Multiple Commanders Hierachy
radforChrist
USA Join Date: 2002-11-04 Member: 6871Members, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Subnautica Playtester
USA Join Date: 2002-11-04 Member: 6871Members, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Subnautica Playtester
<div class="IPBDescription">To prevent conflict strategies and griefing</div>I placed this in the Build 175 thread, but I thought I'd separate it for opinion/discussion.
Could we have a commander hierarchy where the initial commander is the <b>Primary Commander</b>, and has full access to resource management and plasma/energy/whatever, and can research upgrades and place/recycle buildings? Additional commanders are <b>SubCommanders</b>, and can only spend energy (meds/ammo), give Waypoints, make/change squads, and move/create/control MACs?
This removes multiple commanders with separate strategies wasting resources and time, and prevents a major level of griefing. It allows the primary comm to be the general leading the troops, and the sub commanders are the field commanders... The Primary Commander can at anytime demote him/herself by promoting a SubCommander, thus moving him/herself to SubCommanders status, and if ejected by the team, the next in line is automatically elected primary?
Could we have a commander hierarchy where the initial commander is the <b>Primary Commander</b>, and has full access to resource management and plasma/energy/whatever, and can research upgrades and place/recycle buildings? Additional commanders are <b>SubCommanders</b>, and can only spend energy (meds/ammo), give Waypoints, make/change squads, and move/create/control MACs?
This removes multiple commanders with separate strategies wasting resources and time, and prevents a major level of griefing. It allows the primary comm to be the general leading the troops, and the sub commanders are the field commanders... The Primary Commander can at anytime demote him/herself by promoting a SubCommander, thus moving him/herself to SubCommanders status, and if ejected by the team, the next in line is automatically elected primary?
Comments
(of course, if he exits the com chair or if his game crashes, all chairs will be unlocked again)
Could we have a commander hierarchy where the initial commander is the <b>Primary Commander</b>, and has full access to resource management and plasma/energy/whatever, and can research upgrades and place/recycle buildings? Additional commanders are <b>SubCommanders</b>, and can only spend energy (meds/ammo), give Waypoints, make/change squads, and move/create/control MACs?
This removes multiple commanders with separate strategies wasting resources and time, and prevents a major level of griefing. It allows the primary comm to be the general leading the troops, and the sub commanders are the field commanders... The Primary Commander can at anytime demote him/herself by promoting a SubCommander, thus moving him/herself to SubCommanders status, and if ejected by the team, the next in line is automatically elected primary?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Make it automatic. Could always just be tied to whomever is in the highest-tier chair. If there's a tie, seniority rules.
When this idea was first released I made a <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=102260&st=240&start=243" target="_blank">few</a> <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=107005&view=findpost&p=1718808" target="_blank">posts</a> about why I thought the RTS / Commanding side in NS1 was lacking and why adding another commander will not improve anything. My biggest problem with 2 comms is that it's taking the single comm, which is no where near as engaging as an actual RTS, and splitting the duties between two people. So far, in NS2, we've only seen a <i>reduction</i> in the role the commander plays (removed weapon/tech handouts, added marine building back in thereby making build bots no longer a necessity). Why split this role when it's already been reduced?
I don't see anything in NS2 that would make even an average RTS gamer feel overwhelmed. Unless there is some huge and game changing element to the RTS side we have yet to learn about I'm shocked UWE is wasting resources on such a meaningless feature.
Truthfully I'd never build a second CC other than to relocate. However, UWE doesn't seem to be interested in revisiting this idea, so I'm trying to minimize it as much as possible. I've been griefed in NS2 purposefully, and it is not fun. But much MORE often have I been saving res for an upgrade/building, someone hops in another chair, drops a sentry, and boom, plan is gone...
They weren't trying to troll or grief, but that sentry can't be recycled for full amount, and now we're knocked back XX time as we wait to tech.
Preferred, one CC, tech points take a new role, and CC's can be built anywhere and MAYBE multiple commanders.
Likely, let's do what we can to minimize impact of multiple commanding's negtive effects.
I like how the commander setup is now. Let's see how it plays in 32 player games before condemning it.
I foresee huge amounts of griefing :/
What would be nice is a 'don't let other commanders interfere' toggle of sorts that locks the macs you control at least and maybe some of the structures.
That may occur, but in well run servers with good admin's who kick & ban people for poor behavior, multiple commanders might work well. Time will tell.
I know I say I'd much prefer to see separation of command console and default techpoint structure, but I'll admit myself, there are some major benefits to the tech points being CCs. I can have my team immediately spawn via IP at a forward location. Often on small games I leave my chair and go to a point that is a riskier location to help defend it (West on Rockdown for instance), instead of placing a lot of sentries. <i>There are some great advantages.</i>
But there are some major disadvantages as well. And at this stage of the game, we're supposed to be playing with only people who pre-ordered the game, NS2 enthusiasts you might say. These guys/gals are supposed to be the ones who get it, and are trying to make NS2 into a great game. If griefing and/or multiple comms ruining tech strategy are already a problem, I think it better dealt with by the developers now intrinsically, not a server plugin that may or may not be on all servers. It will probably only get worse as the playerbase and game sizes increase.
<b>How to implement?</b> Initial commander is assigned Primary. On the Comm HUD, the right side shows the commander, and underneath in smaller letters his/her location. The Primary has a star. If the primary commander wished to delegate his/her authority to another, right click on another comm, Promote to Primary. S/he immediately becomes subcommander. S/he leaves the chair as Primary, automatically delegates to next in line.
