<!--quoteo(post=1723616:date=Aug 19 2009, 01:28 PM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (marks @ Aug 19 2009, 01:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1723616"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Multiple commanders is honestly the stupidest idea I have heard of in relation to NS2, I am genuinely shocked and appalled that UWE are choosing to go this route (someone link to confirmation?); if this goes into the final game (pretty much regardless of the implementation) I probably will not purchase NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Although you have absolutely no idea how it will look, feel and play like in the final game.
Well I think it’s safe to say the idea does not sit-right with a lot of older NS players (my gut reaction is to kill it off and work on something else) I mean NS 1, just worked so damn well in terms of its core game play, that I know most of cringe when we see these fundamentals being tinkered around with.
We also have no idea how it’s going to play out yet. I'll wait till I see it in game and make the final judgment and that’s really the only rational course of action.
Hierarchal command structures are the only ones that work. Look at every modern-day army. Multiple commanders is just an outright bad idea unless UWE is designing the game around 20v20 spamfest games. Which will ensure that the game is never played competetively.
<!--quoteo(post=1723730:date=Aug 20 2009, 12:09 AM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Aug 20 2009, 12:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1723730"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I want to know how small games (5v5 or so) will work with this system.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just use one commander? common sense ftw.
I imagine 2 commanders wouldn't be used unless there are at least 10 ppl on the team (8 in the field) or so...Base management aside, it could be nice to have a commander monitoring each squad
I do have a question, however...what will be the recommended team size for competitive play? would be silly to see a 6 man team in a match against a 16 man team...
<!--quoteo(post=1724928:date=Aug 25 2009, 04:39 PM:name=monopolowa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (monopolowa @ Aug 25 2009, 04:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724928"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I imagine 2 commanders wouldn't be used unless there are at least 10 ppl on the team<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've successfully commed 16v16 games without breaking a sweat - the way the resource model and gameplay mechanics work in NS1, you actually need to micromanage LESS the more marines you have. With such large team sizes, and when you know youre gonna be facing like 5-6 fades at 5mins instead of 1-2 ... you have to spend much more res on gear, and much less res on medpacks. Which is kinda cool, because with 15 marines in the field early on, it really doesn't matter whether a few die anyway cos youre still gonna have ridiculous earlygame map control. Less meds = more chilling.
Seriously, 6v6 comming is totally intense; 16v16 comming is mostly just shouting constantly on mic trying to get people to do what you tell them. You don't need multiple commanders.
<!--quoteo(post=1722044:date=Aug 11 2009, 12:54 PM:name=Emoo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Emoo @ Aug 11 2009, 12:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1722044"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I really like the idea of biasing each commander to a seperate role, certainly a good way of doing multiple commanders.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No... the NASA way is multiple commanders with identical interfaces and capabilities. Sort of like an airliner with multiple backup cockpits.
It would NOT make sense to make the commanders like 3 power rangers riding around in a Megazord with the one leader and the 2 other pointless-redundant characters.
I'd like it if the amount of commanders scaled with the amount of people on your team.
I mean, it would be ridiculous to have 3 commanders in a 6v6 match(12 players). So in that situation only 1 commander, but when you're going for a 16vs16 situation(32 players), 3 commanders don't look nearly as outrageous.
Problem is, how do you balance these commanders? In a 1 commander situation, he'd have everything, in a 3 commander situation one commander would have one aspect, defense, offense and support. But what about a 2 commander situation?
One solution would be to split up support, and add it to defense and offense.
LOL, maybe once all command chairs are acquired the commanders can combine them into some amazing alien killing robot machine with siege cannon turrets and some super ninja sword.
