It's the comm's job to lay out the strategy for the team, ie: take resources nodes 1,2, and 3, and secure tech point #2, the only problem is with ns2, the maps are laid out so that its VERY obvious which way each team is going to expand, and where they are going to put structures. This becomes very lame afte ryou've played a map once or twice all the possible strategies have already been played....(I think some of this will be solved when we start seeing larger maps.)
a big part of ns1, was saying hey, drop these nodes first, alien hive is at this location etc, Hold this area and wait for orders....Ns2 is more like, Not even communicating cause commander doesnt need any help from players, and players dont really need anything from the comm. Comm just plays sim city with the mac's while the marines go rambo.
edit: I think what op is talking about is that, in 5 minutes the comm's main functions are really done, and he becomes a babysitter just spamming sentries and medpacks. This is due to the fact that both teams start with so many resource's and they are so easy to get more resources, you dont have to be frugal with your money as a commander like you were in ns1. You can simply just build everything and It only takes a second to build stuff. Teams should be starting with enough resources to build 1 structure type, and no advanced weapons(lerks or shotguns should take a couple mins to show up) Having to pick which structure type your team is going would likely be a team decision just as it was in ns1(dc's sc's or mc's etc)just as marines would have to choose between, going with an upgraded weapons rush approach or a drop resource nodes economy long game approach.
Based on tasks completed, or not completed within X minutes:
Punishments:
- Lack of access to higher upgrades - Less resource income - Reduced moral - Player rating - :/ :| :) ;) 8D
Rewards:
- Instant Health (20%) - Instant Ammo (20%) - Improved Sight - Improved Hearing - Faster Speed - Improved R.O.F - Improved relationship with commander (Comm knows you are doing better for him, so is made more aware of you) - You know when comm is watching or has selected you - Scanning the room could give your visor a temporary boost, so that it identifies not just aliens present, but vent locations also
This is the right way to approach punishments/rewards. Having to be the commander and 'dish them out' is not a good option, it just adds more micro management.
The problem is with communication is that if someone speaks you currently do not know <u>location, status, identity, priority</u> and supplying ammo/health is still a painful task that is messy and unintuitive. All things that should be alerted to the commander based on communication at any level, whether that be text or VOIP.
Oh wow, this got quite a few replies. I'm going to make amendments/appendices to my original post and link to them from the main post.
<b>DISCLAIMER (2): I'M NOT A NS1 PLAYER, I SPEAK UNBIASED IN THAT REGARD. JUST TO AVOID CONFUSION - IF I SAY SOMETHING THAT SOUNDS LIKE I TOOK IT FROM NS1 ITS TOTALLY COINCIDENCE (BUT I GUESS ENFORCES THAT SAID FEATURE IS MORE APPEALING FROM A GAMEPLAY PERSPECTIVE)</b>
As an unbiased (in regards to NS1) I think it's fair to dismiss any possibility I am taking ideas from NS1, also as a new player - the second game I played I jumped into the Comm seat. Though I picked up the interface pretty quickly I did find it unresponsive and awkward to use. The inability to select some form of "global actions" menu was one of my other annoyances I didn't have time to write about. If I were to rework the layout of the UI for commander. I would have the ability to deselect all (left-click empty portion of map) which would contain a few actions such as, Ammo Drop, Health Drop, Catpack Drop, Replicate. Basically anything the CC can do, except CC upgrades.
In address to the "RAMBO MODE ACTIVATED" issue, I would suggest a "carrot-on-a-stick" reward system. For example, double points for destroying a target specified by the commander, double points for killing enemies in a location marked for defence (so long as the area is owned by the that team, as in resnode or technode). I'm not so sure how to reward "move" orders - so that is something else that will have to be a addressed, though I personally don't think "move" orders are important. Attack/Defend suffices in my eyes.
Strategic planning as I briefly mentioned as a part of my issue with the commander being too linear, this could be 'solved' by having multiple tech-routes. For example, weapon upgrades could be divided into tech-trees. Where you can have one or the other but not both (or all in 3+ routes), for example; rifles can get a grenade add-on which allows for heavy damage or it can be upgraded for slightly improved damage and higher accuracy, or slightly improved damage and larger clip size. Shotguns can receive bigger clips (10? 12? (note: clip will be 8 in future versions anyway)) or it can receive bigger spread (same damage per hit, just easier to do damage), but not both!
This requires some strategic planning for what situation you might encounter. For example, grenades might be perfect for wiping out large teams of aliens, however if you're taking damage from a small team of lerks, you might opt for high-accuracy and damage, or bigger clip size if your marines are motor impaired (why would the TSA hire motor impaired troops? We'll never know...). Perhaps in some cases it could be a choice between one weapon or another ie. Between grenade launcher or flamer thrower (example, this would actually be a really easy choice to make, so don't linger on this point). This is just one idea, it requires more work to be put in - but who cares, the wait is worth a better game, right?
Variety is the spice of life, the commander (marines only again) has very little variety of buildings he can build. Currently the list comprises of: <ul><li>Command Center</li><li>Armoury</li><li>Extractor</li><li>Sentry</li><li>Observatory</li><li>Infantry Portal</li><li>Weld doors (not really building, but sort of)</li></ul>
In a common RTS game, you might get a list more like this: (* see below for more explanation) <ul><li><strike>HQ</strike> CC</li><li><strike>Barracks</strike> IP</li><li><strike>Ground-troop upgrade facility</strike> Armoury</li><li>Powerplant (Powernode?)</li><li><strike>Resource Extractor</strike> Extractor</li><li><b>Resource Storage (silo)</b></li><li><b>Heavy-unit construction facility</b></li><li><b>Heavy-unit upgrade facility</b></li><li>Air-bourne unit construction facility</li><li>Air-bourne unit upgrade facility</li><li><b>Special weapon deployment (mutliple types, ie. Nuclear Weapons Silo in C&C RA2 or Ion Cannon in C&C 3)</b></li><li><strike>Light base defence</strike> Sentry</li><li><b>Heavy base defence</b> (note: These would be VERY expensive to construct and would be L3 upgrades, an end-game bonus)</li><li>Global upgrade facility (ie. Research center in C&C3)</li></ul>
Double the amount (and probably more, like sea-faring units), I know a lot of the ones listed in a generic RTS list don't apply to NS2, but the general idea is "bigger is better" in this case, more buildings to construct, more buildings to defend, more to do for everyone!
*I highlighted items in the list which I thought might apply to NS2 in some way or form. Those crossed out are items which already exist in NS2 in some form.
<!--quoteo(post=1810931:date=Nov 26 2010, 10:30 PM:name=Zuriki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zuriki @ Nov 26 2010, 10:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1810931"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh wow, this got quite a few replies. I'm going to make amendments/appendices to my original post and link to them from the main post.
<b>DISCLAIMER (2): I'M NOT A NS1 PLAYER, I SPEAK UNBIASED IN THAT REGARD. JUST TO AVOID CONFUSION - IF I SAY SOMETHING THAT SOUNDS LIKE I TOOK IT FROM NS1 ITS TOTALLY COINCIDENCE (BUT I GUESS ENFORCES THAT SAID FEATURE IS MORE APPEALING FROM A GAMEPLAY PERSPECTIVE)</b>
As an unbiased (in regards to NS1) I think it's fair to dismiss any possibility I am taking ideas from NS1, also as a new player - the second game I played I jumped into the Comm seat. Though I picked up the interface pretty quickly I did find it unresponsive and awkward to use. The inability to select some form of "global actions" menu was one of my other annoyances I didn't have time to write about. If I were to rework the layout of the UI for commander. I would have the ability to deselect all (left-click empty portion of map) which would contain a few actions such as, Ammo Drop, Health Drop, Catpack Drop, Replicate. Basically anything the CC can do, except CC upgrades.
In address to the "RAMBO MODE ACTIVATED" issue, I would suggest a "carrot-on-a-stick" reward system. For example, double points for destroying a target specified by the commander, double points for killing enemies in a location marked for defence (so long as the area is owned by the that team, as in resnode or technode). I'm not so sure how to reward "move" orders - so that is something else that will have to be a addressed, though I personally don't think "move" orders are important. Attack/Defend suffices in my eyes.
