Multiple Commanders: A Bad Idea
Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot
Join Date: 2006-10-31 Member: 58116Members
Join Date: 2006-10-31 Member: 58116Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Interesting in theory; bad in real world</div>This issues doesn't even require a long discourse on game design theory.
Finding one good commander is hard enough on public servers; if it is necessary to find one for each team or multiple commanders for each team, the game could be lost before anyone is spawned.
It concerns me as a longtime NS pubber that you guys don't immediately see the flaw considering it was one of the major challenges with NS1 and the commander concept in general.
If I am missing something please let me know. From where I stand this looks like a problem you will not see in game testing with veteran clanners and experienced pubbers, but only once you have released it to the masses.
Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot
Finding one good commander is hard enough on public servers; if it is necessary to find one for each team or multiple commanders for each team, the game could be lost before anyone is spawned.
It concerns me as a longtime NS pubber that you guys don't immediately see the flaw considering it was one of the major challenges with NS1 and the commander concept in general.
If I am missing something please let me know. From where I stand this looks like a problem you will not see in game testing with veteran clanners and experienced pubbers, but only once you have released it to the masses.
Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot
Comments
He keeps extra ones on hand, just in case any game, anywhere, doesn't meet his expectations. Even if he is just forming his own ideas off of other people's.
It's on his resume, you know.
It's on his resume, you know.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My response to you from another thread that I don't feel like retyping.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Look, when you have good counter-arguments for me, I'll be happy to respond but if you just continue to play smartass because I'm raising legitimate concerns I'll just ignore you in the future.
I am here to try and help make NS2 a success as well but the way I do it doesn't involve my mouth and Charlie's private parts.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Commanding has a steeper learning curve
Commanding requires a greater set of skills (RTS and FPS)
Commanding requires deeper level thinking (Strategy and Counters)
There are not as many people who are good (or even decent) commanders, compared to people who can move around a map, shoot a machine gun, and build some buildings.
This is all based on my experience with NS as a player on public servers. I don't know if Charlie knows this (by god I hope he does) but during the peak of NS popularity there was still a problem finding <b>one</b> decent commander on public servers.
Now the proposal is that we have to find 2 or more decent commanders on public servers, when during the peak of NS popularity it was difficult to find one commander.
Is this getting through to you guys at all... I ask this honestly and not sarcastically.
It would be messy.
Thank you for a good reply.
From a gameplay balancing point of view having two commanders is much easier I agree.
My feeling is the shortage of decent commanders is a higher level concern because what does it matter if everything is super balanced if there are not enough commanders to fill the role.
There was definitely balancing problems when the size of teams grew bigger than 10v10 I agree but some of the most fun I have had with NS involved big servers so I hope they keep larger games in mind when it comes to balance... but this topic probably belongs in a different thread.
There are not many people that are good at being a Commander because it is such a vital role and only one person per game has the role. Players are over eager to eject a new (bad) commander who <i>could</i> become a good commander if he or she actually got the opportunity to practice. The team is reducing the emphasis on the commander and allow multiple ones per team. Are two solutions required to fix the problem? Maybe. But if having more than one commander is a determent to the game, they will change it.
It comes down to this:
A) One commander per team in NS2. Less people learn to command, but leadership is stable.
OR
B) Multiple commanders per team in NS2. More people learn to command, but there is a risk of shenanigans.
Wow that's a big word... to bad you fail to make a convincing argument for why it's a "bad idea"... i'll go on the edge here and say you have no idea what your talking about. Furthermore "FocusedWolfs Game Design Theorem" prevails where applicable xD
Anyways your wrong because NS2 != NS1.
It will be different... perhaps the maps will be so gigantic that it will require multiple commanders to make it work. Perhaps your thinking about NS1 with multiple commanders and not thinking beyond that. Your not anticipating that the devs know, or will eventually know, what needs to changed in NS2 to implement multiple commanders seamlessly into the game.
Perhaps it will be where the top commander monitors the entire map while sub commanders are more "zoomed" in what happens in particular rooms (configuring the turret farm trajectories or diverting marines on a repair mission... i.e. posting a repair objective which gets automatically transmitted to all marines with welders that are closest to the objective that their services are needed).
In short this is "decentralized command and control". The enemy team (the aliens) have been making use of this since day 1 to win the majority of NS1 battles... because they aren't slowed down by a single commander they can make it their personal mission to knock out rts in a sector, or go onos... i.e. they are armored so damn much, and have so much personal resources, that they are armies-of-1... they are their own commander... this is why having multiple commanders for the marine team can do nothing but help the marines fight/react on a changing battlefield faster. All the devs need to do is implement some way of commanding marines by "searching" for them with a filter... i.e. you, as commander click a room with ocs, and the nearest gler is notified... that's how we make this work.
In short marines are automatically micro-managed by the "objective" system... and commanders just have to spot problems and notify that "objective" system of the problem. Overall you'd think all of this can be automated because a turret factory knows when it's hurt and needs repair... but i think you need a human element there, or AI :P, to command marines to priority objectives... to make a problem a priority... but solving small problems isn't the only thing having many commanders is good for... i mean they can communicate with each other... which will affect their focus on the situation... It will work just fine.
