I don't think Chris is a troll. I think his views are actually quite accurate.
The problem is if the commander gives you a particular order, it needs to be 'clearly' visible to you... whether that be text that appears on the screen, a decal on the ground when you get near to the way point saying 'build here' and audio cues. "Move to waypoint" etc...
But the commander has little influence at the moment, because the way point system and communication with player needs work.
Does anyone really take good note of the tiny triangles and tiny text on screen?
Especially when something is being attacked, and the commander wants to alert the team.
To be fully aware when the commander communicates, you have to 'hear' his/her voice on the comm telling you of the situation (text can go missed, as can waypoints), and then have an effective method of communicating its importance, location and route.
<!--quoteo(post=1821401:date=Jan 4 2011, 09:28 AM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Jan 4 2011, 09:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821401"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think Chris, you've missed the entire point of an RTS/FPS hybrid and are clearly just an outright troll.
If you want to play a similarly styled RTS game, I suggest you go and hang around Starcraft 2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I haven't missed the point, I just don't agree with it.
I realise that it is possible that someone may enjoy being charismatic at people and having them do all the work, but that isn't really RTS, that's probably better described as politics. I also don't think many people will be able to do it and fewer still will enjoy it. This is a problem when the game requires a commander in order to function.
If you are trying to make an RTS game you need control over your units, plain and simple. If you want to make the game appeal to people who like RTS games and get them to play commander, you also need to give them control over units.
Besides I hate starcraft, played a few hours and shut it off, boring as hell.
That's why it's not an RTS, Chris. It's an FPS/RTS hybrid. Some elements must necessarily be removed. Absolute control over units being chief of them. I think that first and foremost, NS is an FPS - that's the foundation, and the RTS is built around it (teams, a commander, resources, researches, area control, domination of the opponent). There is no way to do <u>both entirely</u> unless you do it similar to Zombie Master or Iron Grip: have one team playing a shooter, and the other (one player) playing the top-down strategy - but clearly, they're separate and opposing, not meshed together. NS2 will make a fun first person shooter, or a poor real time strategy, or an excellent hybrid; depending on how you want to look at it. Those <b>stuck</b> with the preconceptions of an RTS game will not make it in this game, and this game wasn't made for them.
I think the biggest problem that NS and those in its genre will face, is that the ground units don't <b>truly</b> realise or understand that they're part of the bigger picture. They only see the FPS portion and very little of the RTS portion. More information needs to be provided to them as to the flow of battle, and the fact must become obvious to them. Consider, for example, flag capture games like Day of Defeat, and Battlefield - objectives are clear, locations are clear, people know what they're trying to do and how it affects the game if they succeed or fail. Ground "units" need to become <b>participants</b> in the overall scheme of the game, not just <b>pawns</b> who follow orders without question, or <b>rambos</b> who play their own little shooter game. Related to this, is the idea that the commander's strategies must be encouraged in some way to be adhered to.
<!--quoteo(post=1821445:date=Jan 4 2011, 04:41 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jan 4 2011, 04:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821445"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's why it's not an RTS, Chris. It's an FPS/RTS hybrid. Some elements must necessarily be removed. Absolute control over units being chief of them. I think that first and foremost, NS is an FPS - that's the foundation, and the RTS is built around it (teams, a commander, resources, researches, area control, domination of the opponent). There is no way to do <u>both entirely</u> unless you do it similar to Zombie Master or Iron Grip: have one team playing a shooter, and the other (one player) playing the top-down strategy - but clearly, they're separate and opposing, not meshed together. NS2 will make a fun first person shooter, or a poor real time strategy, or an excellent hybrid; depending on how you want to look at it. Those <b>stuck</b> with the preconceptions of an RTS game will not make it in this game, and this game wasn't made for them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
However I still don't think that is a good idea.