Did all of you morons come from the now defunct I&S forum or something? Go read my post on the bottom of last page - 3 commanders will never work and I seriously doubt UWE will try to implement it.
granted its been a long time since i played ns1, but from what i remember the hardest part about being marines was finding someone willing to be a commander... not sure if that has changed but if it was that hard to find one commander i cant imagine the difficulty of finding three :S
<!--quoteo(post=1725659:date=Aug 31 2009, 08:45 AM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (marks @ Aug 31 2009, 08:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1725659"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Did all of you morons come from the now defunct I&S forum or something? Go read my post on the bottom of last page - 3 commanders will never work and I seriously doubt UWE will try to implement it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Read it, and while that may apply for NS1, I have significant doubts it'll apply for NS2.. especially considering that you don't purchase gear for your guys in the first place. Which means there's something else eating up your time/attention even in the small games... something that perhaps, when multiplied by a greater number of people, eats too much attention for one person.
And that's without thinking about things like the power grid, dynamic infestation, and how the things listed in the blogs seem to suggest far more emphasis on area control in NS2.. perhaps to the extreme that a command chair has a limited range of influence. In small games, not so bad, because you can concentrate on just a couple of fronts. In large games, however, with many more aliens, a commander may need to be able to manage multiple fronts actively, or have his power grid cut off from the rear.
Heck, simply having the ability for the aliens to cut off power to a command chair suggests a reason for multiple commanders.. so if one goes down, you have a backup ready to help reclaim the power-grid for the downed chair.
Three commanders would mitigate the significance the role a commander is supposed to play, commanding will be a babysitting job as opposed to designing strategies and leading your team. With a properly designed interface one commander is more than adequate. As I recall the NS1 interface got the job done just fine regardless of the game size.
In addition having three commanders will make dynamic strategy that much more difficult in the sense that it is harder to adapt to changing variables in the game when you have to coordinate with two other commanders.Granted NS2 is not going to be exactly like NS1 but I just don't see three commanders being viable.
If the dev team is going to implement three commanders as stated these are a few of the obstacles they would have to overcome to make three commanders not only fun but strategically viable.
<!--quoteo(post=1725659:date=Aug 31 2009, 04:45 PM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (marks @ Aug 31 2009, 04:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1725659"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Did all of you morons come from the now defunct IS forum or something? Go read my post on the bottom of last page - 3 commanders will never work and I seriously doubt UWE will try to implement it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Assuming all 3 comms know what they're doing I don't see why it's a problem, I mean I doubt someone is going to go commander if they don't have the first clue what to do, although if they did then you've got two others to pick up their slack.
I see multiple commanders as optional, if you want more people giving orders then use it, if you don't, it doesn't matter.
There is the possibility of people using it to grief, like dumping a million armories at the bottom of a hole, but that's a problem with the nature of having a commander in the first place.
Mutliple commanders allow for greater micromanagement and also multiple fronts. It takes the load off the one player and makes it harder for mistakes to occur, I'd rather have three mediocre commanders consistently than one hit or miss commander.
<!--quoteo(post=1725609:date=Aug 30 2009, 05:17 PM:name=FocusedWolf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FocusedWolf @ Aug 30 2009, 05:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1725609"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No... the NASA way is multiple commanders with identical interfaces and capabilities. Sort of like an airliner with multiple backup cockpits.
It would NOT make sense to make the commanders like 3 power rangers riding around in a Megazord with the one leader and the 2 other pointless-redundant characters.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> *laughs* Man FocusedWolf, just the idea of the Megazord running around smashing Hives made me laugh.
On another note... has anyone stopped to realize that with multiple commanders, meaning multiple command chairs, it means losing marine start no longer ends the game? Sure there will be a momentum shift, like losing a hive, but that by no means it's game over.
Also, I think the NPC additions to NS2 will actually increase the RTS elements in the game. It's just like having workers that actually listen to you instead of you being able to set vague way points which they may, or may not heed. I wonder how they are going to work out the pathing algorithms.
Comments
Although you have absolutely no idea how it will look, feel and play like in the final game.
Niiiice.
We also have no idea how it’s going to play out yet. I'll wait till I see it in game and make the final judgment and that’s really the only rational course of action.
Just use one commander? common sense ftw.
I do have a question, however...what will be the recommended team size for competitive play? would be silly to see a 6 man team in a match against a 16 man team...
