Dual Commanding: The S-com and T-com
Crispy
Jaded GD Join Date: 2004-08-22 Member: 30793Members, Constellation
Jaded GD Join Date: 2004-08-22 Member: 30793Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">How multiple commanders could work in NS2</div>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?)
I think it's an ambitious undertaking for an indie studio with limited resources, and best left for a post-release update. But I do definitely see the merits of a multiple commander system if done well. Multiple commanders could work for me if it was split into clearly defined roles: the Strategic Commander (s-com) and the Tactical Commander (t-com). These two roles would be synchronised with the rest of the team via three sets of goal events: 'urgent' goal events, 'tactical' goal events and 'strategic' goal events.
---
<b>Goals</b>
1. Make the Commander role(s) easier to learn and more accessible to a greater number of players
2. Provide a 'live' training tutorial for the Commander mode
3. Avoid diluting the Commander role and making it boring
4. Allow supreme control by one player as the primary commander
5. Improve on communication of goals between the commander and the rest of the team
6. Address potential problems with the multiple commanders design
<b>Premise</b>
At the beginning of a game a single player must choose to be the commander. At this stage they are by default both the 'General' and the 'Field Marshal', they are both the S-com and the T-com. If they place a second command structure, they can nominate a team member to have access to it and at the same time designate their role: Strategic Commander or Tactical Commander. (If the first commander nominates nobody, the CC stays locked until they leave the chair, at which point it automatically becomes unlocked to all players.) For usability, balance and functionality reasons no two players can have the same role (i.e. both S-com or both T-com).
The S-com and T-com roles are based around the highest ranks in most armies, which are variants of the General and the Field Marshal. <b>General</b> in the military sense is a derived from the shortened form (first used in 1576) of the French: <i>capitaine général</i>; a title implying total control of the whole. (Field) <b>Marshal</b> is synonymous with <i>arrange</i>, and originates from the title of <i>marescalci</i> (masters of the horse) of the early Frankish kings (the importance of cavalry in medieval warfare led to the marshalship being associated with a command position).
So the S-com deals with the overarching gameplan, and would make decisions concerning managing the resource pool, build orders and important structure placement. The S-com also gives 'Strategic' goal events (see below).
The T-com would manage the Marines' squads, give waypoints (including non-player units like the MASCs), probably be more of a presence in terms of (voice) communication, manage some tactical structure placement (such as turrets, observatories) according to a res allocation given by the S-com, and distribute weapons and equipment (again probably with a res pool allocated by the S-com). The T-com also gives 'Tactical' goal events (see below).
In addition to these roles, all active commanders have access to the 'Commander Channel', a method of speaking directly to the other Commander in private. The Commander Channel overrides all speech from other players that would otherwise be heard by the commanders. Finally, the Tactical Commander's voice takes precedence at all times; if anyone else is speaking, they will not be heard at all over the T-com's voice.
<b>'Goal Events' - commander-issued objectives</b>
In NS orders were introduced with an audio cue then highlighted persistently on the fullscreen map and on the HUD minimap. In NS2 players can choose to have objectives highlighted to them more prominently. Similar to the dynamic objectives system in <i>Enemy Territory: Quake Wars</i>, objectives such as 'Build the Observatory', 'Guard your Teammate' and 'Attack the Hive' would also appear as on-screen messages in a dedicated area of the screen by default until completed. The types of goal events shown to the player can be customised via the interface section of the options menu, the types being 'tactical', 'strategic' and 'urgent' objectives. 'Tactical' objectives are all of the waypoints given by the T-com, such as 'Move to location: Biodome'. 'Strategic' are all of the housekeeping objectives given by the S-com, such as 'Build the Observatory' or 'Weld the Phase Gate'. 'Urgent' objectives are those given by individual players, such as 'Weld me!' or 'Follow me!', except they appear with the actual player names of the people asking for assistance (e.g. 'Weld Flayra' or 'Follow Max'), making it much easier for newcomers to the game to orient themselves both metaphorically and within the game world.
A player can switch these events off entirely (if they know what they're doing and/or prefer minimal HUD clutter) or choose to only be notified of 'Strategic' as opposed to 'Tactical' goal events (or vice versa). Because the default setting is for all goal events to be shown, newcomers will never be allowed to lose sight of their own personal goals and the important tasks in a game are clearly shown to the player. But the waypoints are always shown on the HUD, map and minimap.
