Commander-dropped weapons
Wheeee
Join Date: 2003-02-18 Member: 13713Members, Reinforced - Shadow
Join Date: 2003-02-18 Member: 13713Members, Reinforced - Shadow
<div class="IPBDescription">this really needs to be reinstated in some fashion</div>I've been thinking about the current resource model for marines, and I've got to say that while it's convenient for individual marines to be able to buy weapons, I'd like to discuss why this is a bad avenue to take.
First, let's take a look at the effects of individual buying:
* roughly mirrors the kharaa evolution path in which individuals buy their own upgrades, making the game easier to balance [in theory].
* eliminates comm from having the job of stockpiling res and dropping a bunch of weapons, which some feel cheapened the comm experience.
* allows marines more personalized choice of equipment. if there's only gl's on the ground and you want an hmg, you'd have to ask the comm before.
* encourages marines to move out on whim. If there's no reason to stick around in base waiting for a weapon, most players will immediately head for the action.
* shifts resource management away from the comm.
* requires marines to armory hump in order to get another weapon.
* tries to compensate for "bad commanding" - less chance of newbs getting ejected.
Being easier to balance is good, of course. However, I believe it really takes away from a good portion of the asymmetry in the game, and is not required for proper balancing. In most RTS's, there are 4 major factors that come into play. Map control, research/tech level, income/macro, and micro/troop strength. A good strategy game should allow you to sacrifice in one area for a gain in another. However, with individual buying this isn't possible. With each research upgrade, in fact, the comm loses more control over his troops - Perhaps a critical corridor needs to be cleared of DI, but your troops just went and bought HMGs and ran off to the nearest hotspot. Big deal, you say. Just communicate with your team better. But that's a naive solution, because a pubber is not going to go that path. You really have to handhold the average gamer before they'll do something. This system actually decreases the chance that pubbers will communicate with each other, because the team's and teammate's success has little immediate bearing on the availability of upgrades. I actually think it makes things a little more difficult to balance in another way, as upgrades that are supposed to be a hard counter or soft counter may not be utilized to the extent that the comm wishes. From my experience in beta, I think the comm has been relegated to a "tech status updater" instead of a "commander."
As to the argument of eliminating the need for comms to be the giver-of-weapons-in-the-sky, I feel that's foolish. Weapon dropping takes a few seconds at most, with the benefit of being able to control your unit composition. Do you feel frustrated that in starcraft, you have to manually pick which troops to train, instead of them just training random units whenever you have a barracks available? No. Because picking when and which unit to produce is extremely important. A successful timing push requires the right unit composition/upgrades and a sufficient number of units. How are you going to push an entrenched hive if everyone went and bought shotguns? You can't even be sure that your players will have enough res because most people just go and buy the highest-tier weapon available, without regard to res management. Comm wants you to get a GL? Too bad, because you just spent all your res on shotguns, rambo'd off and died after killing a skulk or two.
Third point - personalized weapon choice. On the surface, this is a great idea. It lets people play the way they want to But this is also a little problematic. Some weapons have a steeper learning curve than others. A shotgun is a lot harder to master than an HMG; a GL will be harder to use than a flamethrower. These imbalances will lead to people only buying the weapon type that they like, trying others a few times and not liking how they feel, and never getting them again. It causes a vicious cycle so that people who aren't good at a weapon never get better with them, leading to people complaining on the forums about how <xyz> is worthless and needs a buff, or how comm should have researched the weapon they like first. With a centralized distribution system, it's much easier to tell a player "this is the weapon that you're getting. If you suck with it, it hurts the team, so don't suck." Sure, you might have to ask the comm for a weapon that you like. However, this allows the comm to then follow up with "ok, here's your weapon, I need you to go use it in <xyz> location" - conveniently allowing the comm more direct tactical control over players and where weapons are deployed (whereas if the guy just went off and bought his own weapon, it's hard for the comm to tell what weapon he has and it's less likely that the player will follow the comm's orders). One of the most frustrating things about comming is when people don't listen to you. This system allows comms to reward players directly for following orders, which promotes team play.
Fourth point - this is a big issue for me. Managing unit deployment is a big deal in strategy games. Having them patrol a certain area, holding them back from attacking in order to build up strength or wait for upgrades, or advancing with a large force, using diversionary tactics - these are all made much harder with the individual-buy system. There is no incentive to stick around in base for 5 extra seconds to wait for a shotgun drop. There is no incentive to wait until everyone is equipped to move out. It actually increases the workload of the comm by a lot to have to keep track of individual players running off on their own. Players in the beta have been treating the game as sort of a deathmatch, ns-combat style. I don't see how this in any way contributes to NS as a strategy game.
