I think the idea behind marines buying the commander, is to take away some of the micromanagement so commanders will now focus on strategy, rather than acting as santa claus.
Which, in my opinion, is one of the best ideas thats been brought up in a long time.
But you have to remember, simpler is better... always. If it can be done simple, it should be done so.
Separate res pools really remove a key element from the marine side of the game. That feeling of, your all connected, as a team. And with the recent reference to spawning, it looks like teamwork is going to be an important issue.
Look at combat for example, most players did their own thing. Went out on their own, get quick upgrades and focus on their own build up. Not really what you want to encourage.
I think it comes down to trust. You have to trust your teamates if you want to win. There does need to be some protection on the resrouce pool, and how fast it gets depleted from continual withrawal of various weapons. And there really are alot of factors to consider.
1) If you put a limit on how many weapons someone can buy, you are potentially increasing micromanagement.... defeating the purpose.
2) If you create separate resource pools, then you run the chance of extra resources being wasted. And example would be say, Player A has 20/20 resources. He doesn't die very often, and has kept his main HMG, HA the whole time. However, the team is low on resources and even though this player has 20 resources, Player B has none, and is unable to purchase anything, even if the commander really wanted that player to get something. Even potentially taking 20 resources out of the hands of the commander.
I think the best solution, is to have the commander just set individual weapons and items on Allow/Deny. So depending on his strategy, he could give access to specific type of equipment.
I.e. He wants a Heavy Train, but has enough resources so he researches jetpacks just incase. Both would normally be available, but in this instance, he denies Jetpacks, so 3/5 players he wants in the train don't grab a jetpack and go their separate way, instead they grab heavy armor and stick together.
In addition, the initial research cost could be increased, and the actual purchase of each item decreased.
For example, an advanced armory would cost 50% more than its usual amount, however, each individual weapon costing at about 3-5 resources. And depending on how long the fights are, even with a spam of constant weapon buying, it may even out to the same, but severely lessening the burden on the commander.
The most important thing is simplicity. If it takes awhile, and ticks you off... then it shouldn't be in a game. It has to be quick, easy, and not require any second thought. The commander <b>needs</b> to focus on <b>commanding</b>. Not trying to be santa claus.
I think the idea behind marines buying the commander, is to take away some of the micromanagement so commanders will now focus on strategy, rather than acting as santa claus.
Which, in my opinion, is one of the best ideas thats been brought up in a long time.
But you have to remember, simpler is better... always. If it can be done simple, it should be done so.
Separate res pools really remove a key element from the marine side of the game. That feeling of, your all connected, as a team. And with the recent reference to spawning, it looks like teamwork is going to be an important issue.
Look at combat for example, most players did their own thing. Went out on their own, get quick upgrades and focus on their own build up. Not really what you want to encourage.
I think it comes down to trust. You have to trust your teamates if you want to win. There does need to be some protection on the resrouce pool, and how fast it gets depleted from continual withrawal of various weapons. And there really are alot of factors to consider.
1) If you put a limit on how many weapons someone can buy, you are potentially increasing micromanagement.... defeating the purpose.
2) If you create separate resource pools, then you run the chance of extra resources being wasted. And example would be say, Player A has 20/20 resources. He doesn't die very often, and has kept his main HMG, HA the whole time. However, the team is low on resources and even though this player has 20 resources, Player B has none, and is unable to purchase anything, even if the commander really wanted that player to get something. Even potentially taking 20 resources out of the hands of the commander.
I think the best solution, is to have the commander just set individual weapons and items on Allow/Deny. So depending on his strategy, he could give access to specific type of equipment.
I.e. He wants a Heavy Train, but has enough resources so he researches jetpacks just incase. Both would normally be available, but in this instance, he denies Jetpacks, so 3/5 players he wants in the train don't grab a jetpack and go their separate way, instead they grab heavy armor and stick together.