---
<b>Checklist - Potential problems addressed</b>
- Griefing solved.
S-com decides who can enter the second command structure. Eject votes are for the Tactical or the Strategic commander. Roles are well defined so it is obvious who is to blame if there is evidence of griefing.
- Scalability solved.
In small games (e.g. private matches such as competitive and LAN) one player can assume both roles. In large games it's still possible for a single player to do both roles if needed or preferred.
- Ownership solved.
Strategic Commander can protect his investments and his gameplan through allocating a variable resource pool for the Tactical Commander. Tactical Commander is able to assume responsibility for a key area of the team's management without stepping on the S-com's toes.
- Synchronisation solved.
Since the two roles are different, there is little risk of both commanders trying to accomplish the same task simultaneously. Strategic Commander can ensure there is zero crossover by closing off the T-com's resource pool entirely.
- Cross-chatter solved.
S-com has little need to use voicecomms other than to inform the team about his general strategic plays such as what upgrades are on their way, which structures need to be built. Most chatter comes from the Tactical Commander who is dealing with situational developments and troop marshaling. 'Commander Channel' feature allows private chat between commanders. Tactical Commander voicecomms overrides all other speech as it is the most urgent information.
- 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?)
I think it's an ambitious undertaking for an indie studio with limited resources, and best left for a post-release update. But I do definitely see the merits of a multiple commander system if done well. Multiple commanders could work for me if it was split into clearly defined roles: the Strategic Commander (s-com) and the Tactical Commander (t-com). These two roles would be synchronised with the rest of the team via three sets of goal events: 'urgent' goal events, 'tactical' goal events and 'strategic' goal events.
---
<b>Goals</b>
1. Make the Commander role(s) easier to learn and more accessible to a greater number of players
2. Provide a 'live' training tutorial for the Commander mode
3. Avoid diluting the Commander role and making it boring
4. Allow supreme control by one player as the primary commander
5. Improve on communication of goals between the commander and the rest of the team
6. Address potential problems with the multiple commanders design
<b>Premise</b>
At the beginning of a game a single player must choose to be the commander. At this stage they are by default both the 'General' and the 'Field Marshal', they are both the S-com and the T-com. If they place a second command structure, they can nominate a team member to have access to it and at the same time designate their role: Strategic Commander or Tactical Commander. (If the first commander nominates nobody, the CC stays locked until they leave the chair, at which point it automatically becomes unlocked to all players.) For usability, balance and functionality reasons no two players can have the same role (i.e. both S-com or both T-com).
The S-com and T-com roles are based around the highest ranks in most armies, which are variants of the General and the Field Marshal. <b>General</b> in the military sense is a derived from the shortened form (first used in 1576) of the French: <i>capitaine général</i>; a title implying total control of the whole. (Field) <b>Marshal</b> is synonymous with <i>arrange</i>, and originates from the title of <i>marescalci</i> (masters of the horse) of the early Frankish kings (the importance of cavalry in medieval warfare led to the marshalship being associated with a command position).
So the S-com deals with the overarching gameplan, and would make decisions concerning managing the resource pool, build orders and important structure placement. The S-com also gives 'Strategic' goal events (see below).
The T-com would manage the Marines' squads, give waypoints (including non-player units like the MASCs), probably be more of a presence in terms of (voice) communication, manage some tactical structure placement (such as turrets, observatories) according to a res allocation given by the S-com, and distribute weapons and equipment (again probably with a res pool allocated by the S-com). The T-com also gives 'Tactical' goal events (see below).
In addition to these roles, all active commanders have access to the 'Commander Channel', a method of speaking directly to the other Commander in private. The Commander Channel overrides all speech from other players that would otherwise be heard by the commanders. Finally, the Tactical Commander's voice takes precedence at all times; if anyone else is speaking, they will not be heard at all over the T-com's voice.
<b>'Goal Events' - commander-issued objectives</b>
In NS orders were introduced with an audio cue then highlighted persistently on the fullscreen map and on the HUD minimap. In NS2 players can choose to have objectives highlighted to them more prominently. Similar to the dynamic objectives system in <i>Enemy Territory: Quake Wars</i>, objectives such as 'Build the Observatory', 'Guard your Teammate' and 'Attack the Hive' would also appear as on-screen messages in a dedicated area of the screen by default until completed. The types of goal events shown to the player can be customised via the interface section of the options menu, the types being 'tactical', 'strategic' and 'urgent' objectives. 'Tactical' objectives are all of the waypoints given by the T-com, such as 'Move to location: Biodome'. 'Strategic' are all of the housekeeping objectives given by the S-com, such as 'Build the Observatory' or 'Weld the Phase Gate'. 'Urgent' objectives are those given by individual players, such as 'Weld me!' or 'Follow me!', except they appear with the actual player names of the people asking for assistance (e.g. 'Weld Flayra' or 'Follow Max'), making it much easier for newcomers to the game to orient themselves both metaphorically and within the game world.