Strategic planning as I briefly mentioned as a part of my issue with the commander being too linear, this could be 'solved' by having multiple tech-routes. For example, weapon upgrades could be divided into tech-trees. Where you can have one or the other but not both (or all in 3+ routes), for example; rifles can get a grenade add-on which allows for heavy damage or it can be upgraded for slightly improved damage and higher accuracy, or slightly improved damage and larger clip size. Shotguns can receive bigger clips (10? 12? (note: clip will be 8 in future versions anyway)) or it can receive bigger spread (same damage per hit, just easier to do damage), but not both!
This requires some strategic planning for what situation you might encounter. For example, grenades might be perfect for wiping out large teams of aliens, however if you're taking damage from a small team of lerks, you might opt for high-accuracy and damage, or bigger clip size if your marines are motor impaired (why would the TSA hire motor impaired troops? We'll never know...). Perhaps in some cases it could be a choice between one weapon or another ie. Between grenade launcher or flamer thrower (example, this would actually be a really easy choice to make, so don't linger on this point). This is just one idea, it requires more work to be put in - but who cares, the wait is worth a better game, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really Like the idea of either this or that for the weapons upgrades, giving both the comm and the user more choices is always better. Some people like to shoot grenades, and others find themselves a "sure shot" so they would probably prefer a nicer gun upgrade over a grenade launcher. I agree that this would add "strategies" to the game where the comm would have to ask," ok what do you guys want", lmg upgrades, shotguns, etc..
as for the "carrot on a stick" I've thought of a simple way to enable a "cash" or wallet system to punish or reward players. Take it back to Preschool, and the commander will give stars. Like a 5 star system of ranking his players. See someone doing well in the kill/death, give them a star(this could show up on their marine model as a star on their helmet or chest plate or something as well, people would REALLY want to get stars then)See someone protecting a mac and listening to orders, give them a star. The Star system would have to be well thought out though, say 1star, gives you access to the armory, 2stars gives you access to tier1 weapons, 3stars tier2 weaposs etc. Everyplayer would start with 1 star, so something could be "taken away" from people, and those who choose to "go rambo" could be punished by no access to our limited supplies of ammo ;) Some will say, oh well the comm can just give everyone 5 stars from the beginning, but then, newbies will go rambo and not listen too him, so I think this method would give the authority the comm needs back to him/her.
(it also gives the comm something to do in mid game, and should improve teamwork)
<!--quoteo(post=1810938:date=Nov 26 2010, 09:51 PM:name=thecowsaysmoo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (thecowsaysmoo @ Nov 26 2010, 09:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1810938"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've thought of a simple way to enable a "cash" or wallet system to punish or reward players. Take it back to Preschool, and the commander will give stars. Like a 5 star system of ranking his players. See someone doing well in the kill/death, give them a star(this could show up on their marine model as a star on their helmet or chest plate or something as well, people would REALLY want to get stars then)See someone protecting a mac and listening to orders, give them a star. The Star system would have to be well thought out though, say 1star, gives you access to the armory, 2stars gives you access to tier1 weapons, 3stars tier2 weaposs etc. Everyplayer would start with 1 star, so something could be "taken away" from people, and those who choose to "go rambo" could be punished by no access to our limited supplies of ammo ;) Some will say, oh well the comm can just give everyone 5 stars from the beginning, but then, newbies will go rambo and not listen too him, so I think this method would give the authority the comm needs back to him/her.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have a few problems with this system.
Firstly, one bad player punishes the whole team, defective players with 1 star get terrible weapons thus are essentially sitting ducks, or "bait" for the aliens.
Plus, it will hardly restrict rambo players - they usually dive in head first anyway. Regardless of tech-level.
Finally, comms would see it as a benefit to the team to just give 5 stars as a result of point 2. A powerful rambo, though not as useful as a powerful team-player, is still better than a sitting duck.
<!--quoteo(post=1810959:date=Nov 26 2010, 10:51 PM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Nov 26 2010, 10:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1810959"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem is Zuriki, the marine 'units' are human. So unlike units in any other Starcraft game, they need a 'lot' more looking after and guidance.
This is not a bad thing, it is a good think and should be emphasised. Adding more will not solve this issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't dispute that, I just think, rewarding players in a more "automatic" scheme for completing orders might be more beneficial that a manual system which doesn't work as I displayed in my post above. Though I'll confess my own idea has gaping flaws, such as the points being merely "artificial" so perhaps points can be used to buy weapons - higher tier weapons cost more points, saving up points for high power weapons is a good idea, but in the case of a surprise attack, marines could be forced to use lower-tier weapons which delays access to high-tier weapons (with the reverse affect of aggressive manoeuvres being a costly thing for aggressor, and profitable for the defender if they can hold them off on low-tier weapons). Perhaps commanders can award bonuses to allies so they can access high tier weapons faster/at times of need, but it's a costly thing for commanders to do. It's all a delicate balancing act.
I'm actually proud of this idea as it ties together some other peoples ideas; restricted high-level weapons (prevents GG points in matches), carrot-stick reward system for following orders (though work is needed for working in teams, shared points system?), costly aggressive/defensive manoeuvres for commanders and players on the field.
What I was saying is that adding more structures to build will not help. I think rewards should be automatic.. but rewards should compliment, not hinder. This way they will not be abused.
If you see this list a few posts up, you'll see these are awards that people are really going to work towards because it will improve their chances massively. People always want new 'cool' things. Upgrades awarded through orders would be great:
It means that the guy going rambo can do, but he will be jealous of the guy who can run faster, is looked after better (health/ammo because of better alerts) and can perhaps see better in the dark.
It means that upgrades will be awarded to people depending on how the commander 'commands', how many res nodes the marines defend/destroy capture as a team - instead of having to click on a building and click on just another button.
i find the idea of an "automatic" reward system, very monotonous and doesnt fit with the NS teamwork style of game. If everygame I play as a marine I have to jump up down left right, and do a set-specific things to be able to get my "faster walking" ability that will become very very routine and boring. I'd rather have the comm say, gj heres your carrot, encourages talk between comm and marine imo.
and I fail to see how either idea prevents rambo from being rambo, the comm needs to have a manual ability to restrict players who are not working in the system, there is no way around this.
<!--quoteo(post=1810973:date=Nov 27 2010, 12:08 AM:name=thecowsaysmoo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (thecowsaysmoo @ Nov 27 2010, 12:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1810973"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i find the idea of an "automatic" reward system, very monotonous and doesnt fit with the NS teamwork style of game. If everygame I play as a marine I have to jump up down left right, and do a set-specific things to be able to get my "faster walking" ability that will become very very routine and boring. I'd rather have the comm say, gj heres your carrot, encourages talk between comm and marine imo.
and I fail to see how either idea prevents rambo from being rambo, the comm needs to have a manual ability to restrict players who are not working in the system, there is no way around this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is impossible to prevent rambo, but you can influence people into not going rambo by making team-work a more attractive proposition. It's not entirely autonomous, it requires the commander to give orders and troops to follow them. But the carrot feeding is more automatic. I guess a manual carrot feeding system would work, but it puts strain on the commander to baby-sit. Tell them where to go, pat them on the head, wipe their ass and kiss their boo-boos. Just removing the manual rewarding eases a little strain.
Like Valves games, you gain awards for completing tasks.
This time your task is the commander saying - go here and build/destroy/hold position.
Automatic upgrades are given to you that are not vital to the game or winning in the 'larger' sense of things, but your ability to survive is increased.
Players will pay more attention to the comm, because that is what they should be doing.
----
If people think 'I dont want to be running around being told what to do'... there is no point to the commander but playing a little RTS game of his own, and talking to you over the comm. If that includes directing you to a room and building something, then that is what the principles of the above ideas are about.
Except this time people really want to get to the way point/task they have been given because they prosper from it.