In addition, the initial research cost could be increased, and the actual purchase of each item decreased.
For example, an advanced armory would cost 50% more than its usual amount, however, each individual weapon costing at about 3-5 resources. And depending on how long the fights are, even with a spam of constant weapon buying, it may even out to the same, but severely lessening the burden on the commander.
The most important thing is simplicity. If it takes awhile, and ticks you off... then it shouldn't be in a game. It has to be quick, easy, and not require any second thought. The commander <b>needs</b> to focus on <b>commanding</b>. Not trying to be santa claus.
<!--quoteo(post=1669685:date=Feb 6 2008, 12:11 AM:name=Wyattx3)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wyattx3 @ Feb 6 2008, 12:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669685"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the idea behind marines buying the commander, is to take away some of the micromanagement so commanders will now focus on strategy, rather than acting as santa claus. Which, in my opinion, is one of the best ideas thats been brought up in a long time. But you have to remember, simpler is better... always. If it can be done simple, it should be done so.
Separate res pools really remove a key element from the marine side of the game. That feeling of, your all connected, as a team. And with the recent reference to spawning, it looks like teamwork is going to be an important issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand what your trying to point out, but would you really enjoy sitting in spawn waiting for equipment to drop only to have someone ninja it from you and then die a meaningless death? I'm sure they could work something out around an idea like 2 res pools. Maybe something like using your score to determine the amount of res (or whatever they want to call it; credits even) that you obtain. Score points are increased by doing worthwhile things like building, destroying enemy structures, etc. So theoretically it wouldn't harm the feeling of teamwork as it actually requires you to work together to obtain better rewards (I'm sure I've mentioned this somewhere before, but meh.)
The point of having separate res pools is so that the player can adapt to the current environment (or in other words, natural selection; <b>only the strong survive</b>). Gorgies spamming OC's everywhere? Buy a GL. Lots of Onos? Get a JP. The whole point of buying your own equipment is so that it takes it out of the commanders hands, making the game more <i>simple</i>, and at the same time making it more fun.
<!--quoteo(post=1669685:date=Feb 6 2008, 12:11 AM:name=Wyattx3)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wyattx3 @ Feb 6 2008, 12:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669685"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Look at combat for example, most players did their own thing. Went out on their own, get quick upgrades and focus on their own build up. Not really what you want to encourage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In combat you don't lose your equipment when you die. In classic you do. The reason combat is so 'pewpew i win' orientated is directly because of that. <b>You don't have anything to lose when you die</b>. This same principle affects NS1 classic too. The marines don't lose anything if they die. They never spent anything to gain the equipment, and they don't lose anything either. Only the commander is directly affected. By making people buy their own equipment it makes the player realize how much his/her weapon/HA/JP is really worth and teaches the player to value his/her life. It reduces the rambo factor and prevents people from walking off and doing their own thing, as by staying in a group/squad they have a higher survivability and more firepower, forcing them to use teamwork to succeed.
There will always be people who go off on their own though, you can't stop that. And if they did stop that, the game would be worse. Sometimes its beneficial (and fun) to go off on your own at certain times. Look at the people who sneak off and build siege outposts near hives. How many games have you won/lost because of things like that?
<!--quoteo(post=1669685:date=Feb 6 2008, 12:11 AM:name=Wyattx3)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wyattx3 @ Feb 6 2008, 12:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669685"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2) If you create separate resource pools, then you run the chance of extra resources being wasted. And example would be say, Player A has 20/20 resources. He doesn't die very often, and has kept his main HMG, HA the whole time. However, the team is low on resources and even though this player has 20 resources, Player B has none, and is unable to purchase anything, even if the commander really wanted that player to get something. Even potentially taking 20 resources out of the hands of the commander.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If player A isn't dying much and is keeping his equipment, <b>how is that a bad thing?</b> If anything it's a godsend as the player knows wtf they are doing.. It's player B's own fault that he doesn't have any resources because he went off and did stupid ###### (eg, bought a GL when there was a bunch of fades or ran off by himself). What you just suggested punishes the better players and strengthens the weaker ones? How is that supposed to be a good thing? Player B (if hes not retarded) would learn from his mistakes and gain insight on what to do in certain situations, making the player learn and grow.
