Well something definately needs to be done about the sink or swim thing that goes on now with learning to comm. Iv never been a good comm and never really tried to learn very much. The reason though, isnt because I have no interest in it, its because I've never actually gotten to command a full game. As soon as the team realizes I'm not a 1337sauce comm they insta-eject me. As a consequence I've never actually learned anything about being a good comm. Just something to keep in mind, because that has pretty much turned me off completely to commanding.
<!--quoteo(post=1720555:date=Aug 4 2009, 03:10 PM:name=JAmazon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JAmazon @ Aug 4 2009, 03:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720555"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well something definately needs to be done about the sink or swim thing that goes on now with learning to comm. Iv never been a good comm and never really tried to learn very much. The reason though, isnt because I have no interest in it, its because I've never actually gotten to command a full game. As soon as the team realizes I'm not a 1337sauce comm they insta-eject me. As a consequence I've never actually learned anything about being a good comm. Just something to keep in mind, because that has pretty much turned me off completely to commanding.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Try get in with a few mates all on the one team and have a go at commanding then. If you start out with someone actually listening, you might learn better.
I'd have to agree with Letalshadow. Yes, NS has some complexities however the core game isn't difficult too understand. If you're the kind of person who doesn't want to learn, and doesn't care about learning, you can play it like a TDM or Counter-Strike and so long as you can maintain an equal or positive K:D you're an asset to the team and you're probably having fun. In this scenario the player will eventually learn the game whether they want to or not, and when that time comes it would be their choice as to whether they'll contribute to the team or not.
I'm not saying to make NS2 really hard to learn, or to not include any tutorials or trainings, but I can't see anyone who knows NS calling it difficult to learn.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I learned the game without help from others too, I would guess that's the case of most of us here. But I've tried showing it to various people, and the obtuseness of the game is apparent then. Some people see the potential of NS and love it for that, but compared to other games it is hard to learn.
I have a couple of insights regarding commanders and similar players in FPS games.
Commander is a lot like builders in Tremulous. While there can be many builders in Tremulous, build point limit is the same no matter the number of players. Build Points are the limit, not resources, but otherwise it's pretty much the same. It's slightly more useful to have more builders, but only barely because of the limit. Once all BP's are spent, nothing else can be built. That's why even a single builder can make team win or lose. What commanders have in common ? They're builders of Natural Selection, they decide how to spend limited construction resources. Just like in Tremulous, amount of construction resources is the same no matter the number of builders. Assuming multiple NS1 style commanders, of course !
Limited number of resources is <b>shared</b> between players. Pros: - Even a single player doing this role can suffice. Cons: - Because of shared resources, <b>conflicts are inevitable</b>. Either everyone is telling commander he's doing a bad job, or builders are competing - instead of cooperating - for resources. - If commander/builder(s) is doing terrible job, other players are generally powerless and can't do anything about it ! A bad player can waste entire team's resources. - Discourages experimentation. <b>Votes become vetoes</b>. Briliant ideas are rarely born out of consensus. Wisdom of crowds works for facts, it doesn't work for design. <a href="http://blog.asmartbear.com/blog/ignoring-the-wisdom-of-crowds.html" target="_blank">http://blog.asmartbear.com/blog/ignoring-t...-of-crowds.html</a>
Now consider games which have Team Fortress style building - that is, for most part each builder has completely independent resource pool. This includes games like original Team Fortress mod for Quake, Team Fortress Classic, Quake 3 Fortress, Unreal Fortress (this one never got far I think), Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, TF2. In these games construction resources are essentially additive - each builder gets free set of resources and can spend it as he likes. You can build your turret anywhere, unless a spot is already taken. You can plant your mines anywhere (but there's a total limit per team in ET:QW. It's pretty high, though.).
In this model, team construction resources increase with each builder. Construction resources of individual players are <b>added</b> (in grand scheme of things), not shared. Pros: - if one player on a team is doing a bad job, you can step in, become another builder and save the day. - no resource conflicts ! No hate ! It's rare to see someone complain or insult you when you build the way you like. - experimentation friendly Cons: - if your builders aren't doing a good job, sometimes a single builder stepping in to fix (you) is not enough. You may end up pulling hairs because no matter how hard you try there's not enough of you and hard limits prevent you from accessing more of construction resources. - If players on your team lack common sense, you can have surplus of builders (and imaginary construction resources). Extra builders on your team would perhaps be better on the front line.
Third model: Construction resources are the same no matter the number of players. They're not really shared between players of a team. What is most important that <i>control of units</i> is shared, because one player would not be able to manage everything as fast as two.
This model is used mostly in action/arcade games like StarCraft or Warcraft 3. I doubt NS2 will take this route, because units (individual players) are not braindead and can take care of themselves. There's not enough guiding work to warrant two or more commanders. StarCraft players may complain when they see an interface improvement coming their way, when they don't have to micromanage every single stupid unit. Multiple building select is for noobs. Autocast of no-brainer abilities is lame. Fine.
======================================
Why the lenghty (for some) analysis ? Because <b>I think I know what they could mean when they say "commander is more like another class in NS2"</b>. It may mean that some, or all resources are <i>independent</i> for each builder. I have a hunch they may get extra build resources each, in some form. Quite obviously, more commanders won't mean more cash to spend on buildings and upgrades. That would fundamentally change the game and it would essentially require both teams to have X (optimal number) of commander-builders in each game. But I predict multiple commanders in NS2 may get to share control of their builder bots, or even get their own builder bots each ! After all, this time around builders are going to be mostly or totally harmless, so they will need protection from marines/warrior aliens. Having too many commanders on team might mean there aren't enough players left to protect them. I think that we may see some kind of resources that is <i>added</i> with each extra commander your team has.