Fifth point - shifting resource management away from the comm. I can see this as a valid argument for individual-buy because apparently we're trying to shift away from apm-intensive gaming, but at the same time, this makes it harder for the comm to get a clear picture of the team's macro status. Do his players have enough res to buy a higher tech weapon after you research it? Which players are able to buy what, which players have what weapons? What would benefit the team more, an upgrade to weapons/armor or researching some other tech? Should the overall strategy focus on getting more resource points, or should I play defensively and secure the portions of the map I control? It's hard to answer these questions without having an accurate knowledge of the overall state of resources in the team, or being able to control it. And honestly, the only real apm-intensive thing going on for comm is dropping health/ammo spam.
armory humping needs no explanation.
Lastly, mitigating the effect a bad commander has on the team. I'm not sure this is entirely possible given that the comm has direct control over the entirety of the marine infrastructure. IMO the way to deal with bad comms is to make them better comms, and the best way for a new commander to learn is to interact with his team. Ask questions, get answers. I remember the first time I commed in NS1, it was in ns_nancy and the players were very helpful in pointing out what was what. Without that I wouldn't have caught on nearly as quickly. No amount of tooltips can properly guide a comm wrt strategy; we may see something like the jp-hmg rush become prevalent again, and a newb comm could get ejected for not doing it. I believe that comm drops are actually a rewarding experience for the commander - it's very satisfying to see the results of your weapon-spamming when you run a train on a hive.
Discuss.
First, let's take a look at the effects of individual buying:
* roughly mirrors the kharaa evolution path in which individuals buy their own upgrades, making the game easier to balance [in theory].
* eliminates comm from having the job of stockpiling res and dropping a bunch of weapons, which some feel cheapened the comm experience.
* allows marines more personalized choice of equipment. if there's only gl's on the ground and you want an hmg, you'd have to ask the comm before.
* encourages marines to move out on whim. If there's no reason to stick around in base waiting for a weapon, most players will immediately head for the action.
* shifts resource management away from the comm.
* requires marines to armory hump in order to get another weapon.
* tries to compensate for "bad commanding" - less chance of newbs getting ejected.
Being easier to balance is good, of course. However, I believe it really takes away from a good portion of the asymmetry in the game, and is not required for proper balancing. In most RTS's, there are 4 major factors that come into play. Map control, research/tech level, income/macro, and micro/troop strength. A good strategy game should allow you to sacrifice in one area for a gain in another. However, with individual buying this isn't possible. With each research upgrade, in fact, the comm loses more control over his troops - Perhaps a critical corridor needs to be cleared of DI, but your troops just went and bought HMGs and ran off to the nearest hotspot. Big deal, you say. Just communicate with your team better. But that's a naive solution, because a pubber is not going to go that path. You really have to handhold the average gamer before they'll do something. This system actually decreases the chance that pubbers will communicate with each other, because the team's and teammate's success has little immediate bearing on the availability of upgrades. I actually think it makes things a little more difficult to balance in another way, as upgrades that are supposed to be a hard counter or soft counter may not be utilized to the extent that the comm wishes. From my experience in beta, I think the comm has been relegated to a "tech status updater" instead of a "commander."
As to the argument of eliminating the need for comms to be the giver-of-weapons-in-the-sky, I feel that's foolish. Weapon dropping takes a few seconds at most, with the benefit of being able to control your unit composition. Do you feel frustrated that in starcraft, you have to manually pick which troops to train, instead of them just training random units whenever you have a barracks available? No. Because picking when and which unit to produce is extremely important. A successful timing push requires the right unit composition/upgrades and a sufficient number of units. How are you going to push an entrenched hive if everyone went and bought shotguns? You can't even be sure that your players will have enough res because most people just go and buy the highest-tier weapon available, without regard to res management. Comm wants you to get a GL? Too bad, because you just spent all your res on shotguns, rambo'd off and died after killing a skulk or two.