A player can switch these events off entirely (if they know what they're doing and/or prefer minimal HUD clutter) or choose to only be notified of 'Strategic' as opposed to 'Tactical' goal events (or vice versa). Because the default setting is for all goal events to be shown, newcomers will never be allowed to lose sight of their own personal goals and the important tasks in a game are clearly shown to the player. But the waypoints are always shown on the HUD, map and minimap.
---
<b>Checklist - Potential problems addressed</b>
- Griefing solved.
S-com decides who can enter the second command structure. Eject votes are for the Tactical or the Strategic commander. Roles are well defined so it is obvious who is to blame if there is evidence of griefing.
- Scalability solved.
In small games (e.g. private matches such as competitive and LAN) one player can assume both roles. In large games it's still possible for a single player to do both roles if needed or preferred.
- Ownership solved.
Strategic Commander can protect his investments and his gameplan through allocating a variable resource pool for the Tactical Commander. Tactical Commander is able to assume responsibility for a key area of the team's management without stepping on the S-com's toes.
- Synchronisation solved.
Since the two roles are different, there is little risk of both commanders trying to accomplish the same task simultaneously. Strategic Commander can ensure there is zero crossover by closing off the T-com's resource pool entirely.
- Cross-chatter solved.
S-com has little need to use voicecomms other than to inform the team about his general strategic plays such as what upgrades are on their way, which structures need to be built. Most chatter comes from the Tactical Commander who is dealing with situational developments and troop marshaling. 'Commander Channel' feature allows private chat between commanders. Tactical Commander voicecomms overrides all other speech as it is the most urgent information.
Comments
S-com: "Dude they are screwed... hey... lets send them off to die at biodome and we drop JPs for ourselves and escape somewhere"
T-com: "kekeke okay"
Team channel:
S-com: "OKAY GUYS, GO SHOTGUN RUSH BIODOME AND END THIS"
T-com: "YEAH!"
Marines: "Shotgun rush!!! Yeahhhhh our commanders are wise and benevolent!"
*team dies horribly*
*base down, IPs down*
*Commanders drinking martini's in vent*
epic
S-com: "Dude they are screwed... hey... lets send them off to die at biodome and we drop JPs for ourselves and escape somewhere"
T-com: "kekeke okay"
Team channel:
S-com: "OKAY GUYS, GO SHOTGUN RUSH BIODOME AND END THIS"
T-com: "YEAH!"
Marines: "Shotgun rush!!! Yeahhhhh our commanders are wise and benevolent!"
*team dies horribly*
*base down, IPs down*
*Commanders drinking martinis in vent*
epic<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I'm not sure if you're pointing out a flaw in the anti-griefing measures, but since the CCs can only be built in set locations in NS2, you would have to build two Proto Labs to supply each commander with a Jetpack (or else one of the commanders would have to leave his command chair to travel to the Proto Lab).
The S-Com would drop buildings and wait for marines to build them. Once built, they'll click an icon to get an upgrade. Then they'll wait to repeat the process. They can also decide how much money goes to the T-Com. It seems like you're even aware of how boring the S-Com would be, as you said the "S-com has little need to use voicecomms other than to inform the team about his general strategic plays such as what upgrades are on their way, which structures need to be built." Unless NS2 has a massive upgrade in terms of strategic elements, then "general strategic play" is going to be just about the same thing every round as the best cookie cutter builds are discovered. Get armor 1, tech to weapons whatever, upgrade armory, etc. and every once in a while yell at a marine who walked by a unbuilt arms lab. Does that sound fun to you?
The T-Com would babysit squads, assuming the new spawn mechanic works well and squads actually exist, by dropping health and ammo. They would also control NPCs that the S-Com has constructed. This sounds more similar to the comm we all know from NS1, but with the added limitations of not being able to decide which upgrades and buildings to make while having a restricted resource pool. If I was a T-Comm, I would very much feel like I'm <i>supposed</i> to be leading the team, but I have some other player holding me back.
