If you're going to require that levels be comprehensible without benefit of a map, I think that's really going to limit the potential of the levels. At current, even the really simple CO_maps make you miss having a map just due to not knowing where all your teammates are, and most of the NS1 maps would be right out of the question.
<!--quoteo(post=1693509:date=Nov 15 2008, 07:17 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Nov 15 2008, 07:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693509"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->*shock and amazement*
If you're going to require that levels be comprehensible without benefit of a map, I think that's really going to limit the potential of the levels. At current, even the really simple CO_maps make you miss having a map just due to not knowing where all your teammates are, and most of the NS1 maps would be right out of the question.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree. It's not a matter of finding your way around, it's about knowing where people are around you.
I don't think he's talking about taking away the full map display, or at least I hope not. As mentioned, that would seriously limit things. This would put more pressure on the commander to coordinate, which ironically seems counter to the self-sufficiency idea discussed in another thread and make the comm more pivotal.
Again, it's not about knowing how to get from point A to point B, or else yes simple maps and good guides like in TF2 with their giant arrows would be just fine. It's about knowing where people are around you and strategizing a flank or a push.
Then again, this will force you to keep checking you backs, which may or may not be a good thing. Being paranoid is fun! My guess is that the minimap let you spot hiding skulks too easily, so that's why it's going away.
<!--quoteo(post=1693477:date=Nov 14 2008, 07:49 PM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Flayra @ Nov 14 2008, 07:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693477"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I haven't read through this whole thread but...I can tell you that the NS2 HUD will be extremely minimal. Less than NS1's and taking ideas from Call of Duty 4, TF2 and Mario Sunshine.
Right now the only persistent HUD element for players on the ground is their resources.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've been playing quite a lot of CoD4 on hardcore mode (no HUD) with the guys at my office. In that mode CoD4 it has no crosshair until you are aiming right at a target, which is incredibly annoying to me. Sounds like Charlie's saying how many res you have is more important than where your bullets will go, how many you've got left or how much health you have... which really worries me <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
Shouldn't the res counter just be on the scoreboard an armory/shop UI ? so you can call it up when you want it.
<!--quoteo(post=1693477:date=Nov 14 2008, 02:49 PM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Flayra @ Nov 14 2008, 02:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693477"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I haven't read through this whole thread but...I can tell you that the NS2 HUD will be extremely minimal. Less than NS1's and taking ideas from Call of Duty 4, TF2 and Mario Sunshine.
Right now the only persistent HUD element for players on the ground is their resources. That could only display when you're near an armory - I think I'll try that now - but the minimap is gone for good I think. If you need a minimap, that means the levels aren't simple, well-lit or well-designed enough. Your health draws when it changes, and then fades away. If you are very hurt, your whole HUD pulses red, ala CoD4. Everything else only fades in when it changes or when you need it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would like to request or be reassured on a few simple things: 1) Have health be displayed when the marine is below maximum health. Having the hud "pulse" when you are at low health only works very well when your health slowly regenerates back to full. It could be very annoying to have the hud pulse when you are stuck for a minute without a med pack in sight. 2) Have ammo display when it is at low amounts. 3) Always display the crosshair. 4) Have a bindable button for a "what's up" feature for the hud. Where the marine lowers his weapon and the location of all marines are shown on the hud. This is to ease the lack of minimap. The hud remains minimalist since its not ideal to always be checking on your fellow marines.
EDIT: CoD4's multiplayer HUD was very minimalistic but still had a minimap. <a href="http://www.wespe.bigfrag.de/files/u6/cod4_3.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.wespe.bigfrag.de/files/u6/cod4_3.jpg</a>
No ammo and hp counter sounds weird. At least I calculate my actual HPs after fights and see if a medpack allows me to take another bite or swipe. As long as there's no random damage, it's kinda useful to know those exactly. I guess I'll just have to calculate it right after the fight then.
i think flayra tried to say that the hud will only be displayed if your status change.