Haven't read the debate above me, I may just say that any other games (include NS1) that is FPS and have some sort of comm. mode is always single player. It is definitely not a good sign to have two commanders, as it is also true for the "real world", where military always won't have multiple generals on the field, but have people by rank. So may be a rank system could be used to determine who is the comm. when multiple users want to be da BOSS in that game.
Comments
Try get in with a few mates all on the one team and have a go at commanding then. If you start out with someone actually listening, you might learn better.
I'd have to agree with Letalshadow. Yes, NS has some complexities however the core game isn't difficult too understand. If you're the kind of person who doesn't want to learn, and doesn't care about learning, you can play it like a TDM or Counter-Strike and so long as you can maintain an equal or positive K:D you're an asset to the team and you're probably having fun. In this scenario the player will eventually learn the game whether they want to or not, and when that time comes it would be their choice as to whether they'll contribute to the team or not.
I'm not saying to make NS2 really hard to learn, or to not include any tutorials or trainings, but I can't see anyone who knows NS calling it difficult to learn.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I learned the game without help from others too, I would guess that's the case of most of us here. But I've tried showing it to various people, and the obtuseness of the game is apparent then. Some people see the potential of NS and love it for that, but compared to other games it is hard to learn.
Commander is a lot like builders in Tremulous. While there can be many builders in Tremulous, build point limit is the same no matter the number of players. Build Points are the limit, not resources, but otherwise it's pretty much the same. It's slightly more useful to have more builders, but only barely because of the limit. Once all BP's are spent, nothing else can be built. That's why even a single builder can make team win or lose. What commanders have in common ? They're builders of Natural Selection, they decide how to spend limited construction resources. Just like in Tremulous, amount of construction resources is the same no matter the number of builders. Assuming multiple NS1 style commanders, of course !
Limited number of resources is <b>shared</b> between players.
Pros:
- Even a single player doing this role can suffice.
Cons:
- Because of shared resources, <b>conflicts are inevitable</b>. Either everyone is telling commander he's doing a bad job, or builders are competing - instead of cooperating - for resources.
- If commander/builder(s) is doing terrible job, other players are generally powerless and can't do anything about it ! A bad player can waste entire team's resources.
- Discourages experimentation. <b>Votes become vetoes</b>. Briliant ideas are rarely born out of consensus. Wisdom of crowds works for facts, it doesn't work for design. <a href="http://blog.asmartbear.com/blog/ignoring-the-wisdom-of-crowds.html" target="_blank">http://blog.asmartbear.com/blog/ignoring-t...-of-crowds.html</a>
Now consider games which have Team Fortress style building - that is, for most part each builder has completely independent resource pool. This includes games like original Team Fortress mod for Quake, Team Fortress Classic, Quake 3 Fortress, Unreal Fortress (this one never got far I think), Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, TF2. In these games construction resources are essentially additive - each builder gets free set of resources and can spend it as he likes. You can build your turret anywhere, unless a spot is already taken. You can plant your mines anywhere (but there's a total limit per team in ET:QW. It's pretty high, though.).
In this model, team construction resources increase with each builder. Construction resources of individual players are <b>added</b> (in grand scheme of things), not shared.
Pros:
- if one player on a team is doing a bad job, you can step in, become another builder and save the day.
- no resource conflicts ! No hate ! It's rare to see someone complain or insult you when you build the way you like.
- experimentation friendly
Cons:
- if your builders aren't doing a good job, sometimes a single builder stepping in to fix (you) is not enough. You may end up pulling hairs because no matter how hard you try there's not enough of you and hard limits prevent you from accessing more of construction resources.
- If players on your team lack common sense, you can have surplus of builders (and imaginary construction resources). Extra builders on your team would perhaps be better on the front line.
Third model:
Construction resources are the same no matter the number of players. They're not really shared between players of a team. What is most important that <i>control of units</i> is shared, because one player would not be able to manage everything as fast as two.
This model is used mostly in action/arcade games like StarCraft or Warcraft 3. I doubt NS2 will take this route, because units (individual players) are not braindead and can take care of themselves. There's not enough guiding work to warrant two or more commanders. StarCraft players may complain when they see an interface improvement coming their way, when they don't have to micromanage every single stupid unit. Multiple building select is for noobs. Autocast of no-brainer abilities is lame. Fine.
======================================
Why the lenghty (for some) analysis ? Because <b>I think I know what they could mean when they say "commander is more like another class in NS2"</b>. It may mean that some, or all resources are <i>independent</i> for each builder. I have a hunch they may get extra build resources each, in some form. Quite obviously, more commanders won't mean more cash to spend on buildings and upgrades. That would fundamentally change the game and it would essentially require both teams to have X (optimal number) of commander-builders in each game. But I predict multiple commanders in NS2 may get to share control of their builder bots, or even get their own builder bots each ! After all, this time around builders are going to be mostly or totally harmless, so they will need protection from marines/warrior aliens. Having too many commanders on team might mean there aren't enough players left to protect them. I think that we may see some kind of resources that is <i>added</i> with each extra commander your team has.
:>