Third point - personalized weapon choice. On the surface, this is a great idea. It lets people play the way they want to But this is also a little problematic. Some weapons have a steeper learning curve than others. A shotgun is a lot harder to master than an HMG; a GL will be harder to use than a flamethrower. These imbalances will lead to people only buying the weapon type that they like, trying others a few times and not liking how they feel, and never getting them again. It causes a vicious cycle so that people who aren't good at a weapon never get better with them, leading to people complaining on the forums about how <xyz> is worthless and needs a buff, or how comm should have researched the weapon they like first. With a centralized distribution system, it's much easier to tell a player "this is the weapon that you're getting. If you suck with it, it hurts the team, so don't suck." Sure, you might have to ask the comm for a weapon that you like. However, this allows the comm to then follow up with "ok, here's your weapon, I need you to go use it in <xyz> location" - conveniently allowing the comm more direct tactical control over players and where weapons are deployed (whereas if the guy just went off and bought his own weapon, it's hard for the comm to tell what weapon he has and it's less likely that the player will follow the comm's orders). One of the most frustrating things about comming is when people don't listen to you. This system allows comms to reward players directly for following orders, which promotes team play.
Fourth point - this is a big issue for me. Managing unit deployment is a big deal in strategy games. Having them patrol a certain area, holding them back from attacking in order to build up strength or wait for upgrades, or advancing with a large force, using diversionary tactics - these are all made much harder with the individual-buy system. There is no incentive to stick around in base for 5 extra seconds to wait for a shotgun drop. There is no incentive to wait until everyone is equipped to move out. It actually increases the workload of the comm by a lot to have to keep track of individual players running off on their own. Players in the beta have been treating the game as sort of a deathmatch, ns-combat style. I don't see how this in any way contributes to NS as a strategy game.
Fifth point - shifting resource management away from the comm. I can see this as a valid argument for individual-buy because apparently we're trying to shift away from apm-intensive gaming, but at the same time, this makes it harder for the comm to get a clear picture of the team's macro status. Do his players have enough res to buy a higher tech weapon after you research it? Which players are able to buy what, which players have what weapons? What would benefit the team more, an upgrade to weapons/armor or researching some other tech? Should the overall strategy focus on getting more resource points, or should I play defensively and secure the portions of the map I control? It's hard to answer these questions without having an accurate knowledge of the overall state of resources in the team, or being able to control it. And honestly, the only real apm-intensive thing going on for comm is dropping health/ammo spam.
armory humping needs no explanation.
Lastly, mitigating the effect a bad commander has on the team. I'm not sure this is entirely possible given that the comm has direct control over the entirety of the marine infrastructure. IMO the way to deal with bad comms is to make them better comms, and the best way for a new commander to learn is to interact with his team. Ask questions, get answers. I remember the first time I commed in NS1, it was in ns_nancy and the players were very helpful in pointing out what was what. Without that I wouldn't have caught on nearly as quickly. No amount of tooltips can properly guide a comm wrt strategy; we may see something like the jp-hmg rush become prevalent again, and a newb comm could get ejected for not doing it. I believe that comm drops are actually a rewarding experience for the commander - it's very satisfying to see the results of your weapon-spamming when you run a train on a hive.
Discuss.
Comments
the buy menu concept has already been implemented and it isn't going anywhere (unfortunately imo)
that being said, if one wants to fix the apparent marine indifference towards teamwork, plasma should be more difficult to obtain.
<b>maybe commanders should distribute plasma to players</b> so that marines can be more obedient and also have an incentive to help to get their little pew pew upgrades...
the buy menu concept has already been implemented and it isn't going anywhere (unfortunately imo)
that being said, if one wants to fix the apparent marine indifference towards teamwork, plasma should be more difficult to obtain.
<b>maybe commanders should distribute plasma to players</b> so that marines can be more obedient and also have an incentive to help to get their little pew pew upgrades...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
it was discussed millions of times before there was a testable game. now that there's a game, i feel it warrants a revisit.
I'm aware the buy menu is implemented. It doesn't have to go away; for example instead of just giving a marine the weapon, allow him to place an order for a weapon from the armory. the comm can then grant it or not.
I disagree entirely. Firstly, you're significantly downplaying the importance of letting people play the way they want to. True, players will have a preference towards the use of certain weapons that may not be the best weapons to use given the battlefield situation, but having one person in control over the amount of fun you're allowed to have in a game is just <i>bad</i>, fundamentally. Furthermore, the situation you describe is not a vicious cycle. Players will always have a preference for one thing over another. Allowing only the commander to drop weapons creates a terrible vicious cycle where, only the good players are dropped weapons because they are good, and bad players are never given the chance to improve because they are bad. It would be like having the Alien Commander decide what lifeform you are allowed to evolve into.