IE. getting hurt -> hp is shown, getting healed -> hp is shown. pulling out your weapon -> ammo in clip and max ammo is shown, if mag empty and reloading -> ammo is shown.
I don't like the idea of health fading out after changing. I'm not going to forget how crappy I feel after getting bitten. Minimalistic HUDs aren't realistic, they're missing proper replacements for things that the player can't sense like the character does. I don't see any need to get rid of the traditional health/armor/ammo displays, and you should certainly be able to see who your commander is at all times. As for the minimap, I can understand getting rid of the onscreen one but having a full game map is very important to streamlining coordination with your team. In a pub game the commander can't keep everyone informed at once, if they can't figure out for themselves where things are happening they'll just be running around blind.
<!--quoteo(post=1692742:date=Nov 7 2008, 09:20 AM:name=whoppaXXL)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(whoppaXXL @ Nov 7 2008, 09:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692742"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That Holo-Visor could make some cool graphical addition.
Imagine the "holo-hud" only shows up, if you change the Weapon, recieve Ammo or shoot/get hurt. It would appear on the top of the screen in an oval form and on low Ammo or Health it would start flickering and turn red.
So you could always activate it if you change the weapon slots. What the NS-Gamer often does i think. But it could get annoying, too.
So the "Life and Combat Assistance Program" in your Helmet adjust itself on the new Weapon and Settings.
I think not having a minimap is a very very very silly idea. The NS1 minimap was awesome because it allowed for players to read and co-ordinate with their team mates. Allowed to co-ordinate themselves to good choke points or building areas and allowed for new players to quickly and simply learn maps. Having a complex map doesn't necessarily mean bad design, or unintuitive gameplay, i mean, look at maps like tanith, veil, or eclipse, all extremely easy to navigate and learn but also the minimap allowed for extra understanding of areas. Having these complexities made NS1 great.
Knowing your exacts (your health to judge your situation, and your possibilities, ammo, upgrades, etc) helped immensely in all situations. COD4 is not a bad game by all means, and is quite successful competitively. But would NS be similar, in the sense, that you get shot such a minimal amount of times before dying?
Minimal huds suck. Basically. They are _not_ intuitive. It's like, making the game more straight forward, but really making it more complex because you have less idea about what is actually going on around you. There is no reason for a minimal hud either. If you design a good hud, it won't take up too much of the screen, won't be distracting and will tell you all the information you need. What's the reason for having things fade away? There is no 'cool' factor about it, no disadvantages of having it there, it makes the game more frustrating and less understandable.
Ok, a few assumptions and guesses will be thrown in the middle of this, but bear with me. I also am not sure I agree with it, but am just trying to explain their thought process behind this (my thoughts, no idea for sure).
First look at the commander, he doesn't need to drop weapons anymore, he doesn't need to keep a marine in base to build stuff, siege cannons can move around so he doesn't need to build and recycle them all the time and so forth. It looks like they are removing as many 'side tasks' for the commander as possible. That will, in theory, leave him to do one task: command his marines. If this all works as plans, he will be hovering over his squads ordering them around, and not worrying about dropping shotguns every time someone dies.
Now the marine, he doesn't need to build stuff anymore, he has no minimap, all his information only shows up as needed. His job is to shoot, and to listen to orders from his commander. His commander should be the one worrying about their location and their health (to an extent) and such.
It sounds like the design decision is to *really* separate their roles out to a strategical commander and a grunt with as little overlap as possible. None of these guys on the ground ordering people around against their commanders wishes since he has his own map, or a guy soloing off on his own since all the information is there for him (can still do that, just a lot harder!).
The commander is there to command, and the marines are there to shoot. Like I said, that is just what the design sounds like it is trying to enforce. It sounds like a good idea in theory, but wait till they playtest it. Changes will come if they need to.