Also I'm not sure why they would limit a players resources to 20.. 50 or 99 sounds like a better number but thats my opinion. They could just tweak around with the price of equipment making it so they were more cheaper/expensive for the player depending on the maximum amount of res/credit or something like that.
<!--quoteo(post=1669685:date=Feb 6 2008, 12:11 AM:name=Wyattx3)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wyattx3 @ Feb 6 2008, 12:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669685"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the best solution, is to have the commander just set individual weapons and items on Allow/Deny. So depending on his strategy, he could give access to specific type of equipment.
I.e. He wants a Heavy Train, but has enough resources so he researches jetpacks just incase. Both would normally be available, but in this instance, he denies Jetpacks, so 3/5 players he wants in the train don't grab a jetpack and go their separate way, instead they grab heavy armor and stick together.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Part of the commanders job is managing the team and planning victory, so being able to block certain equipment off sounds reasonable.
Squads of JP can be effective too you know.. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
I wasn't implying that HA > JP, it was just an example.
And yes the idea that one player not dieing and losing their weapons is a good thing. However, distributing resrouces throughout the marines, takes away part of the commander's job.
Meaning: He no longer dictates what weapons are used, the players do.
Most of the encouragement a commander can give to his marines is through weaponry, and its kinda an incentive to do well to get those things.
But if its entirely up to the player to get his own things, then theres a problem... who needs a commander then?
Basically, I would like to see a mutual trust between the commander and his squad. Obviously a game can be ruined if players spam certain weaponry, but in any cooperative game, you need to be able to work with each other to win. If you have someone working against you, then thats the reason your losing, not some game mechanic.
There are a few small things that could be done to limit the impact on resources the marines have by buying the weapons. But the marines are a TEAM, they should share their resources.
If theres a high research cost, and low 'buy' cost, then it could potentially be pretty equal to the current system. But the spammability of the weapons would not have such a great impact that it ends up ruining the game.
Another way could make it so the commander can allow/deny things. That way when the commander needs to save on res, he just stops all weapons going out.
I personally am a fan of separate pools if we're allowing personal purchases.
Most have been mentioned, but stuff like drawing out the overall account would be bad, and completely individualized accounts would remove team play feeling.
I'm especially a fan of how Empires Mod for HL2 does this. They have the central pool from which buildings, tech, and such can get spent by the commander. It also gets used to build vehicles, but the commander can lock the factory to prevent individual players or the whole team from building new vehicles. They also have points per squad which are gained by the squad members doing certain things, like working together or gaining experience from kills, building, repairing, etc. These squad points can get spent to do things like revive the team, give a boost to armor or speed for a while, and other items.
How it would work in NS would be a squad or individual (I personally like squad) pool or credits/points that can be spent for boosts or modifications to weaponry, and the primary pool still gets used to weapons. However, the commander will need the ability to set buying rights to individuals (prevent the noob from whoring the res for big guns) or the whole team (we need to save res for some future tech).
If you wanna make it a bit more complex, you can also have points for the players, allowing them to earn them from kills/ welds/ building/ etc., and they can spend these on personal modifications, while the squad points are only spent on the squad overall. Empires Mod uses points to allow you to purchase skills that can help augment the player.
Maybe give the commander tools to make buying weapons more hands-off? My recall of NS marine side is kinda fuzzy (mostly went alien).
But if you gave the commander options like "let each marine buy X worth of weapons every X seconds" and "request an auto-healthpack every X seconds" it would free up the commander from having to follow around every marine to drop goodies on them.