Marines have similar HUD or pop up menu, except it can Eject/Demote whichever commander they wish, so marines have a say/control as well. Any commander demoted cannot be primary commander for the round. And commander ejected cannot re-enter the comm chair for the round. All eject votes count as demote votes, so an unruly commander may be demoted even if there aren't enough to eject, thereby minimizing his/her damage.
A graphical thing I was going to suggest is when a lifeform or structure is in the CC that cannot operate it, the blue GUI goes red. A skulk on the CC changes it. A commander who's been ejected changes it. That's just cosmetic, but nifty.
Implementing something that requires constant admin attention is poor game design. Better to remove (or severely reduce) all potential exploits/things that can be griefed.
I actually really like this implementation. It lets the original commander approve of other commanders. In addition, features such as med packs and ammo should always be unlocked as they don't spend team res and have no real potential to interfere with the original comm's commanding. I just don't want to see CCs totally lockable (as in you can't even enter it) as there are reasons for a marine to jump in quickly to avoid being bitten or drop a bunch of meds/ammo if there is no armory in the room yet.
This.
Also, the lockable/unlockable comm idea would prevent the conflicts/griefing at the expense of making the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. comm all but useless. Why get in comm except to do things that spend TRes? Also, would the 2nd/etc. comm be able to use structure energy (like spread DI or spawn MACs)? If so, that could conflict/be as griefable as spending TRes or, if its restricted, further limit the usefulness of being a 2nd comm.
While I think UWE should keep the feature for modders, I don't see multiple comms working well with NS2 as currently designed. The only way I see it working is if UWE implemented a whole set of unneeded, but useful things that a 2nd comm could do without interrupting the strategy of the 1st comm.
To do things that spend PRes. For Marines, Med/Ammo/Catpack spam, controlling MACs and their eventual abilities, micromanaging squads.
For Aliens... well I guess nothing, but that and the issue of multiple comms using structure Energy are just another reason to change Energy costs to P.Res costs instead (and possibly per-Commander cooldowns).
For Aliens... well I guess nothing, but that and the issue of multiple comms using structure Energy are just another reason to change Energy costs to P.Res costs instead (and possibly per-Commander cooldowns).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So the 2nd+ comm(s) would simply be glorified squad leaders in a RTS-view? Why not just designate squad leaders in the FPS-view and give them the ability to drop packs/control MAC movement/micromanage squads instead? I could see the use of having multiple comms if NS2 we're planning to have 50v50 matches, but not 16v16. The benefit of having another comm micromanage squads from the RTS-view is much less than having another player actually on the frontline and fighting, IMO.
For aliens, well, maybe have 'em locked to only 1 comm, since in a way gorges could be considered subcomms.
I personally don't think the current system is bad or broken or anything since there's really not a lot of players who even get close to the CCs anyway. If you communicate and actually manage "cooperation" (ideal, I know, but <u>can</u> actually happen), then this whole concern is moot.
And is griefing that widespread of a problem really? I've had no such experiences as of yet...
<!--quoteo(post=1843109:date=Apr 29 2011, 02:42 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Apr 29 2011, 02:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1843109"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know why people don't use the I&S forums... that place needs more love.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure but do any of the devs even look in there, ever? Hell, do they even look in here? It's nice to discuss and debate stuff with fellow NSers, but if it's going nowhere it all feels kinda pointless.
No, but
1. It does occur in the beta, and
2. It will get increasingly worse as more people start playing NS2
If it can be griefed, it will be griefed, and it would be best for UWE to eliminate those problems before the full release, so that they don't get many of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPoKaoJu0m4" target="_blank">these types of videos</a>.
Being COM in NS2 isn’t a huge departure from COM in NS. I would team up with a player on several games and we had a game plan that never failed. We would have at least two com chairs sometimes more. One would be top com and set the game plan. We found that I was better on some maps and was 2com on others. We would switch in and out depending on what was needed. With PGs and several com chairs the reaction time to different points was devastating to the enemy. The other players were told to stay out of com and if anybody jumped in we would vote eject them. We had people who would look for our two names together on a server and join. To be honest I wasn’t and still I’m not a very good COM but that team up never lost a game. Two COMs in sync could work out.
The problem is that the ways to make it 'griefer-proof' also make the 2nd comm fairly worthless. For the purposes of NS2, they should just scrap the multi-comm concept and save it for a future UWE game.
That said, having multi-comms does actually seem unnecessary at the moment, what with hardly anyone actually wanting to comm.
I don't agree with that extreme, but if you play NS1 at ALL right now it's a griefer's paradise. And unfortunately, the names in NS1 that grief play NS2 as well. I don't know what it is about NS in general, but there are some amazing players, and there are the 4Chan of internet gaming. We attract a disproportionate amount of the latter.
I can't wait for bans on server to help with this, but the main point here is if people are willing to play a pre-beta, pre-release game and grief it already, despite it's playability and bugs, then it's a safe bet to say the same people who derive joy from screwing it up for others can only increase.
I agree with you entirely, was just playing the devil's advocate.
<!--quoteo(post=1843257:date=Apr 29 2011, 09:52 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Apr 29 2011, 09:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1843257"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Maybe if people used I&S instead of clogging up the General Discussion channel, devs would be more inclined to look there.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aren't alternative solutions to be expected in any discussion? We derive suggestions from the same place we formulate arguments, from applying current knowledge to past experiences.
<!--quoteo(post=1843282:date=Apr 29 2011, 11:53 PM:name=CaCa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CaCa @ Apr 29 2011, 11:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1843282"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Whoah. Aren't you exaggerating a bit? Going a bit to the extreme? I mean, sure, it'll happen, but probably not so often that you need to scrap the whole feature just because of griefer-paranoia...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's challenging a system. That's what beta testing is about.