<!--quoteo(post=1693577:date=Nov 16 2008, 05:47 PM:name=Comprox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Comprox @ Nov 16 2008, 05:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693577"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The commander is there to command, and the marines are there to shoot. Like I said, that is just what the design sounds like it is trying to enforce. It sounds like a good idea in theory, but wait till they playtest it. Changes will come if they need to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is no way that this is a good idea for public play. In public games, a commander should be supporting his marines at least 70% of the time and giving suggestions as to what needs to be done 30% of the time at most. Commanding people you don't know is very hard and your game ends up being very chaotic, even if you're good at the sort of thing, so there should be a lot more a commander has to do besides using his microphone and bashing his face against the keyboard.
<!--quoteo(post=1693577:date=Nov 16 2008, 09:47 AM:name=Comprox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Comprox @ Nov 16 2008, 09:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693577"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok, a few assumptions and guesses will be thrown in the middle of this, but bear with me. I also am not sure I agree with it, but am just trying to explain their thought process behind this (my thoughts, no idea for sure).
First look at the commander, he doesn't need to drop weapons anymore, he doesn't need to keep a marine in base to build stuff, siege cannons can move around so he doesn't need to build and recycle them all the time and so forth. It looks like they are removing as many 'side tasks' for the commander as possible. That will, in theory, leave him to do one task: command his marines. If this all works as plans, he will be hovering over his squads ordering them around, and not worrying about dropping shotguns every time someone dies.
Now the marine, he doesn't need to build stuff anymore, he has no minimap, all his information only shows up as needed. His job is to shoot, and to listen to orders from his commander. His commander should be the one worrying about their location and their health (to an extent) and such.
It sounds like the design decision is to *really* separate their roles out to a strategical commander and a grunt with as little overlap as possible. None of these guys on the ground ordering people around against their commanders wishes since he has his own map, or a guy soloing off on his own since all the information is there for him (can still do that, just a lot harder!).
The commander is there to command, and the marines are there to shoot. Like I said, that is just what the design sounds like it is trying to enforce. It sounds like a good idea in theory, but wait till they playtest it. Changes will come if they need to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand where you are coming from, but I really think that the minimap is probably the most useful tool a marine can have.
I have a horrible sense of direction. I used to be that noob who'd go off and wander around, with the commander giving me orders like crazy.
Then I found the minimap button.
Now I can find my squad mates, see where the commander wants me to go, see where each hallway leads, etc, etc.
Without the minimap, I'd just be some random noob who is perpetually lost due to a lack of direciton. With the minimap, I actually get some kills in before I'm nibbled to death.
The minimap is key to both side's organization and strategy.
-----
And regarding this entire discussion, I think NS2 should simply build on the original, not follow the more recent FPS trends. Just because the latest fad is to lose the HUD doesn't mean we should follow the crowd.
For an example of why you should never follow everyone else and stick to your roots, look at how successful Team Fortress 2 is. They don't have arty strikes, perks, veichles, a dozen different grenade types, or lack a HUD. And it is extemely popular.
If you want to look at how bad a HUD-less game can be, look at Red Orchestra. No HUD, no crosshairs, no health bar, no minimap. You had to count the number of bullets you fired or you'd be stuck in a firefight with an empty gun. You don't even reload automaticly. It was all for "realism." I played for five minutes and immediately uninstalled it.
NS1 did it right. There is no reason to make major changes to the series just to be more in step with everyone else.
<!--quoteo(post=1692747:date=Nov 7 2008, 05:05 AM:name=killkrazy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(killkrazy @ Nov 7 2008, 05:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692747"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->FPS's don't really need a Mini-map either, None of the old skool shooters had them... only a few new shooters do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well back in the day we played halo: "Well as far as I can tell its just a box cannon in the middle of no were, no way in or out. The only reason we set up a base over here is because they have a base over there, and the only reason they have a blue base over there is because we have a red base over here. Ya that's because we're fighting each other. no no, but I mean even if we were to pull out today and they were to take our base, they would have two bases in a box cannon. wooptyf#ckendoo"
But the people who got tired of kill ####### our friends, we play NS were strategy takes dominance and the maps reflect it. I hope they don't make maps simpler. Are there going to be two vents? No weld door? Whats next- taking the caves out of blood gulch? I can see signs to hives and double but complexity is what makes this a good game.