The commander could also get a pool where they could toss excess money to let marines buy things above and beyond the main allowance, if the team can be trusted to not drain it all in a purchasing orgy, or rely on the individual allowance method in.... probably most public games...
Also, maybe let the commander set number of allowable guns, to keep the weapons balanced out among the team.
The big problem in not having two res pools is spawn humping. As has been stated sooo many times. So it has to be either two pools or a point system. Not open access.
Having a limit on personal res is a must, and if a player has maxed out their personal res then they get skipped like aliens now and the excess res will flow to the COM and team mates. This player is not any more penalised than a leet fade with 100 res. In addition the COM could even alter this max limit and coupled with blocking off certain upgrades to push the team towards a set strat
"Ok guys its SG and welders only for a bit so max res = 10, mines off" "We are going for fast upgrades so max res is 0", "Sweet you have all got RT's, we are max tech and swimming in res so max res = 40, all options open and here have a top up of 25 each"
La ChupacabraJoin Date: 2008-02-25Member: 63729Members
I think is rather hard to think of a good system when we don't know how will the weapons look like in NS2. I have got the impression that weapons might change, for example (which is being discussed somewhere else on the forums) all the weapons might be generally equal, but better vs specific alien life form(s) or in particular circumstances, instead of having one weapon better than another in every aspect (well, most of all damage).
If that would be the case - weapons would be equally good on average, having their specific advantages and advantages - I think that NS would benefit most from a system (already mentioned) where Marines can choose which weapon they can spawn with (like in DoD for example and many other games). Neither the marine nor the commander would have to pay for the weapon, however weapons would have to be unlocked first, which involves costly research.
Why like this? If a weapon (and its price) is more or less the same (which does not have an impact of the game economy) than why should we waste comm's time on assigning weapons etc if the player knows the best what he is good at? It's far better for him to do upgrades, plan next moves etc. Some people might say that Comm should judge what weapon will be better for a particular tactic. I think that this is part of individual skill and team-play. A good player should check what others are using and adjust he's personal way of playing for the good of the team. NS it's not only about the Comm, but also about the man on the ground and their decisions. At least I find NS this way.
I would advise, and I'm sorry if somebody have mentioned that already (don't remember, though), to allow a marine to choose the weapon, but leave the decision whether give out a HA or a JP to the Commander and his own resources. I believe that this is an aspect that can make or break a game, since HA and JP affects the movement speed and allows JP'kers to choose different/faster routes, which means that instead of proceeding in a group, marines will end up splitting up = no team work = game lost. With weapons that is not always the case. Forcing a player to use a HMG instead of a shotty, for example, might cause him to be less effective. Maybe that guy is capable of doing a complete havoc with a GL? Comm can not know that kind of things when playing with random people on a public server...
If, however, NS2 would stick to the traditional "second weapon better than the first one" theme, than I would still suggest marines being capable of choosing - buying in this example - a weapon (but not a JP or HA, as explained earlier), but leave the main tactics for the comm. How?
Making two pools of resources - comm's and players. Comm get resource from res nodes, player ONLY from his own achievements, mostly team-based (like activating a building, 1 res per every 25 armor welded and 50 damage dealt to enemy or 1 res for 1 minute of being in close range to a team-member (not constant, so 30 seconds - interval - 30 seconds would also give 1 res)). However, what I would like to change in that idea is that the personal savings in the res pool should be balanced in such a way so a medium marine could buy a weapon every 3 or 4 respawns, so he can't impact the gameplay too much - to a far lesser degree than the tactics and equip given out by the comm. Again, I would advise to not give the possibility of buying a HA or JP to a marine, only to the comm (explained above).
Personally I am in favor of these ideas that would go along with what I have just wrote: weapon storage at armory, weapon recycling and upgrading to a different weapon by the comm (if a player allows it) for a lesser price (cost of the current weapon deduced), BUT if a player would not allow the Comm to upgrade / change the weapon he is currently having, he would loose big amount of his personal resources by giving it to he comm's pool (if he wouldn't have that much, than the remaining "debt" would be payed from his future res).