<!--quoteo(post=1810975:date=Nov 27 2010, 12:14 AM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Nov 27 2010, 12:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1810975"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is not set things.
You keep the game as is.
Like Valves games, you gain awards for completing tasks.
This time your task is the commander saying - go here and build/destroy/hold position.
Automatic upgrades are given to you that are not vital to the game or winning in the 'larger' sense of things, but your ability to survive is increased.
Players will pay more attention to the comm, because that is what they should be doing.
----
If people think 'I dont want to be running around being told what to do'... there is no point to the commander but playing a little RTS game of his own, and talking to you over the comm. If that includes directing you to a room and building something, then that is what the principles of the above ideas are about.
Except this time people really want to get to the way point/task they have been given because they prosper from it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is what I was trying to say...
schkorpioI can mspaintJoin Date: 2003-05-23Member: 16635Members
<!--quoteo(post=1810730:date=Nov 26 2010, 07:17 PM:name=Zuriki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zuriki @ Nov 26 2010, 07:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1810730"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>DISCLAIMER: THIS ARTICLE IS MY OPINION ONLY, YOU MAY DISAGREE WITH SOME OR ALL OF WHAT I HAVE SAID, BUT I REQUEST THAT YOU DO NOT INSULT ME OVER MY OPINION. I AM ALSO FULLY AWARE OF THE CONTEXT OF A BETA RELEASE AND UNDERSTAND CHANGES WILL BE MADE.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well of course its in your opinion, you're the one writing it....isn't pretty much everything ever written in someones own opinion? Having a disclaimer like that is like going up to a bully and saying please don't bully me i'm weak. (of course the bully will take advantage of that)
<!--quoteo(post=1810981:date=Nov 27 2010, 12:39 AM:name=schkorpio)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (schkorpio @ Nov 27 2010, 12:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1810981"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->well of course its in your opinion, you're the one writing it....isn't pretty much everything ever written in someones own opinion? Having a disclaimer like that is like going up to a bully and saying please don't bully me i'm weak. (of course the bully will take advantage of that)
even still, you have some good opinions :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> More like I didn't want people to go "Your ideas are stupid" and actually put forward some constructive criticisms and ideas of their own. I suppose my wording is wrong.
NS2 is missing supply depots/pylons/overlords. That's a common RTS building.
Supply buildings would limit the number of guns available at once to the Marine team and number of lifeforms available at once to the Alien team. I think that's a good translation. We wouldn't want to limit number of players per side because then people are joining servers and can't play (eww).
The only strategic depth those buildings allow is raiding your enemy's supply buildings to supply block them. Which is kind of cool (but I'm not sure if its cool enough). It just seems like a way to frustrate the other team even if it does add strategy. It is also a tax on actions per minute since commanders can supply block themselves. Learning to mindlessly drop supply buildings is boring as anything.
So I wouldn't want supply buildings in NS2 even though it gives commanders something to do.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Like Valves games, you gain awards for completing tasks.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Which game and what awards do you get? (Besides extra score? whatever? that doesn't affect the game)
I dont know any Valve game that would need a commander... Players can always do what they want, and they should -> but if they want to win, they do what they have to do... TeamA: Attack point A,B,C TeamB: hold point A,B,C - play your class how its intended.
In ns both sides have to attack and defend a lot more positions than just fixed A,B, C at the same time - and this positions change depending on what the commanders of each team want. (com tells you where "A,B,C" is at the given time)
So how would you get awards for completing tasks? What tasks? If you get a waypoint (and dont always get killed before you reach it) you should be rewarded? With what? Health? Ammo? cash for weapons? -> if you give rewards that affect the whole game - it will be exploited. Besides the exploits, what is with ppl the commander forgets? (because he has to focus on some other dudes) The players he forgets about get nothing (even tho they did their job on their own?), and the players he cares about get boosts cash fame whatever? There is no way to do this right... (my opinion atm)
You pretend that nobody will care about the team? and rambo around on the map? Rambos are rare. And there is no way to win a game if ppl just rambo.(=> thats why its rare, sane* ppl know that) Nobody went rambo in ns1 because they didnt care about the comm or the team(sure sometimes there are ppl that try to ruin a game, votekick bye bye.)... Rambos thought they could scout a good position, sneak behind enemy lines...(if they werent ######/idots you could always reason a bit with them and they started to do their job, usually ppl only rambo if they got no order = fault of the commander) still i had a lot of wtf cool situations with rambos. You do some stuff, suddently you get an "i need orders" alert, jump to this position and wtf imba phasegate inc. - its not always bad.
Maybe i'm wrong and i just cant think of a way to implement such a system(i dont think there is need for it)... but before you try... punishment/restriction takes away fun and starts hate - thats one of the reasons why combat was so popular.
Comms couldn't always give weapons to all ppl, so they picked their friend or one dude they liked more. (even tho player X was a good and would deserve the weapon too) Comms are human too, they dont always have the right answers, and make mistakes - punish a marine because they think he isnt worth a weapon -> marine says: ###### that i go play combat, noob com. ;P
Again: (assumend ppl wanna win) If ppl have orders - they wont rambo. (IF you know the rules how to win, you wont kick the ball in your own goal.) If ppl dont have orders - they rambo. (its not ai, they wont just sit in the base and wait) => pll need orders, but u cant always manage it. (=> extra reward system doesnt really solve anything, punishment just makes it worse)
edit: *i dont wanna say you are not sane, it was just a statement about the playerbase
<!--quoteo(post=1810797:date=Nov 26 2010, 10:15 AM:name=samurai_jeff)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (samurai_jeff @ Nov 26 2010, 10:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1810797"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I never really chimed in on all the talk of separation of roles between the commander and the marines, but i think it's really showing. No matter what, in NS1, the commander relied on his marines for building, and the marines on their commander for weapons, health, ammo etc.
Now the only link is that marines need meds/ammo from the commander (which they can get easily from the seemingly abundance of armorys o_O) and- as someone stated- the 'teching up stage' in the first 5 mins of the game.
There's no more "hey dudes get here, i NEED you to build this!" There's only "hey guys if you like you could defend this, but if not 'sall good." Or he wouldn't have to say anything at all. He can play his little RTS game almost separate from the marines playing their little FPS game.
I think it's a very subtle tether that's been broken, but i feel it's pretty vital. There is no longer a need for a dedicated comm (which is think is an angle they were aiming for?). The alien team seems more forgiving of these new RTS elements since there was already a sort of every-man-for-himself sense to its gameplay (everyone with their own res pool).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with what's been said in this thread. But I'm going to have to bring in the old "it's a beta" excuse. Now I know that <i>you know</i> the game is still unfinished. Which is why I think it's unfair to make statements like, "it's a subtle tether that's been broken..."There is no longer a need for a dedicated comm". Both are true observations, but they're pointless observations to make at this point. Teching up is quick because resources have been inflated for the purposes of testing. The commander has little to do because not all of the content has been completed yet. Two of the three maps are tiny test maps, and even Tram was said to be one of the smaller maps out of the official maplist (if I recall correctly). The game is not well balanced yet, and therefore, as I've observed, nobody really cares to have a serious game. This, of course, results in uninteresting gameplay and no communication for both marines and commander when everyone is generally just goofing off.
It's far more useful to talk about how features that we know are working like they should are affecting the command experience. Now I agree that in some way, being able to buy your own weapon encourages rambo behaviour. At the same time, it's simply not fair for some players that they should be denied access to certain weapons simply because the commander says so. Imagine being an Alien, accumulating 50 res, and being forced to put up a hive instead of going Fade because someone on the team decides your K/D ratio isn't good enough. I can also imagine now that this is probably one of the reasons why UWE decided to introduce Alien commanders in NS2. After working hard to save up 50 res, who really wants to spend it on a hive? When I play NS2 on pubs, I'm seeing certain top players ALWAYS go Fade when they reach 50 res, even if it would be more beneficial for them to hive. This is really the crux of the problem in NS1 that NS2 is trying to fix, I think. The forced teamwork. Forced teamwork is never good. It should be highly encouraged at most, but never forced. In the worst of cases, it is game-breaking for the team, or fun-ruining for the individual.