The system you described just seemed to needlessly complex, creating larger problems rather than solving the ones you listed. In order to solve your 'griefing' problem you made the two commanders have exclusive tasks. They cannot go outside what their role was designed to do. If they are to be as efficient as one person, the two comms would have to be in nearly constant communication over the private commander voicecomms. Since the commander voicecomm overrides the team's, the T-Comm now can't hear communications from the troops on the ground. Any disagreements in what tech to get, or where to go, and this problem only becomes worse as the two comms will have to debate and decide what to do.
In my opinion, the system you described would be miserable unless there is a massive strategic gameplay addition that we have yet to know about. It would be miserable because the commander's duties, which were really underwhelming and basic compared to an actual RTS, are being split by two players thereby making the experience even more dull. Of course, you have the fall back argument "well the S-Com can choose to not include a T-Com" but if it's a broken system that just adds needless complexity why even take the time to create it?
Even though you mentioned a few NS2 gameplay elements, most of what you said we can directly relate to NS1. I'm not trying to say having two commanders is inherently broken, but if we look at two comms and try to apply it to NS1 it comes out broken every time. I'm hoping that there's some bombshell UWE has yet to reveal about commanding that adds depth, because if there isn't, commanding with two people is going to be a snooze fest.
Nope, just making a joke. I like the idea but a lot of these ideas about multiple comm's are just speculation at this point since we have no idea how the game works yet really. I am hoping they have a good plan to utilize both commanders (or more) in a way that's fun for everyone.
I understand the complaint. But the way I see it it would be a way for an experienced Commander to mentor a less experienced one. It's not a necessary combination and I'd expect on the higher level servers most Commanders would want to control everything for maximum efficiency, but I think it would be nice to have the option there to allow another player to focus on mastering one side of the role in a less pressurised environment before returning to manage both sides of the role simultaneously with vastly improved abiity. It's an optional stepping stone towards playing the game at full capacity, not how the game should always be played.
For instance, many times a competant RTS player will jump into the CC in NS and completely screw up the build order just because they don't know what it's about, even if they have high APM and good micro their macro knowledge is lacking. My own experiences have been on the opposite side of the coin: when I've tried commanding with all the knowledge of what the best build orders are and how to react with upgrades to suit the situation, I struggle with doing all this while simultaneously dropping meds and ammo all over the map and actually persuading people to do the stuff my waypoints are asking them to do, while also giving them situational information such as "There's a Lerk in that room, wait until the welder/shotgun arrives before pushing in". My multitasking is poor, so doing more of the T-com stuff would allow me to learn how to be faster and more efficient in a less pressurised role without drastically compromising the team's performance. In Dawn of War 2 I've had the opportunity to improve my multitasking because I get to play entire rounds commanding AI troops and every complete game I play I learn a little. In NS I have never had the opportunity to improve this area of my game because I am instantly ejected or the round ends prematurely because of small simple errors that add up quickly to put the entire team on the back foot (meds, for example).
You said it produces more problems than it solves: what, apart from the 'boredom' factor (and accepting that the boredom factor is entirely optional and only there to facilitate a 'live tutorial') are the problems you have with the suggestion? (Please also bear in mind that the complexity is something I have acknowledged, as I have stated it shouldn't be a release feature as it's not high enough priority functionality.)
You say there'd be problems between the comms, but if a comm doesn't think someone can be mature and handle the situation while taking their advice then they probably won't vote them in. The S-com selects the T-com, if they even want a T-com. On the other hand if you are introducing your friend or a server regular to commanding you can have some confidence that they won't be constantly questioning your understanding of the game.
Also there is some overlap between the roles which is given via the T-com's variable res pool. For instance, in my first game mentoring a commander I might allocate the T-com a small res pool and just ask they place turrets (assuming they're worth their salt in NS2), Obs, secondary IPs, PGs and so on, while also leading the team over mic and giving waypoints. In the next round we play together I might extend their leash with a larger res pool and put them in charge of weapons distribution and so on. Later on I might swap with them and play the T-com while they develop their build order skills. Finally they would reach a point where they are able to do everything competantly, and hey presto you have one more player who can actually command in NS2, as opposed to hundreds if not thousands of players in NS who have never had the opportunity to learn how to comm without being constantly berated or just immediately replaced when they take their first baby steps in the role and make inevitable minor errors.