And rather than giving the player a possibility of doing requests that waste comm's precious time, I would suggest allowing a player to list his most preferred weapons (for example shotty -> GL -> HMG -> LMG) and assign priority to HA or JP over the other. Maybe somewhere in the controls/options page? That kind of information would be viewed by comm in the show scores thing. It might be integrated with other mechanisms - for example, comm only chooses the amounts in which he want to buy weapons, HAs/JPs and game chooses to which players those are assigned by their preferences (of course not everyone would end up with what they want, but at least most of them).
Comments
Which, in my opinion, is one of the best ideas thats been brought up in a long time.
But you have to remember, simpler is better... always. If it can be done simple, it should be done so.
Separate res pools really remove a key element from the marine side of the game. That feeling of, your all connected, as a team. And with the recent reference to spawning, it looks like teamwork is going to be an important issue.
Look at combat for example, most players did their own thing. Went out on their own, get quick upgrades and focus on their own build up. Not really what you want to encourage.
I think it comes down to trust. You have to trust your teamates if you want to win. There does need to be some protection on the resrouce pool, and how fast it gets depleted from continual withrawal of various weapons. And there really are alot of factors to consider.
1) If you put a limit on how many weapons someone can buy, you are potentially increasing micromanagement.... defeating the purpose.
2) If you create separate resource pools, then you run the chance of extra resources being wasted. And example would be say, Player A has 20/20 resources. He doesn't die very often, and has kept his main HMG, HA the whole time. However, the team is low on resources and even though this player has 20 resources, Player B has none, and is unable to purchase anything, even if the commander really wanted that player to get something. Even potentially taking 20 resources out of the hands of the commander.
I think the best solution, is to have the commander just set individual weapons and items on Allow/Deny. So depending on his strategy, he could give access to specific type of equipment.
I.e. He wants a Heavy Train, but has enough resources so he researches jetpacks just incase. Both would normally be available, but in this instance, he denies Jetpacks, so 3/5 players he wants in the train don't grab a jetpack and go their separate way, instead they grab heavy armor and stick together.
In addition, the initial research cost could be increased, and the actual purchase of each item decreased.
For example, an advanced armory would cost 50% more than its usual amount, however, each individual weapon costing at about 3-5 resources. And depending on how long the fights are, even with a spam of constant weapon buying, it may even out to the same, but severely lessening the burden on the commander.
The most important thing is simplicity. If it takes awhile, and ticks you off... then it shouldn't be in a game. It has to be quick, easy, and not require any second thought. The commander <b>needs</b> to focus on <b>commanding</b>. Not trying to be santa claus.
Which, in my opinion, is one of the best ideas thats been brought up in a long time.
But you have to remember, simpler is better... always. If it can be done simple, it should be done so.
Separate res pools really remove a key element from the marine side of the game. That feeling of, your all connected, as a team. And with the recent reference to spawning, it looks like teamwork is going to be an important issue.
Look at combat for example, most players did their own thing. Went out on their own, get quick upgrades and focus on their own build up. Not really what you want to encourage.
I think it comes down to trust. You have to trust your teamates if you want to win. There does need to be some protection on the resrouce pool, and how fast it gets depleted from continual withrawal of various weapons. And there really are alot of factors to consider.
1) If you put a limit on how many weapons someone can buy, you are potentially increasing micromanagement.... defeating the purpose.
2) If you create separate resource pools, then you run the chance of extra resources being wasted. And example would be say, Player A has 20/20 resources. He doesn't die very often, and has kept his main HMG, HA the whole time. However, the team is low on resources and even though this player has 20 resources, Player B has none, and is unable to purchase anything, even if the commander really wanted that player to get something. Even potentially taking 20 resources out of the hands of the commander.