Good reply Sirot. I believe this is a major issue in the whole RTS/FPS gameplay model which I relate more to the RTS part.
In competitive RTS your <i>Starting Build Order</i> which happens in the first 30 seconds, can spell success or failure. Because NS has RTS influences the first 30 seconds or you can think of it like, the first buildings you build, the first few abilities you research, pretty much establishes your overall strategy. I can attest players can be cruel (and sometimes downright abusive) to new or creative commanders because the wrong build order can lead to defeat, and with NS sometimes, it can be a long drawn out defeat.
I wouldn't be so quick to blame that on UWE so much as it is just one of the hurdles you have to deal with in the RTS/FPS model.
The only suggestion I can think of (for now and this should probably go in another thread) is making it easier to change teching paths and some way to recoup resources for reversing research so there is some flexibility to change strategies in the early-mid to mid game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A) One commander per team in NS2. Less people learn to command, but leadership is stable.
OR
B) Multiple commanders per team in NS2. More people learn to command, but there is a risk of shenanigans.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Too much Shenanigoats. :( Seriously bad for the gaming experience.
May I be so bold as to suggest another option; stick with the asymmetrical styles that made NS unique, 1 marine commander.
Maybe I am an old timer but I'm still convinced it is possible to make it work with some extensive testing, and clever thinking.
two commanders is a great idea
Like a couple of others have said before in this thread already:
What people don't think about when they critizise is that this is -not- NS1. It's NS2. It's not the same game with new graphics, it's actually changed with some new stuff and it's improved all the old stuff that's still around.
The first time I heard about multiple marine commanders I got very worried, but then I realised it's not NS1 and that it doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. We'll just have to wait and see. Also, for the record. I've not read anywhere that you have to have multiple commanders to win. Only that it's a possibility if you so please. But, meh. If it's a bad thing, it'll be cut out during testing for sure. We'll just have to wait and see, as I said.
You want to have an intelligent discussion drop the sarcasm and insult.
I don't know if you did any commanding in NS but from an RTS perspective NS is pretty basic. The entire troop movement and control is out of your hands (the FPS element) so as a commander you dictate strategy with build order, buildings (specifically RT placement and when and what to Turret farm), weapon handouts, and research and tech path. You also play a support role when it comes to med packs and ammo.
I have no problem with how basic it is, in fact I think it has to be as basic as possible to fit the RTS/FPS hybrid model, but not so basic the job is boring. I think Charlie ripped out what he needed of the commander role in RTS.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anyways your wrong because NS2 != NS1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From this statement I can see you don't quite see what my concern is.
My concern is the availability of decent commanders; <b>not</b> how hard it is. NS = NS2 because they are both RTS/FPS hybrids except NS2 calls for 2 commanders instead of 1. I'm trying to point out, "Hey guys, it was hard enough to find one commander with NS, I don't think it is a good idea to have 2 commanders because it might be even harder to get good games."
You must remember, without a commander you cannot play the game. NS2 proposes to increase the requirements of something (2 commander) that was already tough to fulfill properly when it had fewer requirements (1 commander).
Since dropping an armory and IP are necessary for any other buildings, the only strategies for comms (in NS1) in the first minute are
1) getting an arms lab, armor 1.
2) starting the AA tech immediately
3) dropping an obs and getting Motion or PGs.
or maybe 4) doing none of the above and dropping a lot of RTs.
None of those significantly differentiate the marine strategy in the first minute.
That said, your main argument just doesn't make any sense. We have literally 2 pieces of information about multiple commanders:
1) they exist.
2) they will have "spell-like" abilities.
From that you somehow infer that it will be necessary to have multiple commanders and finding good ones will be hard? I don't know where you pubbed in NS1, but my experience 9/10 commanders were decent. Most of the people that hopped in the chair knew how to play NS and <i>wanted</i> to comm. I can't disagree that a bad commander really ruined the game (and not just for the marines), but how does multiple commanders make that more significant? Casual inference would suggest otherwise. Commanders sharing duties would mean less was competing for the attention of each, less responsibility on each to be good, and <b>if one was bad, the other can pick up the slack</b>. That's just speculation though, because <i>we know basically nothing</i> about how it's going to work. So calling the feature out as a bad idea is basically trolling.
I am <b><u>not</u> saying</b>, multiple commanders is unworkable as a gameplay idea.
I <b><u>am</u> saying</b>, I think 2 or more commanders is a bad idea because it was hard enough to find 1 commander.
The Alpha doesn't reveal anything because the majority of testers will be veteran clanners and experienced pubbers, the commander:troop ratio with this group of hardcore players shouldn't be a problem.
as in not required I would assume. I believe CCs will also be similar to hives now in that you will be teching up by building more of them, so not building multiple probably wont be an option.
I think it could be good for pubs, not everyone has the ability to multitask like a good comm.
1) getting an arms lab, armor 1.
2) starting the AA tech immediately
3) dropping an obs and getting Motion or PGs.
or maybe 4) doing none of the above and dropping a lot of RTs.
None of those significantly differentiate the marine strategy in the first minute.