The alien team remains the best example. The players and the commander are quite separate, but the game still works. The aliens still get the advance of territory control and structures get built, while the commander gets to do that. Alien commander is fun because while I can issue orders to the team, it doesn't matter overmuch if they listen, I can do plenty of good by supporting them at the front with crags and whips and by populating the baes behind the lines with structures and defences. I can basically play my own game. Alien ground gameplay is no less enjoyable for the lack of commander input. I don't honestly see any reason why marines need it. I don't get some amazing thrill out of knowing the glowy blue marker on the hud was placed by a human at a computer somewhere, no more than I get some amazing thrill out of having human controlled teammates. I've played a lot of games, the concept of multiplayer does not amaze me.
That's only because the alien commander is even less complete than the marine commander. Feel free to re-evaluate that opinion once the game is more feature-complete.
I was rather hoping it would stay as is. Both aliens and alien commander are quite fun at the moment, even with all the issues in the beta. I can genuinely enjoy commanding as aliens and lerking/fading around the place is also enjoyable.
Which is more than I can say for anything on the marine team given that I can't hit anything and the commanding mechanics suck.
All the aid visual commands such as way-points will be added in time. There's a lot of things to be added into the game. Just remember that UWE don't have 70 developers, so it takes a little more time.
The problem right now with the marines is the map, rockdown is not balanced for gameplay and a good alien team can dominate the full map easy.
Whatsoever, a good marine team can manage to win on this map.
The thing is that right now the best way to manage your marine team is using the voice communication and make sure you don't only name the room, also tell them if they must go left or right. Upgrade shotguns as fast as you can, get the second CC and upgrade it so you can get GL and then FT. Send MACs to build on the second and third hive places so the aliens are distracted with that and can't upgrade. Drop sentry guns around the base to help protecting. Once you get FT make sure that not all your team pick up this, half of them should go with shotguns and GLs.
For both sides, if you don't work as a team you lose.
And, NS2 is an FPS with an RTS twist. It's a true hybrid but it remains as a basic FPS game. Every time you name it you must say FPS/RTS (FPS first)
<!--quoteo(post=1821478:date=Jan 5 2011, 03:13 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 5 2011, 03:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821478"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was rather hoping it would stay as is. Both aliens and alien commander are quite fun at the moment, even with all the issues in the beta. I can genuinely enjoy commanding as aliens and lerking/fading around the place is also enjoyable.
Which is more than I can say for anything on the marine team given that I can't hit anything and the commanding mechanics suck.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then the only solution to such a concern, is that the commander-player interaction (and reliance) is lessened and the two become more distinct, which is an idea that many feel strongly opposed to, and I feel fairly defeats the purpose of the game, and of the FPS/RTS hybrid genre as a whole.
I believe that this particular genre of game has its own expectations, and a lack of full unit control is one of them. Just as the genre is new and growing, the expectations will evolve. People won't be tied down with DM-FPS or RTS expectations. As this game or this genre grows and becomes more firmly entrenched in the gaming public mind, people will come to collectively expect that the commander, just as its name implies, is the most important - and most critical - role on the team.
I understand where he is coming from though, on a server I was on, I had a base being totally destroyed, and I kept telling the Marines to come to the base, but they didn't, until the thing was completely destroyed. Now of course I had turrets, and I had to keep flipping them, but they'd run to the other side, smart ones. Also, one of the Aliens could somehow fire through the glass and attack my structures, but -we- couldn't attack back, so it made it REALLY annoying.
Just like not having any base defense except for turrets with a 180 degree radius...of course that other little robots are coming. I think you should be able to equip MACS with weapons, but they shouldn't be able to leave the base(Have a cord attached to them the length of the area.)
<!--quoteo(post=1821689:date=Jan 5 2011, 03:12 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jan 5 2011, 03:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821689"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then the only solution to such a concern, is that the commander-player interaction (and reliance) is lessened and the two become more distinct, which is an idea that many feel strongly opposed to, and I feel fairly defeats the purpose of the game, and of the FPS/RTS hybrid genre as a whole.