As has been said in many other threads on the subject, there will always be the potential for griefing in any system and none can be foolproof, but I do think there's ample opportunity for the players themselves to self-regulate the system to minimise the potential for griefing. As happens in NS, if a comm sells the base or anything silly like that the players and admins can react to rectify the situation.
Anyway, I'm interested to hear the problems you have because it helps me either develop the idea further or understand that there are underlying fundamental flaws that make it unworkable, so please elaborate.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You said it produces more problems than it solves: what, apart from the 'boredom' factor (<b>and accepting that the boredom factor is entirely optional and only there to facilitate a 'live tutorial'</b>) are the problems you have with the suggestion? (Please also bear in mind that the complexity is something I have acknowledged, as I have stated it shouldn't be a release feature as it's not high enough priority functionality.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's no mention of 'mentoring,' 'teaching,' or a 'live tutorial' in your original post. If the purpose of your suggestion is to be a training ground for commanders then that's drastically different from trying to justify the existence of two commanders. Due to you so clearly defining roles, as it's half your post and you said "Since the two roles are different, there is little risk of both commanders trying to accomplish the same task simultaneously," I assume that the S-Com and T-Com cannot share tasks. If I am wrong, then the following does not apply and the whole idea of 'S-Com' and 'T-Com' just becomes some arbitrary naming system that drop different type of waypoints while one gets screwed on resources.
If the only purpose of this is to facilitate a live tutorial then there's no real reason for your 'problems' and 'potential problems addressed' portion of your post. I say this because a live tutorial would be a completely different environment and one in which the more experienced player would not want to be limited by the game. For example, it's a pivotal moment in the game and you (the more experienced commander) are the S-Com and I (the newbie) am the T-Com. Our marines need several accurate medpack drops and you're ready to go but since you're the S-Com, you can't assist. The marines die and are pissed because the newbie comm didn't come through for them. Still thinks its a low pressure learning environment?
Another issue, if the players didn't use this as a live tutorial, would be the fact that internal commander voicecomms override marine's comms. As I said, the two comms would have to be chatting frequently to be effective, meaning they'd miss out on quite of a bit of what the marines are saying.
If the purpose of two comms is not anything more than a live tutorial, then the idea is <i>way</i> too complex and redundant. I can think of better ways to go about that. For example, when I want to get really good at an RTS I watch replays. Why not have a 'second' commander with no power what-so-ever, but they see through the eyes of the actual commander. That way the person learning can see what they should be upgrading and when, they can see how to use various abilities (scan, mobile siege, weld bots), get use to the interface, and pretty much learn how to comm in an actual low pressure environment. This 'commander spectator' could even have a voicecomm channel that only the commander could hear. When it comes time for the newbie to learn, the more experienced player could take the 'commander spectator' slot and give feedback, criticism, and suggestions in real time that only the newbie can hear. To me, that seems like a far more effective and easy way to implement a live tutorial.
What happens in early game when there is only one comm? What about the lack of availability of decent comms in general? How does this help teach new comms?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If the only purpose of this is to facilitate a live tutorial then there's no real reason for your 'problems' and 'potential problems addressed' portion of your post. I say this because a live tutorial would be a completely different environment and one in which the more experienced player would not want to be limited by the game. For example, it's a pivotal moment in the game and you (the more experienced commander) are the S-Com and I (the newbie) am the T-Com. Our marines need several accurate medpack drops and you're ready to go but since you're the S-Com, you can't assist. The marines die and are pissed because the newbie comm didn't come through for them. Still thinks its a low pressure learning environment?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I think the junior commander would be able to direct his full attention on the med drops at that point and would do it far more effectively than. Commander spec mode is also something I support (as I've mentioned in the aforementioned post - I can assure you the edit was only to link the name of the this thread and I'm not being revisionist), but that won't ever teach you how to be fast at med drops, only how fast another person is. In your concept the demo will teach you the raw information but won't give you any practise. In my version you can watch a demo to learn the basics, then try out each side of the role independantly until you have mastered them separately, before combining your skills when ready.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Another issue, if the players didn't use this as a live tutorial, would be the fact that internal commander voicecomms override marine's comms. As I said, the two comms would have to be chatting frequently to be effective, meaning they'd miss out on quite of a bit of what the marines are saying.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I do think this is a valid concern. A com text channel creates another alternative (different colour text), but is not ideal. I like the idea of intercommunication between the comms though. Something like the ability for both comms to ping the map would be nice (also the ability for Marines to see this ping too).