That said, your main argument just doesn't make any sense. We have literally 2 pieces of information about multiple commanders:
1) they exist.
2) they will have "spell-like" abilities.
From that you somehow infer that it will be necessary to have multiple commanders and finding good ones will be hard? I don't know where you pubbed in NS1, but my experience 9/10 commanders were decent. Most of the people that hopped in the chair knew how to play NS and <i>wanted</i> to comm. I can't disagree that a bad commander really ruined the game (and not just for the marines), but how does multiple commanders make that more significant? Casual inference would suggest otherwise. Commanders sharing duties would mean less was competing for the attention of each, less responsibility on each to be good, and <b>if one was bad, the other can pick up the slack</b>. That's just speculation though, because <i>we know basically nothing</i> about how it's going to work. So calling the feature out as a bad idea is basically trolling.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have quoted me out of context.
The Starting Build Order thoughts was in response to why newer, more creative players get booted from the command chair, because the players see a build order they are not familiar with. I was just expressing why they resorted to a quick eject because of how crucial the first 30 seconds are in RTS games.
I'm in North American on the West Coast and my playtime was usually early to late evening. I generally connected to West Coast servers but in the search for decent games I'd pretty much go to any server with acceptable ping.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am <b><u>not</u> saying</b>, multiple commanders is unworkable as a gameplay idea.
I <b><u>am</u> saying</b>, I think 2 or more commanders is a bad idea because it was hard enough to find 1 commander.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look, my problem isn't with the skill of Commanders, I'll settle for decent. <i>My problem is with the <b><u>availability</u></b> of decent commanders.</i>
I'm dumber than most, explain this to me.
Very interesting thought, no longer a commander mode but a support class with an RTS view... that could be an interesting alternative of the RTS/FPS Hybrid. I'd miss the commander mode though, I think it has the potential to work but an expanded support class role would avoid some major problems. You'd have to consider who controls research and teching that would be an important detail.
The idea of multiple comms per team, makes this less of a problem because the sub-comm role will help train a large pool of comms over time. The comms will probably have a less totalitarian control of all of the teams strategy because of the new player purchasing systems. There is most likely separate res pools for each team as well as each player to achieve a more overlay-like quality for much of the RTS aspects of the gameplay.
At least I'm hoping for something awesome like this.
I think you've mistaken the solution for the problem, as I believe the main reason for multiple commanders is to draw more people into commandeering.
Edit: Yes, sort of what culprit was saying.
I will consider them for a bit and reply later.
I really see no reason at all to have two commanders
Also, I hope the commander isn't able to magically spam medpacks in NS2
NS has no method of teaching commanding within the game. Dual/sub- commanders would at least be some form of learning, so depending on how it was implemented there's more argument that there would be more able commanders in NS2 than we have in NS.
The implementation is key, though. We're not sure how NS2 will work, so it's really difficult to discuss this topic at the moment. So much hinges on the roles of the different commanders. All we can do is speculate on what we think would be the best implementation. The secondary commander could be limited to something as simple as structure placement, it may be that the main commander can block off the different abilities for the sub-commander, it may be that both commanders have identical powers; it's too difficult to say for certain.
Personally I like the idea of multiple commanders, but I think to get it working properly it would take a lot of time and prototyping to get right. With mutiple commanders you have so many potential problems to work around:
- griefing (multiple candidates for an eject vote, but which one's the actual culprit?)
- scalability (how to vary the responsibilities of the multiple commanders)
- ownership (making sure the primary commander can protect the investments he has made in view of his own gameplan)
- synchronisation (how do you make sure both commanders aren't wasting time by trying to perform the same action)
- cross-chatter (who talks to the grunts? how do the commanders communicate with eachother? how do you avoid too many people talking at once?)
There's a lot more you can do to improve the one-commander setup we have in NS that would be quicker and cheaper to implement than the ambitious multiple commanders idea. E.g. just having the ability to observe the commander in spec mode would radically change how the role can be learnt. Not only would you have the ability to spec a commander live, but absolutely anyone could demo a commander from spec mode and shoutcast a game as an educational piece with in-depth tactical and strategic analysis. If the games in NS2 are as short as in NS, it's not too bothersome to spec a commander for 15 minutes to learn the ropes. This would be a far cheaper alternative than the pre-production, production and QA time needed to make a multiple commander mode that ticks all the boxes and is polished.
So although I like the idea of multiple commanders and easing new comms in by giving them variable sets of responsibilities, I don't think it's an achievable goal for an indie game looking to release in the next 6 or even 9 months. I think it could be a fun feature to develop post-release, that could help make the game more attractive to the undecided vote. Here's how I think it could work: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=107005" target="_blank">Dual Commanders: The S-Com and the T-Com</a>
Most of all though, considering how little specific information has been given in regards to the new role of commanders and sub-commanders a policy of wait and see is probably in order here.
That can be fixed in many many many ways...
1. some things can cost no res at all, just time... i.e. researching armor... or it can cost very little res, just a lot of time.
2. each commander can have a personal cache of res to work with, just as each alien in NS1 had a personal cache of res.
we have to trust the developers on this one because they are fully aware of the situation more then any of us can be.