Imagine if there was a bottle neck to to double, only two ways in. Double is usually the most assessable useful room in the game. When one team owns it they other has to go the long way around. What if there were only two other ways around it? The more claustrophobic the maps, the harder it is on the losing team.
<!--quoteo(post=1693577:date=Nov 16 2008, 05:47 PM:name=Comprox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Comprox @ Nov 16 2008, 05:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693577"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok, a few assumptions and guesses will be thrown in the middle of this, but bear with me. I also am not sure I agree with it, but am just trying to explain their thought process behind this (my thoughts, no idea for sure).
First look at the commander, he doesn't need to drop weapons anymore, he doesn't need to keep a marine in base to build stuff, siege cannons can move around so he doesn't need to build and recycle them all the time and so forth. It looks like they are removing as many 'side tasks' for the commander as possible. That will, in theory, leave him to do one task: command his marines. If this all works as plans, he will be hovering over his squads ordering them around, and not worrying about dropping shotguns every time someone dies.
Now the marine, he doesn't need to build stuff anymore, he has no minimap, all his information only shows up as needed. His job is to shoot, and to listen to orders from his commander. His commander should be the one worrying about their location and their health (to an extent) and such.
It sounds like the design decision is to *really* separate their roles out to a strategical commander and a grunt with as little overlap as possible. None of these guys on the ground ordering people around against their commanders wishes since he has his own map, or a guy soloing off on his own since all the information is there for him (can still do that, just a lot harder!).
The commander is there to command, and the marines are there to shoot. Like I said, that is just what the design sounds like it is trying to enforce. It sounds like a good idea in theory, but wait till they playtest it. Changes will come if they need to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree with this. However, so far they've only named the game parts that have been simplified. I'm looking forward to see which features are getting more depth and options added.
Comments
If you're going to require that levels be comprehensible without benefit of a map, I think that's really going to limit the potential of the levels. At current, even the really simple CO_maps make you miss having a map just due to not knowing where all your teammates are, and most of the NS1 maps would be right out of the question.
If you're going to require that levels be comprehensible without benefit of a map, I think that's really going to limit the potential of the levels. At current, even the really simple CO_maps make you miss having a map just due to not knowing where all your teammates are, and most of the NS1 maps would be right out of the question.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree. It's not a matter of finding your way around, it's about knowing where people are around you.
I don't think he's talking about taking away the full map display, or at least I hope not. As mentioned, that would seriously limit things. This would put more pressure on the commander to coordinate, which ironically seems counter to the self-sufficiency idea discussed in another thread and make the comm more pivotal.
Again, it's not about knowing how to get from point A to point B, or else yes simple maps and good guides like in TF2 with their giant arrows would be just fine. It's about knowing where people are around you and strategizing a flank or a push.
Then again, this will force you to keep checking you backs, which may or may not be a good thing. Being paranoid is fun! My guess is that the minimap let you spot hiding skulks too easily, so that's why it's going away.
Right now the only persistent HUD element for players on the ground is their resources.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've been playing quite a lot of CoD4 on hardcore mode (no HUD) with the guys at my office. In that mode CoD4 it has no crosshair until you are aiming right at a target, which is incredibly annoying to me. Sounds like Charlie's saying how many res you have is more important than where your bullets will go, how many you've got left or how much health you have... which really worries me <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
Shouldn't the res counter just be on the scoreboard an armory/shop UI ? so you can call it up when you want it.
Right now the only persistent HUD element for players on the ground is their resources. That could only display when you're near an armory - I think I'll try that now - but the minimap is gone for good I think. If you need a minimap, that means the levels aren't simple, well-lit or well-designed enough. Your health draws when it changes, and then fades away. If you are very hurt, your whole HUD pulses red, ala CoD4. Everything else only fades in when it changes or when you need it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would like to request or be reassured on a few simple things:
1) Have health be displayed when the marine is below maximum health. Having the hud "pulse" when you are at low health only works very well when your health slowly regenerates back to full. It could be very annoying to have the hud pulse when you are stuck for a minute without a med pack in sight.