I think the best solution, is to have the commander just set individual weapons and items on Allow/Deny. So depending on his strategy, he could give access to specific type of equipment.
I.e. He wants a Heavy Train, but has enough resources so he researches jetpacks just incase. Both would normally be available, but in this instance, he denies Jetpacks, so 3/5 players he wants in the train don't grab a jetpack and go their separate way, instead they grab heavy armor and stick together.
In addition, the initial research cost could be increased, and the actual purchase of each item decreased.
For example, an advanced armory would cost 50% more than its usual amount, however, each individual weapon costing at about 3-5 resources. And depending on how long the fights are, even with a spam of constant weapon buying, it may even out to the same, but severely lessening the burden on the commander.
The most important thing is simplicity. If it takes awhile, and ticks you off... then it shouldn't be in a game. It has to be quick, easy, and not require any second thought. The commander <b>needs</b> to focus on <b>commanding</b>. Not trying to be santa claus.
Which, in my opinion, is one of the best ideas thats been brought up in a long time.
But you have to remember, simpler is better... always. If it can be done simple, it should be done so.
Separate res pools really remove a key element from the marine side of the game. That feeling of, your all connected, as a team. And with the recent reference to spawning, it looks like teamwork is going to be an important issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand what your trying to point out, but would you really enjoy sitting in spawn waiting for equipment to drop only to have someone ninja it from you and then die a meaningless death? I'm sure they could work something out around an idea like 2 res pools. Maybe something like using your score to determine the amount of res (or whatever they want to call it; credits even) that you obtain. Score points are increased by doing worthwhile things like building, destroying enemy structures, etc. So theoretically it wouldn't harm the feeling of teamwork as it actually requires you to work together to obtain better rewards (I'm sure I've mentioned this somewhere before, but meh.)
The point of having separate res pools is so that the player can adapt to the current environment (or in other words, natural selection; <b>only the strong survive</b>). Gorgies spamming OC's everywhere? Buy a GL. Lots of Onos? Get a JP. The whole point of buying your own equipment is so that it takes it out of the commanders hands, making the game more <i>simple</i>, and at the same time making it more fun.
<!--quoteo(post=1669685:date=Feb 6 2008, 12:11 AM:name=Wyattx3)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wyattx3 @ Feb 6 2008, 12:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669685"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Look at combat for example, most players did their own thing. Went out on their own, get quick upgrades and focus on their own build up. Not really what you want to encourage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In combat you don't lose your equipment when you die. In classic you do. The reason combat is so 'pewpew i win' orientated is directly because of that. <b>You don't have anything to lose when you die</b>. This same principle affects NS1 classic too. The marines don't lose anything if they die. They never spent anything to gain the equipment, and they don't lose anything either. Only the commander is directly affected. By making people buy their own equipment it makes the player realize how much his/her weapon/HA/JP is really worth and teaches the player to value his/her life. It reduces the rambo factor and prevents people from walking off and doing their own thing, as by staying in a group/squad they have a higher survivability and more firepower, forcing them to use teamwork to succeed.
There will always be people who go off on their own though, you can't stop that. And if they did stop that, the game would be worse. Sometimes its beneficial (and fun) to go off on your own at certain times. Look at the people who sneak off and build siege outposts near hives. How many games have you won/lost because of things like that?
<!--quoteo(post=1669685:date=Feb 6 2008, 12:11 AM:name=Wyattx3)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wyattx3 @ Feb 6 2008, 12:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669685"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2) If you create separate resource pools, then you run the chance of extra resources being wasted. And example would be say, Player A has 20/20 resources. He doesn't die very often, and has kept his main HMG, HA the whole time. However, the team is low on resources and even though this player has 20 resources, Player B has none, and is unable to purchase anything, even if the commander really wanted that player to get something. Even potentially taking 20 resources out of the hands of the commander.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If player A isn't dying much and is keeping his equipment, <b>how is that a bad thing?</b> If anything it's a godsend as the player knows wtf they are doing.. It's player B's own fault that he doesn't have any resources because he went off and did stupid ###### (eg, bought a GL when there was a bunch of fades or ran off by himself). What you just suggested punishes the better players and strengthens the weaker ones? How is that supposed to be a good thing? Player B (if hes not retarded) would learn from his mistakes and gain insight on what to do in certain situations, making the player learn and grow.