Here's a great compromise for the issue of player buying their own weapons: allow players to buy weapons, AND allow the commander to equip marines of his choice. In addition, greatly increase the cost for all weapons so that most players will not be able to instantly buy back the same weapon after dying. What this means is that each player will be able to choose their weapon if they accumulate enough points, while still rewarding good or obedient players with more frequent use of these weapons.
This really seems like a solution without a problem. The game is certainly light-years ahead of the original alpha but it's still a laggy mess missing half of it's features. As the game continues to come together I'm sure people will start taking the matches more seriously and becoming more invested in their outcomes. These goofy tweaks and reward systems seem really kludgy and unnecessary.
Donner again... get out of my head! It gets creepy...
But what about alien lifeforms? (@compromise idea)
edit: got it, comm doesnt give weapons he gives his own cash( or team res => player cash) to players of choice. (so it works for aliens too) edit2: but whats with multi commanders? You dont give it - he takes it? Or tell another guy to do it... edit3: must be his own cash to prevent this. So ppl can hopp in and give others a weapon, but it costs their cash. edit4: maincommander(they want weapons too maybe?) can do it with team res, others only with their own - it starts to get complicated.
... i still dont know the names of the new resources, and which is for whom. Carbon? Energy?(structure) X?
The perfect game forces players to do exactly what you want them to do, but without them realising it.
L4D2 is in example of how as both sides you are forced into a situation whereby working as a team in a certain way will (more or less) result in an outcome.
The game psychology = help others to help yourself. If people on your team die, you die. If you are attacked, the first thing you should be doing is shooting the zombies off the most swarmed player. More importantly is the guy who has been incapacitated, and even more so the one who has been pounced/charged/smoked/jockeyed.
The hunter and charger tending to be the post problematic of the two, so you have to prioritise.
But essentially you are following methods and rules, but without realising it because the structure of the game mechanics are implemented so nicely. There is also added back story, your closeness with other players and most importantly HIGH levels of COMMUNICATION (most people use mics) brings players together unlike any other on-line game out at the moment. (WoW anyone?)
That is exactly what the commander/player relationship should be like. There is a huge amount of game design psychology that needs to be worked in (imo) that could make the marine/commander team more fore filling. Through communication and clever game design and structure.
Also, people do play proper games on servers at the moment. To the best of their ability as far as I know.
Rockdown is the most played map... there is no communication between players/commander yet you still do not know what your orders should be. Now imagine playing tram, or as suggested a larger map. There may be 5 straight build routes across the map from the start, and about 50 possible strategies (rush, relocate, etc).
Now imagine trying to command people who:
Do not need to build Enjoy running around shooting stuff (most people do btw) Have no incentive to obey the commander (because they think they know better) Commander bogged down in micro management, so finds it difficult to command/way point Finds supplying players clumsy and difficult
I know there is more to be done, but as was said a while ago. Not much is going to change from the current user interface. The problem is, the whole command experience is tied into how the user interface works, and how that relates to game mechanics.
The commander is an incredibly important, deep and complex role. It needs/requires these sorts of discussions.
Oh and if you think people will think "oh, it is best for my team if I do what I am told", you are wrong. If you read up on behavioural psychology, you will find that people are not as good at seeing long term benefits, over short term gratification.
Which is exactly why people go to the armoury, kit themselves a flame-thrower/GL, and run to the front line by themselves. Everyone does it.
If there was something in place that meant that this was counter productive, or short term rewards (for example) were implemented for being in a squad and obeying the comms orders. This would get players to be more involved with their team, increase team play, whilst not really thinking about why you are doing it.
I don't perhaps think this is the only answer, or even the right. But something like this needs to be in the game imo.
Sure we should discuss it, but we shouldnt assume that uwe doesnt know anything about the problems (i dont think they are idiots, do you? if? why are you here?), I think they know very well where the problems are. (ns1 worked out pretty good dont you think?)
We got a WIP game with lots of missing features - thats why, i can only say it again, we cant really complain - because we dont know whats coming. How can you say there wont be many changes with the upcoming ui? Mentalist?
Maybe this whole thread is a waste of time, maybe not... we'll see.
PS: The topic changes every 2 posts, why do i even answer on suggestions?
edit: we can talk about psychological behaviours all day, but if you are ingame, and you get a waypoint - the first thing you do is, ignore it, grab a weapon, and rambo somewhere else? you say ###### that waypoint, who needs RTs(protect, assists building) - i dont need to buy weapons, i dont need upgrades? OR ###### that techpoint - who needs even bigger weapons bigger upgrades? (not enough short term rewards?)
@teamplay You say ###### the squad i can kill 2fades and 2onis alone? ... (without upgrades or big guns because u dont care about waypoints)
@Koruyo: I'm sure UWE knows about the problems too, but just because they are aware of the problem, doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it either! I imagine that perhaps we have supplied them with some ideas they might not have thought about - or at least stimulated their creative minds to come up with solutions to gameplay issues that we haven't thought about.
I never said the UI won't change (in fact, I know it will change).
And yes, people ignore waypoints, countless times I have given waypoints and nobody responds. The only time anyone ever responds is if I say "CC under attack" and that's only because if the CC dies, everyone is ######. There is an incentive to help, notice that if there is an INCENTIVE that people can see the SHORT TERM BENEFITS OF, they INSTINCTIVELY HELP. Keypoints highlighted to enhance your reading experience.
I haven't been given enough waypoints to ignore any, so I can't comment on what I would do. In the two times I got waypoints I followed them - but that's only because I consciously want to participate in a team-work based game.
~~~~~
One interesting thing I noticed in a match, I was sat as commander, we had been backed down to the last tech-point and I requested that they take the west-wing hive (over chat). I noticed that 2 marines ran in there and the other 2 ran to the central/east-wing hive. Then I noticed marines were running into the hive solo dying, doing it again, dying, doing it again. It was like watching lemmings run off a cliff.
I said to them, "stop, organize yourself into a 4 man group, then attack" followed by "work together". I received a reply from one person saying "just like you and everyone else was doing?" (sarcasm for those who don't realise). So the mentality of this person was "if they're not working as a team, I'll go rambo", this is the wrong mentality. What it should have been is "they're not working as a team, perhaps I could coordinate something" or "perhaps I could shadow someone as support". Though apparently the average person would not come to this conclusion. I was trying to coordinate marine efforts, it failed spectacularly. In the end we lost because the aliens raided the base with 2 fades and a lerk, who took out all the IPs and prevented the construction of more.
<!--quoteo(post=1811175:date=Nov 27 2010, 08:57 AM:name=Koruyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Nov 27 2010, 08:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1811175"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->edit: we can talk about psychological behaviours all day, but if you are ingame, and you get a waypoint - the first thing you do is, ignore it, grab a weapon, and rambo somewhere else? you say ###### that waypoint, who needs RTs - i dont need to buy weapons, i dont need upgrades? OR ###### that techpoint - who needs even bigger weapons bigger upgrades? (still not enough short term rewards?)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is a good issue to talk about.
I think once the choices expand for commanders and the tiers of tech are filled out, soldiers will have to follow the commanders orders because the commander decides what gets researched (You can't buy a jetpack if the comm didn't research it). When the commander researches lots of weapons (and doesn't research even more because you have to choose), the communication will increase. Right now you can get everything because there's little to get and lots of resources to fund it. When NS2 is more feature complete, commanders and soldiers will ask each other what is wanted.
The most played map is small, reducing choices of movement and thus requiring little coordination because there are fewer viable strategies.
Ideally, each team should have 30 different weapons, 20 different classes, and 20 different buildings spread out over the three tech tiers (Like each race in SC2) and each map should have room for 8-10 resource expansions (like the most balanced and played map in SC2; Metalopolis). NS2 probably won't be as close to RTS strategic depth idealism as SC2 is. Modelling these things costs. Weapons are cheapest to model so that will probably be where our big number of choices will lie.