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This 'commander spectator' could even have a voicecomm channel that only the commander could hear. When it comes time for the newbie to learn, the more experienced player could take the 'commander spectator' slot and give feedback, criticism, and suggestions in real time that only the newbie can hear. To me, that seems like a far more effective and easy way to implement a live tutorial.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I quite like this as a simpler alternative: i.e. the live spec/mentoring part. There are two issues with this, though and they both relate to your earlier criticisma of dual commanding. First you are giving ALL the control to the newbie and zero control to the mentor, so the newbie has far more free reign to make mistakes. Second you have one player who is doing literally nothing other than spectating and talking, so they're taking an even less active part in the game than the S-com or T-com would be.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Either comm could screw the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Each comm could 'screw up' the game but only in a much less minor way. The S-com (who is also the T-com by default in the early stages of the game prior to building a 2nd CC) has the biggest chance to screw the game because this comm is in control of the initial build order.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Having only one comm would screw the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->No, because as I stated if either com leaves the CC the role of that com reverts onto the other comm. So if a T-com dropped from the game for some reason, the S-com would inherit the T-com abilities again.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What happens in early game when there is only one comm?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->They handle both the S-com and T-com roles. They are effectively an S&T-com.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What about the lack of availability of decent comms in general? How does this help teach new comms?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Read the suggestion and comments please.
~~Sickle~~
~~Sickle~~<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is why the whole multiple commanders thing confuses me.
If the comm can't handle the pressure from all the work, let someone else comm. In most, if not all servers there's at least one good comm.
One way to make multitasking easier is to implement location hotkeys. I'll take Starcraft as an example, press shift+F2-F4 and you'll assign that screen to the designated hotkey. If you hotkey'd the double in a map to F2, simply press F2 and your screen centers at that location.
If you do that, you don't need to waste the extra time to use the minimap/etc
I think that two commanders is a ridiculous idea and will just mess things up. It's not needed at all.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->good micro and macro<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
micro and macro in NS? what are you talking about
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My multitasking is poor, so doing more of the T-com stuff would allow me to learn how to be faster and more efficient in a less pressurised role without drastically compromising the team's performance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You learn multitasking by doing the multitasking. Focusing on just one role will not make your multitasking better.
That's because you're still thinking in NS1 terms.
Think about what we already know about NS2.
1. At least one structure (<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2//2008/10/happy_halloween_2008_and_masc_renders" target="_blank">Siege Cannon</a>) has had quite a bit of effort expended making it look mobile, including discarding ideas that made it look too much like a motorcycle. Why have a mobile siege cannon if the commander can just drop it anywhere?
2. Marines are going to be more responsible for their own weapon load-out, meaning less for the commander to do. What will the commander do with the extra time?
3. NS2 is going to be much more area based, think about the power grid. Remember, we know that the power grid works by Resource Towers powering the command center, and the command center then powering the current sector and all the neighboring sectors.. what are the odds that one command chair will be a neighbor to all the sectors? If you want power in other sectors, you'll want more command centres.
4. It has been specifically mentioned that part of the reason for the power grid system is to allow the aliens a chance at a comeback.
So.. some ideas as to what this could mean:
A command centre may only be able to drop large structures in the powered sectors immediately adjacent to it. If you don't want to have to escort a siege cannon half way across the map, you'll need a closer command centre.
Perhaps turrets on autofire aren't very good, so require a commander nearby to aid in targetting. This would allow the aliens a chance to come back if marines left a command centre unoccupied.
So then things become a balancing act for marines.. have extra commanders to keep their rear and flank safe -- making sure everything stays powered, or go with extra manpower to try to rush the aliens?
That said, I don't think the idea of two types of commanders helps learning at all. In fact, I think it probably hinders it because you then need to remember what you can and can't do at any point. And especially with the commander being able to select the secondary commander.. you're just going to get com teams that lock out other players. Most commanders aren't going to pick a newb to do their tactical for them, as it's just a waste of resources having to babysit in addition to normal command duties. No, I think probably all commanders will have the same abilities, but they will be restricted based on the power grid.
Point 1: If the purpose is to teach, sometimes there is no greater lesson than what's learned after a loss. In actual RTS games there's so much to go over when you lose that I find losing, and making mistakes, to be quite productive. It almost seems like you want commanders to be able to learn in an environment where they can't make mistakes, or where that risk is reduced to the least possible amount, yet making mistakes is absolutely key in figuring out how to do something.