I believe that this particular genre of game has its own expectations, and a lack of full unit control is one of them. Just as the genre is new and growing, the expectations will evolve. People won't be tied down with DM-FPS or RTS expectations. As this game or this genre grows and becomes more firmly entrenched in the gaming public mind, people will come to collectively expect that the commander, just as its name implies, is the most important - and most critical - role on the team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find that hard to believe given that making the commander so vital leads only to constant defeats due to leader error.
If you hinge the success of the entire team on the ability of one person to do their job perfectly, you make the game liable to cause a LOT of frustrating losses.
If you want teamwork you can just implement a good squad system that allows people to lead a small group of players on the ground, that would work a lot better than giving one player control of the vital functions of the entire team.
Teamplay is fun but almost impossible to find in a popular game, so either you make the game unpopular, or you make it work without teamplay and simply provide tools to allow it if people want to use it.
I think part of the issue is an entire team of noobs vs a team of noobs with a few good players to guide and teach the others. Because this is not a pure deathmatch game there is always going to be a learning curve for new players, and if experienced players don't try to help new players at least some frustration is inevitable.
A squad leader ability might help but I don't see this much different from 'guys follow the mac'. The main two issues right now are just that many people are new and the commander's features and functionality are still in development (look at pivotal tracker) so even NS1 vets can get confused with its current state. Complaining about the comm right now is like complaining about the flamethrower shooting through walls as if its gonna be left that way...
The only commander issue that should at least be explored right now is multiple commanders being able to interfere with each other. There has been no mention of if this is intentional or not and I can certainly find reasons why it isn't desirable but plenty why it is too. <!--coloro:#FFc566--><span style="color:#FFc566"><!--/coloro--><b>Honestly right now the best approach might very well be a checkbox in the commander interface to toggle on and off if you would like other commanders to be able to 'use' the stuff you have placed. This way those who don't want interference won't be bothered and those who want to work together with other comms can still</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->. (And if the commander logs out any other comms can play with your stuff unless you log back in again)
<!--quoteo(post=1821758:date=Jan 6 2011, 04:31 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 6 2011, 04:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you hinge the success of the entire team on the ability of one person to do their job perfectly, you make the game liable to cause a LOT of frustrating losses.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Rather than that, you just have to make the game more conducive to "perfect" commanders. "Perfect" in this case simply meaning 'not stupid'. If a commander chooses the wrong research path or expansion location, then that, in my opinion, is an acceptable loss - it's a strategical error, it should result in loss. But if a commander is confused or doesn't really know what to do, that's something else entirely.
This can be achieved through for example: more intuitive and transparent tech trees, and perhaps a compulsory offline "Commander Aptitude Test" which effectively serves as a challenging tutorial whereupon successful completion allows you access to the command chair online.
Let's move the discussion <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=112276&view=findpost&p=1821935" target="_blank">here</a> since it's relevant to that thread.
<!--quoteo(post=1821124:date=Jan 2 2011, 11:36 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 2 2011, 11:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821124"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=1821058:date=Jan 2 2011, 07:03 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jan 2 2011, 07:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821058"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Unrealistically pessimistic. Make a FAQ post (maybe it is time for a FAQ session?), just rehashing the same things he's already said. Post it on the front page. Link to it on twitter and facebook.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And perhaps some people will read it, the people who do however won't make threads about how they read it, and you will still get threads from people who didn't.
Maybe you will get slightly fewer threads, but that just means each thread gets more posts.
People don't read. If they did we wouldn't have so much work into finding ways to tell them things without them having to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A little late post (but I do agree with the idea of stickying) - You underestimate the power of sticky threads. There are various forums which use stickies and do not use stickies.
Overall the forums that do use stickies do better (in terms of # of posts and threads covered in the sticky already) than the ones that think "it's not worth it".
There are people that do not read stickies and jump to post but there are plenty of people who <b>"do"</b>. The people who do manage to read the stickies can post on the developer's behalf (linking to the sticky) whenever an already answered question has been asked.