Maybe you are right - todays generation is a bunch of stupid noobs with big internet egos - we have to slap them unti they understand the game. Dunno why we need to alter/enhance the system so much - ns1 worked too.. and its not because marines had to press E.
Now we ll start to circle again. I stick with... its beta, its not a real map, missing features, imbalanced stuff and res system - ppl know that, dont play seroius and like to play teamdeathmatch atm better. (i kill them all with my mighty gl, 1hit everything in a room dies. or we rush the marine base and auto-win on rockdown @ aliens Or i use the hole in rockdown and pwn the marine base from outside of the map as lerk)
On the UI side, I'd quite like to have at least the option to keep all players visible to their commander - like the total war UI: <img src="http://image.jeuxvideo.com/images/pc/m/2/m2twpc139.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /> That could let you see the health and armour of each marine and what they're equipped with (at least primary weapon would be easy), selecting units/squads can be quite straight forward as can zooming to specific marines, giving orders and possibly health etc (personally I'd rather not have the commander tied to baby-sitting). Whether units are moving, speaking, requesting something could also be flashed up quite neatly.
Regarding the encouragement of team play and order following - how about having an option to subsidise or penalise equipment purchase using team resources? Tagging people for the rest of the team to see a small icon or something to show "the commander is happy with x", or 'unhappy' as an alternative might also work - no impact on gameplay but it's nice to be appreciated (even if voice chat is better).
Would it be worth letting the commander have an option to chat only to selected players if he wanted to?
Oh and I think free-hand drawing on the minimap should be in for the commander (possibly wipe-able by marines to counter comedians) to show strategy etc without specific waypoints.
I comm most games in publics, and have been recently because I have started to enjoy it (because I have played enough to understand the upgrades paths).
From what I know from public play (on rockdown):
- No one follows orders, player movement is random (because they are not connected in terms of location goals). - The rare person actually holds the 2nd CC west whilst you build. - Usually players push forward when you want them to stay back whilst you build. - The players dictate the movement through the map, making way points pointless and commander decisions pointless. - Relationship between player location/status/etc and the commander are not connected at all. - Building, etc is still a pain - but you spend far too much time (micro) doing just that, rather than working with players.
The only time things really go well, is if there are some NS1 veterans on there and they are using the mic and 'understand' what the game involves because they have played it 1000 times already.
If the devs have really considered this by the way, you would have thought that at least some signs of it have made it into the game. They have not, they have not spoken about it, and considering all the posts on here the only thing that has been mentioned is that the UI/GUI is going to be made more slick.
That has nothing to do with the above.
I trust their ability to create a fantastic code, I do not even know how they have managed to create this game with this many people - I have been in Midway's offices in Newcastle/UK and there are like 40+ people working there full time on a console game, which I imagine is a hell of a lot easier to make because of all the support - and it looks great. It is amazing.
However, I am pretty sure they do not specialise in every area that makes up a game. So in some respects I do not trust all the decisions being made. They are only human, just as I am, just as you are. But the best products in any industry come from good communication between people of all specialities. Because an engineer is not a psychologist, and a psychologist is not a coder, and a coder is not a...
Comments
a big part of ns1, was saying hey, drop these nodes first, alien hive is at this location etc, Hold this area and wait for orders....Ns2 is more like, Not even communicating cause commander doesnt need any help from players, and players dont really need anything from the comm. Comm just plays sim city with the mac's while the marines go rambo.
edit: I think what op is talking about is that, in 5 minutes the comm's main functions are really done, and he becomes a babysitter just spamming sentries and medpacks. This is due to the fact that both teams start with so many resource's and they are so easy to get more resources, you dont have to be frugal with your money as a commander like you were in ns1. You can simply just build everything and It only takes a second to build stuff. Teams should be starting with enough resources to build 1 structure type, and no advanced weapons(lerks or shotguns should take a couple mins to show up) Having to pick which structure type your team is going would likely be a team decision just as it was in ns1(dc's sc's or mc's etc)just as marines would have to choose between, going with an upgraded weapons rush approach or a drop resource nodes economy long game approach.
Punishments:
- Lack of access to higher upgrades
- Less resource income
- Reduced moral
- Player rating - :/ :| :) ;) 8D
Rewards:
- Instant Health (20%)
- Instant Ammo (20%)
- Improved Sight
- Improved Hearing
- Faster Speed
- Improved R.O.F
- Improved relationship with commander (Comm knows you are doing better for him, so is made more aware of you)
- You know when comm is watching or has selected you
- Scanning the room could give your visor a temporary boost, so that it identifies not just aliens present, but vent locations also
This is the right way to approach punishments/rewards. Having to be the commander and 'dish them out' is not a good option, it just adds more micro management.
The problem is with communication is that if someone speaks you currently do not know <u>location, status, identity, priority</u> and supplying ammo/health is still a painful task that is messy and unintuitive. All things that should be alerted to the commander based on communication at any level, whether that be text or VOIP.
Communication is king in on-line games.
<b>DISCLAIMER (2): I'M NOT A NS1 PLAYER, I SPEAK UNBIASED IN THAT REGARD. JUST TO AVOID CONFUSION - IF I SAY SOMETHING THAT SOUNDS LIKE I TOOK IT FROM NS1 ITS TOTALLY COINCIDENCE (BUT I GUESS ENFORCES THAT SAID FEATURE IS MORE APPEALING FROM A GAMEPLAY PERSPECTIVE)</b>
As an unbiased (in regards to NS1) I think it's fair to dismiss any possibility I am taking ideas from NS1, also as a new player - the second game I played I jumped into the Comm seat. Though I picked up the interface pretty quickly I did find it unresponsive and awkward to use. The inability to select some form of "global actions" menu was one of my other annoyances I didn't have time to write about. If I were to rework the layout of the UI for commander. I would have the ability to deselect all (left-click empty portion of map) which would contain a few actions such as, Ammo Drop, Health Drop, Catpack Drop, Replicate. Basically anything the CC can do, except CC upgrades.
In address to the "RAMBO MODE ACTIVATED" issue, I would suggest a "carrot-on-a-stick" reward system. For example, double points for destroying a target specified by the commander, double points for killing enemies in a location marked for defence (so long as the area is owned by the that team, as in resnode or technode). I'm not so sure how to reward "move" orders - so that is something else that will have to be a addressed, though I personally don't think "move" orders are important. Attack/Defend suffices in my eyes.
Strategic planning as I briefly mentioned as a part of my issue with the commander being too linear, this could be 'solved' by having multiple tech-routes. For example, weapon upgrades could be divided into tech-trees. Where you can have one or the other but not both (or all in 3+ routes), for example; rifles can get a grenade add-on which allows for heavy damage or it can be upgraded for slightly improved damage and higher accuracy, or slightly improved damage and larger clip size. Shotguns can receive bigger clips (10? 12? (note: clip will be 8 in future versions anyway)) or it can receive bigger spread (same damage per hit, just easier to do damage), but not both!
This requires some strategic planning for what situation you might encounter. For example, grenades might be perfect for wiping out large teams of aliens, however if you're taking damage from a small team of lerks, you might opt for high-accuracy and damage, or bigger clip size if your marines are motor impaired (why would the TSA hire motor impaired troops? We'll never know...). Perhaps in some cases it could be a choice between one weapon or another ie. Between grenade launcher or flamer thrower (example, this would actually be a really easy choice to make, so don't linger on this point). This is just one idea, it requires more work to be put in - but who cares, the wait is worth a better game, right?