3 commanders would be necessary at that point.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
max will be 16vs16 :// (would love big big big big big outdoor maps with multiple commanders and 64vs64 players :) a 3 hours game )
I've successfully commed 16v16 games without breaking a sweat - the way the resource model and gameplay mechanics work in NS1, you actually need to micromanage LESS the more marines you have. With such large team sizes, and when you know youre gonna be facing like 5-6 fades at 5mins instead of 1-2 ... you have to spend much more res on gear, and much less res on medpacks. Which is kinda cool, because with 15 marines in the field early on, it really doesn't matter whether a few die anyway cos youre still gonna have ridiculous earlygame map control. Less meds = more chilling.
Seriously, 6v6 comming is totally intense; 16v16 comming is mostly just shouting constantly on mic trying to get people to do what you tell them. You don't need multiple commanders.
No... the NASA way is multiple commanders with identical interfaces and capabilities. Sort of like an airliner with multiple backup cockpits.
It would NOT make sense to make the commanders like 3 power rangers riding around in a Megazord with the one leader and the 2 other pointless-redundant characters.
I mean, it would be ridiculous to have 3 commanders in a 6v6 match(12 players). So in that situation only 1 commander, but when you're going for a 16vs16 situation(32 players), 3 commanders don't look nearly as outrageous.
Problem is, how do you balance these commanders? In a 1 commander situation, he'd have everything, in a 3 commander situation one commander would have one aspect, defense, offense and support.
But what about a 2 commander situation?
One solution would be to split up support, and add it to defense and offense.
This game is going to be so much fun once modded!
Read it, and while that may apply for NS1, I have significant doubts it'll apply for NS2.. especially considering that you don't purchase gear for your guys in the first place. Which means there's something else eating up your time/attention even in the small games... something that perhaps, when multiplied by a greater number of people, eats too much attention for one person.
And that's without thinking about things like the power grid, dynamic infestation, and how the things listed in the blogs seem to suggest far more emphasis on area control in NS2.. perhaps to the extreme that a command chair has a limited range of influence. In small games, not so bad, because you can concentrate on just a couple of fronts. In large games, however, with many more aliens, a commander may need to be able to manage multiple fronts actively, or have his power grid cut off from the rear.
Heck, simply having the ability for the aliens to cut off power to a command chair suggests a reason for multiple commanders.. so if one goes down, you have a backup ready to help reclaim the power-grid for the downed chair.
In addition having three commanders will make dynamic strategy that much more difficult in the sense that it is harder to adapt to changing variables in the game when you have to coordinate with two other commanders.Granted NS2 is not going to be exactly like NS1 but I just don't see three commanders being viable.
If the dev team is going to implement three commanders as stated these are a few of the obstacles they would have to overcome to make three commanders not only fun but strategically viable.
Doesn't mean we can't discuss it, right?
Get over yourself.
I see multiple commanders as optional, if you want more people giving orders then use it, if you don't, it doesn't matter.
There is the possibility of people using it to grief, like dumping a million armories at the bottom of a hole, but that's a problem with the nature of having a commander in the first place.
Mutliple commanders allow for greater micromanagement and also multiple fronts. It takes the load off the one player and makes it harder for mistakes to occur, I'd rather have three mediocre commanders consistently than one hit or miss commander.
It would NOT make sense to make the commanders like 3 power rangers riding around in a Megazord with the one leader and the 2 other pointless-redundant characters.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*laughs* Man FocusedWolf, just the idea of the Megazord running around smashing Hives made me laugh.
On another note... has anyone stopped to realize that with multiple commanders, meaning multiple command chairs, it means losing marine start no longer ends the game? Sure there will be a momentum shift, like losing a hive, but that by no means it's game over.
Also, I think the NPC additions to NS2 will actually increase the RTS elements in the game. It's just like having workers that actually listen to you instead of you being able to set vague way points which they may, or may not heed. I wonder how they are going to work out the pathing algorithms.