I was saying to put it in the News. Most people will read that, then you post to it, link to it, and rehash it on a forum thread and sticky that for as long as it's relevant.
Comments
The problem is if the commander gives you a particular order, it needs to be 'clearly' visible to you... whether that be text that appears on the screen, a decal on the ground when you get near to the way point saying 'build here' and audio cues. "Move to waypoint" etc...
But the commander has little influence at the moment, because the way point system and communication with player needs work.
Does anyone really take good note of the tiny triangles and tiny text on screen?
Especially when something is being attacked, and the commander wants to alert the team.
To be fully aware when the commander communicates, you have to 'hear' his/her voice on the comm telling you of the situation (text can go missed, as can waypoints), and then have an effective method of communicating its importance, location and route.
If you want to play a similarly styled RTS game, I suggest you go and hang around Starcraft 2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I haven't missed the point, I just don't agree with it.
I realise that it is possible that someone may enjoy being charismatic at people and having them do all the work, but that isn't really RTS, that's probably better described as politics. I also don't think many people will be able to do it and fewer still will enjoy it. This is a problem when the game requires a commander in order to function.
If you are trying to make an RTS game you need control over your units, plain and simple. If you want to make the game appeal to people who like RTS games and get them to play commander, you also need to give them control over units.
Besides I hate starcraft, played a few hours and shut it off, boring as hell.
I think the biggest problem that NS and those in its genre will face, is that the ground units don't <b>truly</b> realise or understand that they're part of the bigger picture. They only see the FPS portion and very little of the RTS portion. More information needs to be provided to them as to the flow of battle, and the fact must become obvious to them. Consider, for example, flag capture games like Day of Defeat, and Battlefield - objectives are clear, locations are clear, people know what they're trying to do and how it affects the game if they succeed or fail. Ground "units" need to become <b>participants</b> in the overall scheme of the game, not just <b>pawns</b> who follow orders without question, or <b>rambos</b> who play their own little shooter game. Related to this, is the idea that the commander's strategies must be encouraged in some way to be adhered to.
However I still don't think that is a good idea.
The alien team remains the best example. The players and the commander are quite separate, but the game still works. The aliens still get the advance of territory control and structures get built, while the commander gets to do that. Alien commander is fun because while I can issue orders to the team, it doesn't matter overmuch if they listen, I can do plenty of good by supporting them at the front with crags and whips and by populating the baes behind the lines with structures and defences. I can basically play my own game. Alien ground gameplay is no less enjoyable for the lack of commander input. I don't honestly see any reason why marines need it. I don't get some amazing thrill out of knowing the glowy blue marker on the hud was placed by a human at a computer somewhere, no more than I get some amazing thrill out of having human controlled teammates. I've played a lot of games, the concept of multiplayer does not amaze me.
Which is more than I can say for anything on the marine team given that I can't hit anything and the commanding mechanics suck.
Just remember that UWE don't have 70 developers, so it takes a little more time.
The problem right now with the marines is the map, rockdown is not balanced for gameplay and a good alien team can dominate the full map easy.
Whatsoever, a good marine team can manage to win on this map.
The thing is that right now the best way to manage your marine team is using the voice communication and make sure you don't only name the room, also tell them if they must go left or right. Upgrade shotguns as fast as you can, get the second CC and upgrade it so you can get GL and then FT. Send MACs to build on the second and third hive places so the aliens are distracted with that and can't upgrade. Drop sentry guns around the base to help protecting. Once you get FT make sure that not all your team pick up this, half of them should go with shotguns and GLs.
For both sides, if you don't work as a team you lose.
And, NS2 is an FPS with an RTS twist. It's a true hybrid but it remains as a basic FPS game. Every time you name it you must say FPS/RTS (FPS first)
Which is more than I can say for anything on the marine team given that I can't hit anything and the commanding mechanics suck.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then the only solution to such a concern, is that the commander-player interaction (and reliance) is lessened and the two become more distinct, which is an idea that many feel strongly opposed to, and I feel fairly defeats the purpose of the game, and of the FPS/RTS hybrid genre as a whole.