Variety is the spice of life, the commander (marines only again) has very little variety of buildings he can build. Currently the list comprises of:
<ul><li>Command Center</li><li>Armoury</li><li>Extractor</li><li>Sentry</li><li>Observatory</li><li>Infantry Portal</li><li>Weld doors (not really building, but sort of)</li></ul>
In a common RTS game, you might get a list more like this: (* see below for more explanation)
<ul><li><strike>HQ</strike> CC</li><li><strike>Barracks</strike> IP</li><li><strike>Ground-troop upgrade facility</strike> Armoury</li><li>Powerplant (Powernode?)</li><li><strike>Resource Extractor</strike> Extractor</li><li><b>Resource Storage (silo)</b></li><li><b>Heavy-unit construction facility</b></li><li><b>Heavy-unit upgrade facility</b></li><li>Air-bourne unit construction facility</li><li>Air-bourne unit upgrade facility</li><li><b>Special weapon deployment (mutliple types, ie. Nuclear Weapons Silo in C&C RA2 or Ion Cannon in C&C 3)</b></li><li><strike>Light base defence</strike> Sentry</li><li><b>Heavy base defence</b> (note: These would be VERY expensive to construct and would be L3 upgrades, an end-game bonus)</li><li>Global upgrade facility (ie. Research center in C&C3)</li></ul>
Double the amount (and probably more, like sea-faring units), I know a lot of the ones listed in a generic RTS list don't apply to NS2, but the general idea is "bigger is better" in this case, more buildings to construct, more buildings to defend, more to do for everyone!
*I highlighted items in the list which I thought might apply to NS2 in some way or form. Those crossed out are items which already exist in NS2 in some form.
<b>DISCLAIMER (2): I'M NOT A NS1 PLAYER, I SPEAK UNBIASED IN THAT REGARD. JUST TO AVOID CONFUSION - IF I SAY SOMETHING THAT SOUNDS LIKE I TOOK IT FROM NS1 ITS TOTALLY COINCIDENCE (BUT I GUESS ENFORCES THAT SAID FEATURE IS MORE APPEALING FROM A GAMEPLAY PERSPECTIVE)</b>
As an unbiased (in regards to NS1) I think it's fair to dismiss any possibility I am taking ideas from NS1, also as a new player - the second game I played I jumped into the Comm seat. Though I picked up the interface pretty quickly I did find it unresponsive and awkward to use. The inability to select some form of "global actions" menu was one of my other annoyances I didn't have time to write about. If I were to rework the layout of the UI for commander. I would have the ability to deselect all (left-click empty portion of map) which would contain a few actions such as, Ammo Drop, Health Drop, Catpack Drop, Replicate. Basically anything the CC can do, except CC upgrades.
In address to the "RAMBO MODE ACTIVATED" issue, I would suggest a "carrot-on-a-stick" reward system. For example, double points for destroying a target specified by the commander, double points for killing enemies in a location marked for defence (so long as the area is owned by the that team, as in resnode or technode). I'm not so sure how to reward "move" orders - so that is something else that will have to be a addressed, though I personally don't think "move" orders are important. Attack/Defend suffices in my eyes.
Strategic planning as I briefly mentioned as a part of my issue with the commander being too linear, this could be 'solved' by having multiple tech-routes. For example, weapon upgrades could be divided into tech-trees. Where you can have one or the other but not both (or all in 3+ routes), for example; rifles can get a grenade add-on which allows for heavy damage or it can be upgraded for slightly improved damage and higher accuracy, or slightly improved damage and larger clip size. Shotguns can receive bigger clips (10? 12? (note: clip will be 8 in future versions anyway)) or it can receive bigger spread (same damage per hit, just easier to do damage), but not both!
This requires some strategic planning for what situation you might encounter. For example, grenades might be perfect for wiping out large teams of aliens, however if you're taking damage from a small team of lerks, you might opt for high-accuracy and damage, or bigger clip size if your marines are motor impaired (why would the TSA hire motor impaired troops? We'll never know...). Perhaps in some cases it could be a choice between one weapon or another ie. Between grenade launcher or flamer thrower (example, this would actually be a really easy choice to make, so don't linger on this point). This is just one idea, it requires more work to be put in - but who cares, the wait is worth a better game, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really Like the idea of either this or that for the weapons upgrades, giving both the comm and the user more choices is always better. Some people like to shoot grenades, and others find themselves a "sure shot" so they would probably prefer a nicer gun upgrade over a grenade launcher. I agree that this would add "strategies" to the game where the comm would have to ask," ok what do you guys want", lmg upgrades, shotguns, etc..
as for the "carrot on a stick"
I've thought of a simple way to enable a "cash" or wallet system to punish or reward players. Take it back to Preschool, and the commander will give stars. Like a 5 star system of ranking his players. See someone doing well in the kill/death, give them a star(this could show up on their marine model as a star on their helmet or chest plate or something as well, people would REALLY want to get stars then)See someone protecting a mac and listening to orders, give them a star. The Star system would have to be well thought out though, say 1star, gives you access to the armory, 2stars gives you access to tier1 weapons, 3stars tier2 weaposs etc. Everyplayer would start with 1 star, so something could be "taken away" from people, and those who choose to "go rambo" could be punished by no access to our limited supplies of ammo ;) Some will say, oh well the comm can just give everyone 5 stars from the beginning, but then, newbies will go rambo and not listen too him, so I think this method would give the authority the comm needs back to him/her.
(it also gives the comm something to do in mid game, and should improve teamwork)
I have a few problems with this system.
Firstly, one bad player punishes the whole team, defective players with 1 star get terrible weapons thus are essentially sitting ducks, or "bait" for the aliens.
Plus, it will hardly restrict rambo players - they usually dive in head first anyway. Regardless of tech-level.
Finally, comms would see it as a benefit to the team to just give 5 stars as a result of point 2. A powerful rambo, though not as useful as a powerful team-player, is still better than a sitting duck.
This is not a bad thing, it is a good think and should be emphasised. Adding more will not solve this issue.
This is not a bad thing, it is a good think and should be emphasised. Adding more will not solve this issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't dispute that, I just think, rewarding players in a more "automatic" scheme for completing orders might be more beneficial that a manual system which doesn't work as I displayed in my post above. Though I'll confess my own idea has gaping flaws, such as the points being merely "artificial" so perhaps points can be used to buy weapons - higher tier weapons cost more points, saving up points for high power weapons is a good idea, but in the case of a surprise attack, marines could be forced to use lower-tier weapons which delays access to high-tier weapons (with the reverse affect of aggressive manoeuvres being a costly thing for aggressor, and profitable for the defender if they can hold them off on low-tier weapons). Perhaps commanders can award bonuses to allies so they can access high tier weapons faster/at times of need, but it's a costly thing for commanders to do. It's all a delicate balancing act.
I'm actually proud of this idea as it ties together some other peoples ideas; restricted high-level weapons (prevents GG points in matches), carrot-stick reward system for following orders (though work is needed for working in teams, shared points system?), costly aggressive/defensive manoeuvres for commanders and players on the field.
If you see this list a few posts up, you'll see these are awards that people are really going to work towards because it will improve their chances massively. People always want new 'cool' things. Upgrades awarded through orders would be great:
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=111669&view=findpost&p=1810923" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...t&p=1810923</a>
It means that the guy going rambo can do, but he will be jealous of the guy who can run faster, is looked after better (health/ammo because of better alerts) and can perhaps see better in the dark.
It means that upgrades will be awarded to people depending on how the commander 'commands', how many res nodes the marines defend/destroy capture as a team - instead of having to click on a building and click on just another button.
and I fail to see how either idea prevents rambo from being rambo, the comm needs to have a manual ability to restrict players who are not working in the system, there is no way around this.
and I fail to see how either idea prevents rambo from being rambo, the comm needs to have a manual ability to restrict players who are not working in the system, there is no way around this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is impossible to prevent rambo, but you can influence people into not going rambo by making team-work a more attractive proposition. It's not entirely autonomous, it requires the commander to give orders and troops to follow them. But the carrot feeding is more automatic. I guess a manual carrot feeding system would work, but it puts strain on the commander to baby-sit. Tell them where to go, pat them on the head, wipe their ass and kiss their boo-boos. Just removing the manual rewarding eases a little strain.
You keep the game as is.
Like Valves games, you gain awards for completing tasks.
This time your task is the commander saying - go here and build/destroy/hold position.
Automatic upgrades are given to you that are not vital to the game or winning in the 'larger' sense of things, but your ability to survive is increased.