Also I'm not sure why they would limit a players resources to 20.. 50 or 99 sounds like a better number but thats my opinion. They could just tweak around with the price of equipment making it so they were more cheaper/expensive for the player depending on the maximum amount of res/credit or something like that.
<!--quoteo(post=1669685:date=Feb 6 2008, 12:11 AM:name=Wyattx3)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wyattx3 @ Feb 6 2008, 12:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669685"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the best solution, is to have the commander just set individual weapons and items on Allow/Deny. So depending on his strategy, he could give access to specific type of equipment.
I.e. He wants a Heavy Train, but has enough resources so he researches jetpacks just incase. Both would normally be available, but in this instance, he denies Jetpacks, so 3/5 players he wants in the train don't grab a jetpack and go their separate way, instead they grab heavy armor and stick together.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Part of the commanders job is managing the team and planning victory, so being able to block certain equipment off sounds reasonable.
Squads of JP can be effective too you know.. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
And yes the idea that one player not dieing and losing their weapons is a good thing. However, distributing resrouces throughout the marines, takes away part of the commander's job.
Meaning: He no longer dictates what weapons are used, the players do.
Most of the encouragement a commander can give to his marines is through weaponry, and its kinda an incentive to do well to get those things.
But if its entirely up to the player to get his own things, then theres a problem... who needs a commander then?
Basically, I would like to see a mutual trust between the commander and his squad. Obviously a game can be ruined if players spam certain weaponry, but in any cooperative game, you need to be able to work with each other to win. If you have someone working against you, then thats the reason your losing, not some game mechanic.
There are a few small things that could be done to limit the impact on resources the marines have by buying the weapons. But the marines are a TEAM, they should share their resources.
If theres a high research cost, and low 'buy' cost, then it could potentially be pretty equal to the current system. But the spammability of the weapons would not have such a great impact that it ends up ruining the game.
Another way could make it so the commander can allow/deny things. That way when the commander needs to save on res, he just stops all weapons going out.
Most have been mentioned, but stuff like drawing out the overall account would be bad, and completely individualized accounts would remove team play feeling.
I'm especially a fan of how Empires Mod for HL2 does this. They have the central pool from which buildings, tech, and such can get spent by the commander. It also gets used to build vehicles, but the commander can lock the factory to prevent individual players or the whole team from building new vehicles. They also have points per squad which are gained by the squad members doing certain things, like working together or gaining experience from kills, building, repairing, etc. These squad points can get spent to do things like revive the team, give a boost to armor or speed for a while, and other items.
How it would work in NS would be a squad or individual (I personally like squad) pool or credits/points that can be spent for boosts or modifications to weaponry, and the primary pool still gets used to weapons. However, the commander will need the ability to set buying rights to individuals (prevent the noob from whoring the res for big guns) or the whole team (we need to save res for some future tech).
If you wanna make it a bit more complex, you can also have points for the players, allowing them to earn them from kills/ welds/ building/ etc., and they can spend these on personal modifications, while the squad points are only spent on the squad overall. Empires Mod uses points to allow you to purchase skills that can help augment the player.
But if you gave the commander options like "let each marine buy X worth of weapons every X seconds" and "request an auto-healthpack every X seconds" it would free up the commander from having to follow around every marine to drop goodies on them.
The commander could also get a pool where they could toss excess money to let marines buy things above and beyond the main allowance, if the team can be trusted to not drain it all in a purchasing orgy, or rely on the individual allowance method in.... probably most public games...