2) Have ammo display when it is at low amounts.
3) Always display the crosshair.
4) Have a bindable button for a "what's up" feature for the hud. Where the marine lowers his weapon and the location of all marines are shown on the hud. This is to ease the lack of minimap. The hud remains minimalist since its not ideal to always be checking on your fellow marines.
EDIT: CoD4's multiplayer HUD was very minimalistic but still had a minimap. <a href="http://www.wespe.bigfrag.de/files/u6/cod4_3.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.wespe.bigfrag.de/files/u6/cod4_3.jpg</a>
Then again, it's going for realism. No crosshair, death in a few shots, really bad aim if not using iron sights, etc.
IE. getting hurt -> hp is shown,
getting healed -> hp is shown.
pulling out your weapon -> ammo in clip and max ammo is shown,
if mag empty and reloading -> ammo is shown.
Imagine the "holo-hud" only shows up, if you change the Weapon, recieve Ammo or shoot/get hurt.
It would appear on the top of the screen in an oval form and on low Ammo or Health it would start flickering and turn red.
So you could always activate it if you change the weapon slots. What the NS-Gamer often does i think.
But it could get annoying, too.
So the "Life and Combat Assistance Program" in your Helmet adjust itself on the new Weapon and Settings.
Sounds intresting.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would be awesome, you could set it up like that star wars commando game.
Knowing your exacts (your health to judge your situation, and your possibilities, ammo, upgrades, etc) helped immensely in all situations. COD4 is not a bad game by all means, and is quite successful competitively. But would NS be similar, in the sense, that you get shot such a minimal amount of times before dying?
Minimal huds suck. Basically. They are _not_ intuitive. It's like, making the game more straight forward, but really making it more complex because you have less idea about what is actually going on around you. There is no reason for a minimal hud either. If you design a good hud, it won't take up too much of the screen, won't be distracting and will tell you all the information you need. What's the reason for having things fade away? There is no 'cool' factor about it, no disadvantages of having it there, it makes the game more frustrating and less understandable.
Anyway. I hope they actually read that.
First look at the commander, he doesn't need to drop weapons anymore, he doesn't need to keep a marine in base to build stuff, siege cannons can move around so he doesn't need to build and recycle them all the time and so forth. It looks like they are removing as many 'side tasks' for the commander as possible. That will, in theory, leave him to do one task: command his marines. If this all works as plans, he will be hovering over his squads ordering them around, and not worrying about dropping shotguns every time someone dies.
Now the marine, he doesn't need to build stuff anymore, he has no minimap, all his information only shows up as needed. His job is to shoot, and to listen to orders from his commander. His commander should be the one worrying about their location and their health (to an extent) and such.
It sounds like the design decision is to *really* separate their roles out to a strategical commander and a grunt with as little overlap as possible. None of these guys on the ground ordering people around against their commanders wishes since he has his own map, or a guy soloing off on his own since all the information is there for him (can still do that, just a lot harder!).
The commander is there to command, and the marines are there to shoot. Like I said, that is just what the design sounds like it is trying to enforce. It sounds like a good idea in theory, but wait till they playtest it. Changes will come if they need to.
There is no way that this is a good idea for public play. In public games, a commander should be supporting his marines at least 70% of the time and giving suggestions as to what needs to be done 30% of the time at most. Commanding people you don't know is very hard and your game ends up being very chaotic, even if you're good at the sort of thing, so there should be a lot more a commander has to do besides using his microphone and bashing his face against the keyboard.
First look at the commander, he doesn't need to drop weapons anymore, he doesn't need to keep a marine in base to build stuff, siege cannons can move around so he doesn't need to build and recycle them all the time and so forth. It looks like they are removing as many 'side tasks' for the commander as possible. That will, in theory, leave him to do one task: command his marines. If this all works as plans, he will be hovering over his squads ordering them around, and not worrying about dropping shotguns every time someone dies.
