Multiple Commanders.

Papayas

<div class="IPBDescription">I agree with them for the Kharaa but not the marines...</div>I am sorry that I have posted another topic but the search bar isn't working properly so I couldn't make my point on an existing thread.

Anyway, why are there multiple commanders?

Having 1 commander was for marines. That commander would control the marines and tell them where to go. I think the use of multiple commanders is horrible. It doesn't even happen that much and potentially promotes greifers that want to destroy all the structures. What is the point of happen multiple commanders?

I understand it for the Kharaa because I often go in command when I gorge so I can place a few structures to back up my Hydra blockade but the marines don't even have a use for it now. Besides, the marines can tech up without having to expand now (I am not against this) so the chance of getting another CC in the current games are quite low.

You said in your desing log:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Medpacks are personal res to promote multiple commanders<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Instead of allowing multiple commanders why not allow the marines to donote their Personal Resources to the commander so he can assist them. By the end of the game you end up with quite a log of Personal Resources and I would give mine to the commander if he needed it/wanted it.



Once again, I am sorry for posting a new topic about this. Search bar isn't working properly.

Harimau

Yeah, multiple commanders are generally not a good idea. The most I'd ever want to see in say a 32 player game is two per side. But even then...

Sewlek

i generally dont like the idea of multiple commanders. i guess we will see anyway a distinction between public and league games: in league there will be only 1 comm, no chance of having 2. the reason for this is simple: instead of having two coms, simply get one who is twice as fast / perfomant and have an additional marine / alien in the field. the need for rotating the commander would be somehow stupid (personal res for supply)...

in public, well i guess its not bad. you cannot assume of always having 1 pro comm, but 2 average is more likely. thinking like this multiple comms is an advantage... but as you mentioned, the big problem is griefing. one solution for this is limit the "secondary" comms actions. if you do this, how can you define who is secondary / primary? if you chose the "first" comm always as primary, then you lose alot of dynamic. for example the first comm has highest ranking, the last has the lowest, and primary will always be the one with highest ranking of currently active comms.

so whats the point then to have a second comm, if his actions are so limited? if there would be more stuff that could be done with personal res as a comm, then maybe it would make sense. if you dont want it to be a requirement to have multiple comms, then you have to design the game for 1 commander play (public and league) and make the personal res costs for supply reduntant. if you dont do it like this, the support capabilities of commanders will multiply directly (more resources avaible). twice as many medpacks, catpacks... some day it will become standard to get 2 or 3 comms for public, simply to "overpower" your ground squad. constant med and catpack supply from 3 comms...

on the other hand, if you make supply very cheap, so the primary comm would never run out of personal resources and could do it alone, then the question arises again: why have multiple comms?

i hope you understand what i try to say. its much more difficult to design the game around multiple commanders for marines and for aliens (griefers who hop in and "waste" the team res, send macs/drifters to suicide missions, personal resources and supply), especially in consideration of different playstyles in public and league games...