You make some good points, but the fun factor of allowing players to purchase their own weapons is too great too ignore, especially since NS2 is aimed at a bigger market. However, I have thought of a solution. Simply adjust the cost of weapons such that marines will only occasionally be able to purchase their own weapons, and give the commander the ability to drop weapons. This means that most of the arming will be done by the commander, while still allowing a marine to purchase his own weapon if he really wants to and only if he has enough res to do so, which implies that he is still contributing to the team. So while an individual marine may only have enough resources to purchase a flamethrower a total of 3 times in fifteen minutes, the commander will have a much greater supply of weapons, and thus greater control over what weapons marines are using. And if a commander really doesn't like the fact that a rogue marine is using a flamethrower, that's fine. The commander can let him die.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm aware the buy menu is implemented. It doesn't have to go away; for example instead of just giving a marine the weapon, allow him to place an order for a weapon from the armory. the comm can then grant it or not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would be identical to the NS1 system, i.e., only the commander can authorize use of special weapons. The entire point of the buy menu (as I understand it) is that the player's access to game content isn't limited by a single player.
Good points. I like your solution, it's a simple idea and would address many issues.
Chris0132 why do you hate commanders? In every thread I notice you are arguing that Commanders shouldnt be able to do X, or that soldiers should be able to do Y thing that the Commander usually does. Its like you want NS2 to not have commanders at all. You must have serious authority issues.
I never liked the way it was, letting the comm to drop you the guns when most of the time he was busy helping marines under attack. The new system is perfect, so the comm can concentrate in help and direct marines and not have to deal with whiny people asking for GLs or HMGs.
what about having different gamemodes?
you can have one for those guys preferring the commander-lord-of-all-weapons-and-stuff-mode and one for those who like to be more independent and chose their loadout on their own.
I think the new way of getting weapons speeds up the game (maybe you can compare it somehow to the combat mode in ns1) making it more attractive to new players.
personally I prefer the old way, but that's just my view.
Authority is fine if you have an extensive meritocratic system and vast pool of people to draw from at all times in order to ensure that the only people who get authority are extremely competent and that there are always people available to replace them in the even they are lost.
However hierarchical systems in general are a bad idea, because if everything stems from the dude in charge if for any reason the dude in charge can't be in charge then everything else collapses, hence why countries led by dictatorships are usually terrible because every time the leader dies or gets usurped they basically collapse.
In terms of NS, you have say a dozen people per team on the server, so you have a very small pool of talent, commanders are chosen by whoever gets into the chair or possibly vote, neither of which is a meritocratic system and so you have no guarantee of their competence, and all of this means that when they inevitably mess up, the game collapses.
I would prefer you find a way to move all vital or enjoyable functions away from the commander and either automate them or distribute them among players so that the general random action of the team causes them to work. Having a guy to organise the team is fine, but having a guy be neccesary in order for spawns and weapons and escalation to function for your team is not a good idea.
The multiple commander system distributes the whole commander idea among multiple players, so I think it's a very good idea, if you must have commanders then multiple commanders is probably the way to go. Things like weapons don't need a commander, so don't have the commander be involved. It is more fun to be able to pick the guns I like, and more practical to have the weapon distributing process be automated.
There are better and more constructive ways to get human players to interact with the commander.
Making marines jump up and down in the base so they can get a weapon does not improve the game, it just means people get whinny without doing anything unless they get what they want.
The power should be with the commander, and if anything - marines should be given the reward of access to weapons for completing tasks that help the team.
It makes a hell of a lot more sense than physically giving it to the player.
Anything and everything should have a positive outcome for the commander - in terms of winning the game.
Do this - you get this.
Simple.
Biggest flaws probably lie in the public play, for example there will be a moment when everyone gets a shotgun at the same time while in NS1 this would have been all-in last resort stuff in NS2 the commanders play remains almost uneffected balancing something sudden like this without effectively nerfing its potential at rushes or as an invidual weapon too much may prove troublesome. Also in public since the guns are distribuded unevenly time wise chances are there will never be actual push to the RTS only few rambo heroes.
All things on the OP's list are fundamentally wrong (except the first) anyways, only thing it really improves is the case where completely retarded comm hobs in taking away your chances of getting a gun. I would not build an idea over something where players are not doing it right.
In public games where the com does not necesseraly have the micro skills so place all the weapons, you can get your weapon. Keep in mind that you are limited by your resources.
In competitive play the team can still listen to the commander for what weapon to get.
So, i like the new system, not every change is bad.
In public games where the com does not necesseraly have the micro skills so place all the weapons, you can get your weapon. Keep in mind that you are limited by your resources.
In competitive play the team can still listen to the commander for what weapon to get.