Now the marine, he doesn't need to build stuff anymore, he has no minimap, all his information only shows up as needed. His job is to shoot, and to listen to orders from his commander. His commander should be the one worrying about their location and their health (to an extent) and such.
It sounds like the design decision is to *really* separate their roles out to a strategical commander and a grunt with as little overlap as possible. None of these guys on the ground ordering people around against their commanders wishes since he has his own map, or a guy soloing off on his own since all the information is there for him (can still do that, just a lot harder!).
The commander is there to command, and the marines are there to shoot. Like I said, that is just what the design sounds like it is trying to enforce. It sounds like a good idea in theory, but wait till they playtest it. Changes will come if they need to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand where you are coming from, but I really think that the minimap is probably the most useful tool a marine can have.
I have a horrible sense of direction. I used to be that noob who'd go off and wander around, with the commander giving me orders like crazy.
Then I found the minimap button.
Now I can find my squad mates, see where the commander wants me to go, see where each hallway leads, etc, etc.
Without the minimap, I'd just be some random noob who is perpetually lost due to a lack of direciton. With the minimap, I actually get some kills in before I'm nibbled to death.
The minimap is key to both side's organization and strategy.
-----
And regarding this entire discussion, I think NS2 should simply build on the original, not follow the more recent FPS trends. Just because the latest fad is to lose the HUD doesn't mean we should follow the crowd.
For an example of why you should never follow everyone else and stick to your roots, look at how successful Team Fortress 2 is. They don't have arty strikes, perks, veichles, a dozen different grenade types, or lack a HUD. And it is extemely popular.
If you want to look at how bad a HUD-less game can be, look at Red Orchestra. No HUD, no crosshairs, no health bar, no minimap. You had to count the number of bullets you fired or you'd be stuck in a firefight with an empty gun. You don't even reload automaticly. It was all for "realism." I played for five minutes and immediately uninstalled it.
NS1 did it right. There is no reason to make major changes to the series just to be more in step with everyone else.
Well back in the day we played halo:
"Well as far as I can tell its just a box cannon in the middle of no were, no way in or out. The only reason we set up a base over here is because they have a base over there, and the only reason they have a blue base over there is because we have a red base over here.
Ya that's because we're fighting each other.
no no, but I mean even if we were to pull out today and they were to take our base, they would have two bases in a box cannon. wooptyf#ckendoo"
But the people who got tired of kill ####### our friends, we play NS were strategy takes dominance and the maps reflect it. I hope they don't make maps simpler. Are there going to be two vents? No weld door? Whats next- taking the caves out of blood gulch? I can see signs to hives and double but complexity is what makes this a good game.
Imagine if there was a bottle neck to to double, only two ways in. Double is usually the most assessable useful room in the game. When one team owns it they other has to go the long way around. What if there were only two other ways around it? The more claustrophobic the maps, the harder it is on the losing team.
First look at the commander, he doesn't need to drop weapons anymore, he doesn't need to keep a marine in base to build stuff, siege cannons can move around so he doesn't need to build and recycle them all the time and so forth. It looks like they are removing as many 'side tasks' for the commander as possible. That will, in theory, leave him to do one task: command his marines. If this all works as plans, he will be hovering over his squads ordering them around, and not worrying about dropping shotguns every time someone dies.
Now the marine, he doesn't need to build stuff anymore, he has no minimap, all his information only shows up as needed. His job is to shoot, and to listen to orders from his commander. His commander should be the one worrying about their location and their health (to an extent) and such.
It sounds like the design decision is to *really* separate their roles out to a strategical commander and a grunt with as little overlap as possible. None of these guys on the ground ordering people around against their commanders wishes since he has his own map, or a guy soloing off on his own since all the information is there for him (can still do that, just a lot harder!).
The commander is there to command, and the marines are there to shoot. Like I said, that is just what the design sounds like it is trying to enforce. It sounds like a good idea in theory, but wait till they playtest it. Changes will come if they need to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with this. However, so far they've only named the game parts that have been simplified. I'm looking forward to see which features are getting more depth and options added.