I believe that this particular genre of game has its own expectations, and a lack of full unit control is one of them. Just as the genre is new and growing, the expectations will evolve. People won't be tied down with DM-FPS or RTS expectations. As this game or this genre grows and becomes more firmly entrenched in the gaming public mind, people will come to collectively expect that the commander, just as its name implies, is the most important - and most critical - role on the team.
Just like not having any base defense except for turrets with a 180 degree radius...of course that other little robots are coming. I think you should be able to equip MACS with weapons, but they shouldn't be able to leave the base(Have a cord attached to them the length of the area.)
I believe that this particular genre of game has its own expectations, and a lack of full unit control is one of them. Just as the genre is new and growing, the expectations will evolve. People won't be tied down with DM-FPS or RTS expectations. As this game or this genre grows and becomes more firmly entrenched in the gaming public mind, people will come to collectively expect that the commander, just as its name implies, is the most important - and most critical - role on the team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find that hard to believe given that making the commander so vital leads only to constant defeats due to leader error.
If you hinge the success of the entire team on the ability of one person to do their job perfectly, you make the game liable to cause a LOT of frustrating losses.
If you want teamwork you can just implement a good squad system that allows people to lead a small group of players on the ground, that would work a lot better than giving one player control of the vital functions of the entire team.
Teamplay is fun but almost impossible to find in a popular game, so either you make the game unpopular, or you make it work without teamplay and simply provide tools to allow it if people want to use it.
A squad leader ability might help but I don't see this much different from 'guys follow the mac'. The main two issues right now are just that many people are new and the commander's features and functionality are still in development (look at pivotal tracker) so even NS1 vets can get confused with its current state. Complaining about the comm right now is like complaining about the flamethrower shooting through walls as if its gonna be left that way...
The only commander issue that should at least be explored right now is multiple commanders being able to interfere with each other. There has been no mention of if this is intentional or not and I can certainly find reasons why it isn't desirable but plenty why it is too. <!--coloro:#FFc566--><span style="color:#FFc566"><!--/coloro--><b>Honestly right now the best approach might very well be a checkbox in the commander interface to toggle on and off if you would like other commanders to be able to 'use' the stuff you have placed. This way those who don't want interference won't be bothered and those who want to work together with other comms can still</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->. (And if the commander logs out any other comms can play with your stuff unless you log back in again)
Rather than that, you just have to make the game more conducive to "perfect" commanders. "Perfect" in this case simply meaning 'not stupid'. If a commander chooses the wrong research path or expansion location, then that, in my opinion, is an acceptable loss - it's a strategical error, it should result in loss. But if a commander is confused or doesn't really know what to do, that's something else entirely.
This can be achieved through for example: more intuitive and transparent tech trees, and perhaps a compulsory offline "Commander Aptitude Test" which effectively serves as a challenging tutorial whereupon successful completion allows you access to the command chair online.
Thanks.
--Cory
Unrealistically pessimistic. Make a FAQ post (maybe it is time for a FAQ session?), just rehashing the same things he's already said. Post it on the front page. Link to it on twitter and facebook.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And perhaps some people will read it, the people who do however won't make threads about how they read it, and you will still get threads from people who didn't.
Maybe you will get slightly fewer threads, but that just means each thread gets more posts.
People don't read. If they did we wouldn't have so much work into finding ways to tell them things without them having to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A little late post (but I do agree with the idea of stickying) - You underestimate the power of sticky threads. There are various forums which use stickies and do not use stickies.
Overall the forums that do use stickies do better (in terms of # of posts and threads covered in the sticky already) than the ones that think "it's not worth it".
There are people that do not read stickies and jump to post but there are plenty of people who <b>"do"</b>. The people who do manage to read the stickies can post on the developer's behalf (linking to the sticky) whenever an already answered question has been asked.