Point 2: Once again, if the purpose is to teach then the second player is doing quite a bit. In your suggestion the two players cannot see each others screen, they're disconnected from each other and are doing different takes, voicecomm between the two overrides the rest of the team's communications, and they're both playing half the game. That does not seem nearly as productive, to me, when compared to a person who is in full control with a much more experienced player putting all their effort into critiquing their play in real time.
Maybe we both just learn differently and we're trying to apply what style we think is best, because I honestly don't see value in using a system with this much complexity and a fair amount of drawbacks when all you're trying to do is teach players. There's got to be a better way and I'm not saying it's my suggestion, but two commanders just seems so clunky and pointless.
I could see a potential use for both comms. Of course, we still don't know how overwhelming the task of comming will be for NS2, but I'm guessing if the commas wanted to be more independent (i.e. more bots) it could take some serious micro to stay on top of things, thus lending itself towards multiple comms.
People say it is complex however there are some aspects of NS which were complex, being the commander in the first instance.
The only griefing measure you haven't addressed is allocating the resource pool. You've said one commander should supply the other, but how? Is this going to be on a percentage based cut to prevent griefing? Or he/she simply selects the amount of resources to grant?
In my mind I did have something similar, however in my mind only one commander had access to the resource pool. The other simply had free medi-kits & ammo with the ability to hand out waypoint orders as it seemed simple to me based on the premise of NS1 commanding with minimal griefing.
~~Sickle~~
Perhaps it would be better to have a 'S-com override' so that the S-com has the potential to quickly mop up any mistakes made (like having driving lessons in a car with two sets of wheels/pedals). This brings us back to one of the potential problems, though (how to avoid both players redundantly trying to perform the same action).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Point 2: Once again, if the purpose is to teach then the second player is doing quite a bit. In your suggestion the two players cannot see each others screen, they're disconnected from each other and are doing different takes, voicecomm between the two overrides the rest of the team's communications, and they're both playing half the game. That does not seem nearly as productive, to me, when compared to a person who is in full control with a much more experienced player putting all their effort into critiquing their play in real time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->You have a point with this, but how many people will take the time to spec a game and critique in realtime versus still playing the game (albeit with far reduced responsibility and action) and mentoring? Part of this idea is based on the assumption that people would rather play and teach than watch and teach.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Maybe we both just learn differently and we're trying to apply what style we think is best, because I honestly don't see value in using a system with this much complexity and a fair amount of drawbacks when all you're trying to do is teach players. There's got to be a better way and I'm not saying it's my suggestion, but two commanders just seems so clunky and pointless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Certainly on a personal level, in the situation where 20 seconds into the game it's suddenly discovered nobody has gotten into the CC, I would love to be able to say "I'll can take care of the BO, but someone else needs to do waypointing and med drops because I can't do it all at once". I'd be happy to do both separately, for that matter (and I know a lot of backseat-driver comms who would love to hear their own voice marshaling the troops to different areas of the map).
On another note: can you envisage any scenario where having two commanders would be preferable to one? (zone control, for example). For you is the idea of two commanders an unworkable concept? (not related to this method of multiple commanders, but any)
~~Sickle~~<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I think the first step in any attempt at comm tutorials would be a spec mode. This could be a gentler second step for people who want to concentrate on one area at a time. There would be nothing stopping a more confident beginner (for instance an experienced RTS player) to go straight for the FPS/RTS side. I'm trying to think about how you can take someone who has no experience of RTS (but then plays NS2 and is suddenly introduced to the genre and loves it) and allow them to learn the RTS side of the game without drastically compromising the enjoyment of every other player in the game. Sure, they could go and learn RTS skills from another game, but why would you want to design a game that pushes players away from the experience instead of helping them embrace it?
The comment about your side being down a player is fairly redundant. You seem to be thinking about the system in terms of small server sizes. Really for small servers most players would opt for the single commander route to avoid exactly what you're talking about. But on larger, more chaotic public servers the benefit of a a more focused command team far outweighs the benefit of one extra man on the field. Most servers I go on now in NS have increased from 16-18 slots to 22-26 slots because the smaller slot servers, while preferable to veteran players were not attractive to more casual players. Like it or not (personally I like it) NS2 is going to reach a far wider and generally more casual audience than NS has. On the larger servers I now have to play on, often I see new commanders get into the CC and be completely overwhelmed by having to deal with 5 different medcalls, 3 Marines asking for orders, 2 RTs that need building, text to read, a Hive announcement to be made, an IP and armoury to be dropped and a build order to strategise (to begin with you probably won't know the inflexibility of the BO). In this scenario is it better to have one player competant with dealing with leadership and communication of the Marine players and one competant with dealing with the tech tree and structure placement, or is it better to have one player who may be competant in a single area but lacks skill in the other, and having to do it all at once.
