that person takes his role.</div>
Heh, a good commander will actually expect his team to know what to do because he is used to playing with a team that always does it. Also, I usually get ejected whenever I start adding admirable incentives (in the form of punishment by Y..Y....Y.Y...Y....Y....YOU'RE SQUAD 5, PROCEED WAYPOINT, PROCCEED W...) So there really isn't much a commander can do short of physically buying plane tickets and beating his players into submission.

locallyunscene · June 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ May 31 2008, 11:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1679920"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Why are so many forum users so intent on claiming that commanders are busy people? I'm guessing that most people on these forums don't like competitive star craft either. If you compared NS and SC side by side, you'd see a remarkable thing - a skill curve. The most remarkable thing about these two games is that there is no cap on the skill curve. Most forum users are dead-bent on adding a cap. Why? Do you want EVERYONE to do the exact same job at commanding? Do you want the commander to <u>only</u> control the very general strategy?</div>
Don't mistake ignorance for malice. Most people don't consider APM a serious part of commanding. Suggestions that diminish this aren't because they want there to be a skill cap, they're trying to make it easier for new players to comm. Honestly I don't see how this would create a skill cap anyway. If a request system replaced ALL medpacks then yes, but that's silly. A good comm will still need to be able to medpack a midair marine otherwise.

That said I don't think giving a squad leader medpack/ammo duties helps anybody. The commander is the best person to medpack because he has the overhead view. Either having a squad leader switch between views or try and medpack with LoS seem more cumbersome and roundabout solutions. So does having squad leaders "approve" requests.

spellman23 · June 2008

Many games contain weapons that are resupply. For example, Battlefield has Medic/Engineers who can run around handing out free supply. Enemy Territory Wolfenstein allows medics to drop health packs for teammates.

The key is to not make it infinite. Rising Eagle made this mistake, in my opinion, allowing infinite drops of ammo, allowing some class combinations to essentially be giant turrets spamming firepower on anyone they see indefinitely.

I agree that it's not to skill cap, but rather to alleviate the commander's duties making it easier for new players to pick it up. Of course, good commanders can drop meds and ammo in better locations and more accurately.

The concept of a squad leader is to help organize the squad. Battlefield also employs them to help direct troops and pass down orders from the commander, but allows the squad leaders to ignore the commander's orders. Also, there should be some special benefit, and a nomination system, to being a squad leader. As was pointed out, it could be an arbitrary person put as leader. Similar argument to the commander, though. There simply needs to be a system to select and remove squad leaders so it's not random assignment. The special benefit might be as simple as being a location you can respawn at. So, losing the squad leader means people can't keep respawning with the squad. Also, the benefit must not FORCE people to act as a squad, which is why simple auras and such are suggested. Small nice benefit for working as a squad, but if you can forgo the bonus, feel free to run wild.

locallyunscene · June 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Jun 2 2008, 02:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680051"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>The concept of a squad leader is to help organize the squad. Battlefield also employs them to help direct troops and pass down orders from the commander, but allows the squad leaders to ignore the commander's orders. Also, there should be some special benefit, and a nomination system, to being a squad leader. As was pointed out, it could be an arbitrary person put as leader. Similar argument to the commander, though. There simply needs to be a system to select and remove squad leaders so it's not random assignment. The special benefit might be as simple as being a location you can respawn at. So, losing the squad leader means people can't keep respawning with the squad. Also, the benefit must not FORCE people to act as a squad, which is why simple auras and such are suggested. Small nice benefit for working as a squad, but if you can forgo the bonus, feel free to run wild.</div>
Commanding in a pub is pretty much completely arbitrary, and I'd imagine squad leaders would be the same. Squad leaders assigned as(or has the job to assign) respawn points is a good idea though. I'd say that embraces the arbitrariness of the position since the marine you'll be respawning to won't necessarily be better at playing than anyone else, just in the right position at the right time.

dudepuppet · June 2008

i would like to see different classes of the marines like specialists if you will. only alow 1 specialist per group like:

flame thrower specialist-10% increase dammage towards structueres
lmg specialist- 5% dammage increase towards players
sg specialist- extra 8 bullet max capabale of carrying and a wider spray dammage
hmg specialist- fire speed increased 5%
gl specialist- 1 extra grenade in barrel (5 per round) and a 20% dammage increase towards buildings and a 10% dammade decease towards enemys

the_x5 · June 2008

*added death music addendum (when your squad leader dies and only plays for those in that squad)*

*fixed tl;dr in first post and cleaned it up for easier reading*

N_3 · June 2008

To be honest, the push and pull between commander and marine is a unique element to ns. There's no rts where your guys can do what they want, and there's no fps where you have some overbearing controller making almost all the calls. I still feel a competent commander can manage all his marines, but then again im only thinking in terms of competitive play - and even if pub is played more, the competitive scene is what keeps it alive and vibrant. Still, the use of squads in ns2, if only useful for public play, might have some merit but i'd like it to be done without the need of a squad leader. With squads always changing as people move around or die it's tricky to keep any sort of squad rigid for the whole game, a much more dynamic approach to squads needs to be taken. Also, marines need to be kept (at least apparently) classless to be as different as possible from the aliens.

the_x5 · June 2008

Well, N_3, you can actually have both. Chain of command with a commander, squad leader(s), and squad members; <i>and</i> a dynamic, intuitive system (perhaps taking a hint from Blizzard's use of group selectors and keyboard quick-binds) that allows you to change the members of the squad on the fly with ease.

It all depends on how it is implemented.

BlackHawk · June 2008

really it seems that limiting commander baby-sitting is what needs to be done so why not just add a gun similiar to the welder (or the same weapon) that also heals and adds ammo. It woulden't be unfair for the aliens because you have the gun that does all this but not one that can fire at that skulk bolting down the hallway. (I know usually bolting down a hallway as a skulk is bad cuz marines can gun you down, however they can't if you don't have a gun out <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />) and if it becomes a issue make it that it gives ammo a little slower then NS1's armory say at the same rate as health 10 clicks a sec for the LMG? And for the GL maybe like 1 gernade a sec?

Marine Hierarchy: Chain of Command

Comments