Players will pay more attention to the comm, because that is what they should be doing.
----
If people think 'I dont want to be running around being told what to do'... there is no point to the commander but playing a little RTS game of his own, and talking to you over the comm. If that includes directing you to a room and building something, then that is what the principles of the above ideas are about.
Except this time people really want to get to the way point/task they have been given because they prosper from it.
You keep the game as is.
Like Valves games, you gain awards for completing tasks.
This time your task is the commander saying - go here and build/destroy/hold position.
Automatic upgrades are given to you that are not vital to the game or winning in the 'larger' sense of things, but your ability to survive is increased.
Players will pay more attention to the comm, because that is what they should be doing.
----
If people think 'I dont want to be running around being told what to do'... there is no point to the commander but playing a little RTS game of his own, and talking to you over the comm. If that includes directing you to a room and building something, then that is what the principles of the above ideas are about.
Except this time people really want to get to the way point/task they have been given because they prosper from it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is what I was trying to say...
well of course its in your opinion, you're the one writing it....isn't pretty much everything ever written in someones own opinion? Having a disclaimer like that is like going up to a bully and saying please don't bully me i'm weak. (of course the bully will take advantage of that)
even still, you have some good opinions :)
even still, you have some good opinions :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More like I didn't want people to go "Your ideas are stupid" and actually put forward some constructive criticisms and ideas of their own. I suppose my wording is wrong.
Supply buildings would limit the number of guns available at once to the Marine team and number of lifeforms available at once to the Alien team. I think that's a good translation. We wouldn't want to limit number of players per side because then people are joining servers and can't play (eww).
The only strategic depth those buildings allow is raiding your enemy's supply buildings to supply block them. Which is kind of cool (but I'm not sure if its cool enough). It just seems like a way to frustrate the other team even if it does add strategy. It is also a tax on actions per minute since commanders can supply block themselves. Learning to mindlessly drop supply buildings is boring as anything.
So I wouldn't want supply buildings in NS2 even though it gives commanders something to do.
Which game and what awards do you get? (Besides extra score? whatever? that doesn't affect the game)
I dont know any Valve game that would need a commander... Players can always do what they want, and they should -> but if they want to win, they do what they have to do... TeamA: Attack point A,B,C TeamB: hold point A,B,C - play your class how its intended.
In ns both sides have to attack and defend a lot more positions than just fixed A,B, C at the same time - and this positions change depending on what the commanders of each team want. (com tells you where "A,B,C" is at the given time)
So how would you get awards for completing tasks? What tasks? If you get a waypoint (and dont always get killed before you reach it) you should be rewarded? With what? Health? Ammo? cash for weapons? -> if you give rewards that affect the whole game - it will be exploited. Besides the exploits, what is with ppl the commander forgets? (because he has to focus on some other dudes) The players he forgets about get nothing (even tho they did their job on their own?), and the players he cares about get boosts cash fame whatever? There is no way to do this right... (my opinion atm)
You pretend that nobody will care about the team? and rambo around on the map? Rambos are rare. And there is no way to win a game if ppl just rambo.(=> thats why its rare, sane* ppl know that) Nobody went rambo in ns1 because they didnt care about the comm or the team(sure sometimes there are ppl that try to ruin a game, votekick bye bye.)... Rambos thought they could scout a good position, sneak behind enemy lines...(if they werent ######/idots you could always reason a bit with them and they started to do their job, usually ppl only rambo if they got no order = fault of the commander) still i had a lot of wtf cool situations with rambos. You do some stuff, suddently you get an "i need orders" alert, jump to this position and wtf imba phasegate inc. - its not always bad.
Maybe i'm wrong and i just cant think of a way to implement such a system(i dont think there is need for it)...
but before you try... punishment/restriction takes away fun and starts hate - thats one of the reasons why combat was so popular.
Comms couldn't always give weapons to all ppl, so they picked their friend or one dude they liked more. (even tho player X was a good and would deserve the weapon too)
Comms are human too, they dont always have the right answers, and make mistakes - punish a marine because they think he isnt worth a weapon -> marine says: ###### that i go play combat, noob com. ;P
Again: (assumend ppl wanna win)
If ppl have orders - they wont rambo. (IF you know the rules how to win, you wont kick the ball in your own goal.)
If ppl dont have orders - they rambo. (its not ai, they wont just sit in the base and wait)
=> pll need orders, but u cant always manage it.
(=> extra reward system doesnt really solve anything, punishment just makes it worse)
edit: *i dont wanna say you are not sane, it was just a statement about the playerbase
Now the only link is that marines need meds/ammo from the commander (which they can get easily from the seemingly abundance of armorys o_O) and- as someone stated- the 'teching up stage' in the first 5 mins of the game.
There's no more "hey dudes get here, i NEED you to build this!" There's only "hey guys if you like you could defend this, but if not 'sall good." Or he wouldn't have to say anything at all. He can play his little RTS game almost separate from the marines playing their little FPS game.
I think it's a very subtle tether that's been broken, but i feel it's pretty vital. There is no longer a need for a dedicated comm (which is think is an angle they were aiming for?). The alien team seems more forgiving of these new RTS elements since there was already a sort of every-man-for-himself sense to its gameplay (everyone with their own res pool).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with what's been said in this thread. But I'm going to have to bring in the old "it's a beta" excuse. Now I know that <i>you know</i> the game is still unfinished. Which is why I think it's unfair to make statements like, "it's a subtle tether that's been broken..."There is no longer a need for a dedicated comm". Both are true observations, but they're pointless observations to make at this point. Teching up is quick because resources have been inflated for the purposes of testing. The commander has little to do because not all of the content has been completed yet. Two of the three maps are tiny test maps, and even Tram was said to be one of the smaller maps out of the official maplist (if I recall correctly). The game is not well balanced yet, and therefore, as I've observed, nobody really cares to have a serious game. This, of course, results in uninteresting gameplay and no communication for both marines and commander when everyone is generally just goofing off.
It's far more useful to talk about how features that we know are working like they should are affecting the command experience. Now I agree that in some way, being able to buy your own weapon encourages rambo behaviour. At the same time, it's simply not fair for some players that they should be denied access to certain weapons simply because the commander says so. Imagine being an Alien, accumulating 50 res, and being forced to put up a hive instead of going Fade because someone on the team decides your K/D ratio isn't good enough. I can also imagine now that this is probably one of the reasons why UWE decided to introduce Alien commanders in NS2. After working hard to save up 50 res, who really wants to spend it on a hive? When I play NS2 on pubs, I'm seeing certain top players ALWAYS go Fade when they reach 50 res, even if it would be more beneficial for them to hive. This is really the crux of the problem in NS1 that NS2 is trying to fix, I think. The forced teamwork. Forced teamwork is never good. It should be highly encouraged at most, but never forced. In the worst of cases, it is game-breaking for the team, or fun-ruining for the individual.
Here's a great compromise for the issue of player buying their own weapons: allow players to buy weapons, AND allow the commander to equip marines of his choice. In addition, greatly increase the cost for all weapons so that most players will not be able to instantly buy back the same weapon after dying. What this means is that each player will be able to choose their weapon if they accumulate enough points, while still rewarding good or obedient players with more frequent use of these weapons.
But what about alien lifeforms? (@compromise idea)
edit: got it, comm doesnt give weapons he gives his own cash( or team res => player cash) to players of choice. (so it works for aliens too)
edit2: but whats with multi commanders? You dont give it - he takes it? Or tell another guy to do it...
edit3: must be his own cash to prevent this. So ppl can hopp in and give others a weapon, but it costs their cash.
edit4: maincommander(they want weapons too maybe?) can do it with team res, others only with their own - it starts to get complicated.
... i still dont know the names of the new resources, and which is for whom. Carbon? Energy?(structure) X?
this
or at least somthing to work with
L4D2 is in example of how as both sides you are forced into a situation whereby working as a team in a certain way will (more or less) result in an outcome.