---
Re: The Command Channel: As an aside, some sort of feedback to the players that the command channel is in use (e.g. HUD icon) would show them when messages aren't being heard.
The comment about your side being down a player is fairly redundant. You seem to be thinking about the system in terms of small server sizes. Really for small servers most players would opt for the single commander route to avoid exactly what you're talking about. But on larger, more chaotic public servers the benefit of a a more focused command team far outweighs the benefit of one extra man on the field. Most servers I go on now in NS have increased from 16-18 slots to 22-26 slots because the smaller slot servers, while preferable to veteran players were not attractive to more casual players. Like it or not (personally I like it) NS2 is going to reach a far wider and generally more casual audience than NS has. On the larger servers I now have to play on, often I see new commanders get into the CC and be completely overwhelmed by having to deal with 5 different medcalls, 3 Marines asking for orders, 2 RTs that need building, text to read, a Hive announcement to be made, an IP and armoury to be dropped and a build order to strategise (to begin with you probably won't know the inflexibility of the BO). In this scenario is it better to have one player competant with dealing with leadership and communication of the Marine players and one competant with dealing with the tech tree and structure placement, or is it better to have one player who may be competant in a single area but lacks skill in the other, and having to do it all at once.
---
Re: The Command Channel: As an aside, some sort of feedback to the players that the command channel is in use (e.g. HUD icon) would show them when messages aren't being heard.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--coloro:grey--><span style="color:grey"><!--/coloro-->I just don't see having 2 commanders being useful for anything aside from teaching, and I'm not sure how helpful that is. If you are the T-com, you would learn how to use the commander interface. You wouldn't learn build orders or overall strategy (the S-com is doing all that) and you wouldn't learn multitasking (the S-com is doing all the stuff you'd need "multitasking" for). What do you gain by having the "medpack" commander? An extra medpack or two in a fight? A building gets put up half a second faster? All for the cost of a fighting marine and (depending on how NS2 works) an extra/early chair?
The other issue is that for this whole thing to work, you really need a second person (to be your S-com) and if you have a second person who wants to help you, there are probably better ways.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
~~Sickle~~
However, easing them into the gameplay by giving them a subset of the jobs a comm needs to do would be welcome in my mind.
I assume, in both scenarios, that the S-Com and T-Com know each other and that the S-Com is willing to reduce their fun in order to teach their friend. I don't see any valid point is saying that in one scenario the S-Com can't "play" but in the other he can. The whole purpose of your suggestion, which you made clear in your second reply, is for this to be a way to teach players. The S-Com being able to 'play' or 'not play' is irrelevant. What should be judged is how well the S-Com is able to teach the T-Com. Personally, I don't see any comparison between the two suggestions in that a S-Com not even being able to see their pupil's screen is a pretty big disadvantage.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Certainly on a personal level, in the situation where 20 seconds into the game it's suddenly discovered nobody has gotten into the CC...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe that's because being in the CC isn't that fun. You drop meds and you follow the cookie cutter builds; it's really basic especially when you compare it to how exciting the FPS side of the game is. My biggest problem with 2 comms is that it's taking the single comm, which is no where near as engaging as an actual RTS, and splitting the duties between two people. So far what we know about commanding in NS2: dropping weapons is gone (a fairly important role of the comm) but controlling NPCs like weld bots and mobile sieges is in (which is equally important) so I don't see this really big reason to go "holy crap this is overwhelming, I need backup."
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For you is the idea of two commanders an unworkable concept? (not related to this method of multiple commanders, but any)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think creating a RTS/FPS game is the single hardest thing to do in video game design. It may be far more than you want to read, but if you want a more indepth look at why I think this way check out my post here: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=102260&st=240&start=240" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index....0&start=240</a> . I won't say having two commanders is unworkable, but it would be even more difficult than having one -- which is already incredibly hard to implement successfully.
Your post in the other thread is fairly spot on. I think there could be solutions to your problems with NS though (see response).