So, i like the new system, not every change is bad.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly my opinion. Commander can still tell people what weapons to get to fit a certain strategy. Sure, things will be a little more chaotic in your random public game, but then again: most team-based games are played very differently in public games.
I agree. Active economic planning combined with limited private enterprise could make a great basis for a equal and healthy society. Being able to plan long term is incredibly important. Just take a look at how our current market system is unable and more importantly unwilling to do anything about the climate crisis.
On a more related note, I like the idea of how that'd work in a team. You'd have an increased ability to affect the state of the game on your own depending on your current form and interpretation of the state of the round, while keeping the base mechanics of the RTS part of the game more or less intact. It balances the need for players to be able to play the way they want with keeping the integrity of the game design.
I had imagined it that way too.
The current problems are all related to comm/player interaction. You need mini goals for the players, so that they feel they have a purpose. Currently there are none.
Like single player games (go here, do this, have conversation with this guy) you need something to aim towards every 4/5 minutes, otherwise people feel lost.
the buy menu concept has already been implemented and it isn't going anywhere (unfortunately imo)
that being said, if one wants to fix the apparent marine indifference towards teamwork, plasma should be more difficult to obtain.
<b>maybe commanders should distribute plasma to players</b> so that marines can be more obedient and also have an incentive to help to get their little pew pew upgrades...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
+1 for giving the comm the ability to reward good players with the plasma they need to get their weps.
Really? care to explain why? It seems like most people in this thread like the combat-style deathmatch thing. In reality, you're still limited in your choice of weapon bt 1 player because in the end, he's the one who picks what gets researched.
A) Allow the commander to issue actual commands to squads/individual players, such as "Take and Hold", "Attack", "Build", etc.
B) Once the task is completed, the squads are given plasma, which will allow them to buy equipment
C) Reduce individual resource intake
This should be the carrot/stick - listen to the comms orders, you get the stuff you need to play as you want, <b>sooner, and more often</b>. This means you get more for listening to the commander, and going rambo simply isn't sustainable unless you're a god.
Players aren't brain dead, they know what needs doing if you give them the information, just tell them if the aliens start attacking somewhere and they will figure out that they should defend the place on their own. Or say something like 'aliens attacking here need someone to defend'. If you give good orders players will follow them because it is in their interest to do so.
Of course if you just give orders without any apparent reason to them then they quite possibly won't be followed.
The fact he has a top down view of the map, can see the whole battlefield and talk to players and give orders; is that not a HUGE advantage that should be made use of.
It is not about players being brain dead.
But I am yet to see a player on any server (unless the comm is using a mic) knowing what the common goal (go here, build this, hold position) is, or what threats are around the corner. Even then you never really take notice of way points (which is the transition and visual cue for players) because they need to be more prominent.
People are not brain dead - but unless you communicate whether it be mic/way points/etc then you can not have a common or planned interest.
If you have played intelligently designed games like the L4D series, you will realise that it forces you to have a mic. I think this is a good thing, and I love that I am talking to three other people saying:
"Smoker get on the roof, boomer get in position next to him, charger get ready after everyone has gone in"
The kill is 'that much more' satisfying.
I like this. Let's say plasma is slower to obtain but the comm has an ability to convert carbon into plasma and hand to players in need. This would mean players can still get upgrades (if they have enough plasma) but if for example the comm wants to execute a rush he can disperse plasma to the players to gear up quickly and head out.
Benefits I see would include giving the comm some more control over resources to the players while still allowing the players to choose their equipment instead of hoping the comm drops what they want. Ties between the comm and players are good, but I can understand where the NS1 model was considered maybe TOO dependent on the comm in situations of mass noobage and this might make a pretty happy medium?
Conversely I feel the aliens should be the opposite where plasma comes in quicker but carbon takes longer. This would mean the comm has to make better decisions and emphasis is more on the players managing their own res. Besides, right now it feels like the alien comm can immediately get a hive, harvesters, and spam chambers all over the map without running out of carbon.
This is how I want it to be. If the Commander buys the weapons then the marines decide if they want it or not. Then people can't moan about the commander and marines working together and it doesn't change the armoury system that is in place at the moment.
It is a BENEFIT for everyone :)
The best and most obedient players are awarded res automatically for completing tasks (such as building/working as a squad/way points) and can purchase better weapons.
Otherwise this is going to be 'Wii Puppy' or something.
Positives:
- Players have goals
- Increased communication
- Increased team Work
- Less time micromanaging
- You spend time actually playing the game to solve the problem, not doing something directly to solve a problem that is not related to playing the game