The game psychology = help others to help yourself. If people on your team die, you die. If you are attacked, the first thing you should be doing is shooting the zombies off the most swarmed player. More importantly is the guy who has been incapacitated, and even more so the one who has been pounced/charged/smoked/jockeyed.
The hunter and charger tending to be the post problematic of the two, so you have to prioritise.
But essentially you are following methods and rules, but without realising it because the structure of the game mechanics are implemented so nicely. There is also added back story, your closeness with other players and most importantly HIGH levels of COMMUNICATION (most people use mics) brings players together unlike any other on-line game out at the moment. (WoW anyone?)
That is exactly what the commander/player relationship should be like. There is a huge amount of game design psychology that needs to be worked in (imo) that could make the marine/commander team more fore filling. Through communication and clever game design and structure.
Also, people do play proper games on servers at the moment. To the best of their ability as far as I know.
Rockdown is the most played map... there is no communication between players/commander yet you still do not know what your orders should be. Now imagine playing tram, or as suggested a larger map. There may be 5 straight build routes across the map from the start, and about 50 possible strategies (rush, relocate, etc).
Now imagine trying to command people who:
Do not need to build
Enjoy running around shooting stuff (most people do btw)
Have no incentive to obey the commander (because they think they know better)
Commander bogged down in micro management, so finds it difficult to command/way point
Finds supplying players clumsy and difficult
I know there is more to be done, but as was said a while ago. Not much is going to change from the current user interface. The problem is, the whole command experience is tied into how the user interface works, and how that relates to game mechanics.
The commander is an incredibly important, deep and complex role. It needs/requires these sorts of discussions.
Which is exactly why people go to the armoury, kit themselves a flame-thrower/GL, and run to the front line by themselves. Everyone does it.
If there was something in place that meant that this was counter productive, or short term rewards (for example) were implemented for being in a squad and obeying the comms orders. This would get players to be more involved with their team, increase team play, whilst not really thinking about why you are doing it.
I don't perhaps think this is the only answer, or even the right. But something like this needs to be in the game imo.
I think they know very well where the problems are. (ns1 worked out pretty good dont you think?)
We got a WIP game with lots of missing features - thats why, i can only say it again, we cant really complain - because we dont know whats coming.
How can you say there wont be many changes with the upcoming ui? Mentalist?
Maybe this whole thread is a waste of time, maybe not... we'll see.
PS: The topic changes every 2 posts, why do i even answer on suggestions?
edit: we can talk about psychological behaviours all day, but if you are ingame, and you get a waypoint - the first thing you do is, ignore it, grab a weapon, and rambo somewhere else? you say ###### that waypoint, who needs RTs(protect, assists building) - i dont need to buy weapons, i dont need upgrades? OR ###### that techpoint - who needs even bigger weapons bigger upgrades? (not enough short term rewards?)
@teamplay You say ###### the squad i can kill 2fades and 2onis alone? ... (without upgrades or big guns because u dont care about waypoints)
I never said the UI won't change (in fact, I know it will change).
And yes, people ignore waypoints, countless times I have given waypoints and nobody responds. The only time anyone ever responds is if I say "CC under attack" and that's only because if the CC dies, everyone is ######. There is an incentive to help, notice that if there is an INCENTIVE that people can see the SHORT TERM BENEFITS OF, they INSTINCTIVELY HELP. Keypoints highlighted to enhance your reading experience.
I haven't been given enough waypoints to ignore any, so I can't comment on what I would do. In the two times I got waypoints I followed them - but that's only because I consciously want to participate in a team-work based game.
~~~~~
One interesting thing I noticed in a match, I was sat as commander, we had been backed down to the last tech-point and I requested that they take the west-wing hive (over chat). I noticed that 2 marines ran in there and the other 2 ran to the central/east-wing hive. Then I noticed marines were running into the hive solo dying, doing it again, dying, doing it again. It was like watching lemmings run off a cliff.
I said to them, "stop, organize yourself into a 4 man group, then attack" followed by "work together". I received a reply from one person saying "just like you and everyone else was doing?" (sarcasm for those who don't realise). So the mentality of this person was "if they're not working as a team, I'll go rambo", this is the wrong mentality. What it should have been is "they're not working as a team, perhaps I could coordinate something" or "perhaps I could shadow someone as support". Though apparently the average person would not come to this conclusion. I was trying to coordinate marine efforts, it failed spectacularly. In the end we lost because the aliens raided the base with 2 fades and a lerk, who took out all the IPs and prevented the construction of more.
This is a good issue to talk about.
I think once the choices expand for commanders and the tiers of tech are filled out, soldiers will have to follow the commanders orders because the commander decides what gets researched (You can't buy a jetpack if the comm didn't research it). When the commander researches lots of weapons (and doesn't research even more because you have to choose), the communication will increase. Right now you can get everything because there's little to get and lots of resources to fund it. When NS2 is more feature complete, commanders and soldiers will ask each other what is wanted.
The most played map is small, reducing choices of movement and thus requiring little coordination because there are fewer viable strategies.
Ideally, each team should have 30 different weapons, 20 different classes, and 20 different buildings spread out over the three tech tiers (Like each race in SC2) and each map should have room for 8-10 resource expansions (like the most balanced and played map in SC2; Metalopolis). NS2 probably won't be as close to RTS strategic depth idealism as SC2 is. Modelling these things costs. Weapons are cheapest to model so that will probably be where our big number of choices will lie.
Now we ll start to circle again. I stick with... its beta, its not a real map, missing features, imbalanced stuff and res system - ppl know that, dont play seroius and like to play teamdeathmatch atm better. (i kill them all with my mighty gl, 1hit everything in a room dies. or we rush the marine base and auto-win on rockdown @ aliens Or i use the hole in rockdown and pwn the marine base from outside of the map as lerk)
<img src="http://image.jeuxvideo.com/images/pc/m/2/m2twpc139.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
That could let you see the health and armour of each marine and what they're equipped with (at least primary weapon would be easy), selecting units/squads can be quite straight forward as can zooming to specific marines, giving orders and possibly health etc (personally I'd rather not have the commander tied to baby-sitting). Whether units are moving, speaking, requesting something could also be flashed up quite neatly.
Regarding the encouragement of team play and order following - how about having an option to subsidise or penalise equipment purchase using team resources? Tagging people for the rest of the team to see a small icon or something to show "the commander is happy with x", or 'unhappy' as an alternative might also work - no impact on gameplay but it's nice to be appreciated (even if voice chat is better).
Would it be worth letting the commander have an option to chat only to selected players if he wanted to?
Oh and I think free-hand drawing on the minimap should be in for the commander (possibly wipe-able by marines to counter comedians) to show strategy etc without specific waypoints.
From what I know from public play (on rockdown):
- No one follows orders, player movement is random (because they are not connected in terms of location goals).
- The rare person actually holds the 2nd CC west whilst you build.
- Usually players push forward when you want them to stay back whilst you build.
- The players dictate the movement through the map, making way points pointless and commander decisions pointless.
- Relationship between player location/status/etc and the commander are not connected at all.
- Building, etc is still a pain - but you spend far too much time (micro) doing just that, rather than working with players.
The only time things really go well, is if there are some NS1 veterans on there and they are using the mic and 'understand' what the game involves because they have played it 1000 times already.
If the devs have really considered this by the way, you would have thought that at least some signs of it have made it into the game. They have not, they have not spoken about it, and considering all the posts on here the only thing that has been mentioned is that the UI/GUI is going to be made more slick.
That has nothing to do with the above.
I trust their ability to create a fantastic code, I do not even know how they have managed to create this game with this many people - I have been in Midway's offices in Newcastle/UK and there are like 40+ people working there full time on a console game, which I imagine is a hell of a lot easier to make because of all the support - and it looks great. It is amazing.
However, I am pretty sure they do not specialise in every area that makes up a game. So in some respects I do not trust all the decisions being made. They are only human, just as I am, just as you are. But the best products in any industry come from good communication between people of all specialities. Because an engineer is not a psychologist, and a psychologist is not a coder, and a coder is not a...