Also, maybe let the commander set number of allowable guns, to keep the weapons balanced out among the team.
Having a limit on personal res is a must, and if a player has maxed out their personal res then they get skipped like aliens now and the excess res will flow to the COM and team mates. This player is not any more penalised than a leet fade with 100 res. In addition the COM could even alter this max limit and coupled with blocking off certain upgrades to push the team towards a set strat
"Ok guys its SG and welders only for a bit so max res = 10, mines off"
"We are going for fast upgrades so max res is 0",
"Sweet you have all got RT's, we are max tech and swimming in res so max res = 40, all options open and here have a top up of 25 each"
If that would be the case - weapons would be equally good on average, having their specific advantages and advantages - I think that NS would benefit most from a system (already mentioned) where Marines can choose which weapon they can spawn with (like in DoD for example and many other games). Neither the marine nor the commander would have to pay for the weapon, however weapons would have to be unlocked first, which involves costly research.
Why like this? If a weapon (and its price) is more or less the same (which does not have an impact of the game economy) than why should we waste comm's time on assigning weapons etc if the player knows the best what he is good at? It's far better for him to do upgrades, plan next moves etc. Some people might say that Comm should judge what weapon will be better for a particular tactic. I think that this is part of individual skill and team-play. A good player should check what others are using and adjust he's personal way of playing for the good of the team. NS it's not only about the Comm, but also about the man on the ground and their decisions. At least I find NS this way.
I would advise, and I'm sorry if somebody have mentioned that already (don't remember, though), to allow a marine to choose the weapon, but leave the decision whether give out a HA or a JP to the Commander and his own resources. I believe that this is an aspect that can make or break a game, since HA and JP affects the movement speed and allows JP'kers to choose different/faster routes, which means that instead of proceeding in a group, marines will end up splitting up = no team work = game lost. With weapons that is not always the case. Forcing a player to use a HMG instead of a shotty, for example, might cause him to be less effective. Maybe that guy is capable of doing a complete havoc with a GL? Comm can not know that kind of things when playing with random people on a public server...
If, however, NS2 would stick to the traditional "second weapon better than the first one" theme, than I would still suggest marines being capable of choosing - buying in this example - a weapon (but not a JP or HA, as explained earlier), but leave the main tactics for the comm. How?
Making two pools of resources - comm's and players. Comm get resource from res nodes, player ONLY from his own achievements, mostly team-based (like activating a building, 1 res per every 25 armor welded and 50 damage dealt to enemy or 1 res for 1 minute of being in close range to a team-member (not constant, so 30 seconds - interval - 30 seconds would also give 1 res)). However, what I would like to change in that idea is that the personal savings in the res pool should be balanced in such a way so a medium marine could buy a weapon every 3 or 4 respawns, so he can't impact the gameplay too much - to a far lesser degree than the tactics and equip given out by the comm. Again, I would advise to not give the possibility of buying a HA or JP to a marine, only to the comm (explained above).
Personally I am in favor of these ideas that would go along with what I have just wrote: weapon storage at armory, weapon recycling and upgrading to a different weapon by the comm (if a player allows it) for a lesser price (cost of the current weapon deduced), BUT if a player would not allow the Comm to upgrade / change the weapon he is currently having, he would loose big amount of his personal resources by giving it to he comm's pool (if he wouldn't have that much, than the remaining "debt" would be payed from his future res).
And rather than giving the player a possibility of doing requests that waste comm's precious time, I would suggest allowing a player to list his most preferred weapons (for example shotty -> GL -> HMG -> LMG) and assign priority to HA or JP over the other. Maybe somewhere in the controls/options page? That kind of information would be viewed by comm in the show scores thing. It might be integrated with other mechanisms - for example, comm only chooses the amounts in which he want to buy weapons, HAs/JPs and game chooses to which players those are assigned by their preferences (of course not everyone would end up with what they want, but at least most of them).