Command Ranks

Whalenator · 2012-03-07, 10:46 PM

>Click Here<

Matt Higby: "It's almost like twitter! Where you have three people that you can follow basically, and based on their current number of followers they can put missions in that are higher level or lower level. So you can have like one dude on your server that's like the most badass guy on the NC, and you want to follow him because he's always creating badass missions. You might also want to follow your guild leader because the Guild Leader is going to kick you out of the fucking guild unless you follow him -- So you're going to follow him for now, right? So you're following that dude, and maybe you're following some other guy too. And[sic] these guys are able to get missions from all three of these guys, but their missions are based on the number of people who are actually following them. So the most effective leaders are getting uh...the most followers, and therefore getting the best bonuses for doing stuff. We thinks it's a really cool system that could work really well, it's speculated at that time whether or not that's how we'll actually implement it. But that's the design at it stands now."

Now, I for one do not ever want to see the competition for high Command Ranks turn into a popularity contest. The game already has been dumbed down enough to let converts from all sorts of simpler titles transition to Planetside: For example, the game moves at faster pace and has a significantly smaller vehicle pool. Now while those changes aren't inherently bad, they do present a conflict with the proposed Command Rank system.

Higby assumed in the interview that players would pick the commanders most fit for their role. As I stated earlier, the player base of Planetside 2 will be larger and wider. Not all of those moving from different games will appreciate Planetside's use of strategy in the large scale. Even less will actually care to participate. I'm unsure whether Higby intended for missions created to be viewable by squad, outfit, followers or faction, but in any case this "twitter-themed" style is a dangerous road.

Now I hope the previous statements do not express that I am vehemently opposed to the idea of a follower-run command system. In fact, I'm far from it. But it's a fine line we're treading on. I can only imagine and fear the imminent avalanche of a popularity contest this would turn into. But I love you anyways, higgles.

also where is my freelook

Sirisian · 2012-03-07, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by Whalenator

The game already has been dumbed down enough to let converts from all sorts of simpler titles transition to Planetside: For example, the game moves at faster pace and has a significantly smaller vehicle pool. Now while those changes aren't inherently bad, they do present a conflict with the proposed Command Rank system.

Focus on what you quoted. It's a poor form of debate/discussion to try to relate something totally unrelated to another game feature to make a point.

Originally Posted by Whalenator

Higby assumed in the interview that players would pick the commanders most fit for their role. As I stated earlier, the player base of Planetside 2 will be larger and wider. Not all of those moving from different games will appreciate Planetside's use of strategy in the large scale. Even less will actually care to participate. I'm unsure whether Higby intended for missions created to be viewable by squad, outfit, followers or faction, but in any case this "twitter-themed" style is a dangerous road.

It's an excellent system. It allows people to register for essentially missions they want to do. They don't have to listen to hundreds of commanders trying to direct them around which was a problem in PS1. You're going to see a group of skilled leaders form. Not all of them will be on all the time or in the same regions you want to fight.

Whalenator · 2012-03-07, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Focus on what you quoted. It's a poor form of debate/discussion to try to relate something totally unrelated to another game feature to make a point.

Thank you for personally criticizing my methods of relating topics, something I did for the sole purpose of allowing a better understanding of the topic as a whole.

Originally Posted by Sirisian

It's an excellent system. It allows people to register for essentially missions they want to do. They don't have to listen to hundreds of commanders trying to direct them around which was a problem in PS1. You're going to see a group of skilled leaders form. Not all of them will be on all the time or in the same regions you want to fight.

Sirisian; I'm not sure you understand what I meant, or what higby was explaining. (correct me if I'm mistaken) When he said it was like twitter, it wasn't necessarily that you would only receive missions from commanders you followed, just that by following them you provided them with the ability of making larger missions. Again, people will advertise desperately for a spot. Anyone with popularity can register and "command".

Death2All · 2012-03-07, 11:09 PM

I understand your concern for the game. Anyone with a large following, say a very popular Youtuber could ask all his channel to all follow him on PS2 and suddenly he has access to all the high tier command abilities and can basically control all of his followers.

On the other spectrum you do not HAVE to follow that person. I think we'll certainly be able to wade through the bullshit, it's still a potential problem though.

I do like their take on commanding this time around. It's for people who actually WANT to do it, instead of people who just happened to grind for it and suddenly they can global immature messages to EVERYONE in the world on their empire.

I guess it's something that will have to be carefully looked at and implemented properly in beta.

Marsman · 2012-03-07, 11:14 PM

The idea has merit, but it needs to be expanded to include results as a leader... a form of rank that indicates success.

In PS1 we saw a fair amount of "we'll take anyone" type outfits. I would hate to see one of these take one of their leaders to the top of the charts simple because they have huge outfit numbers - it says nothing about how "well" this person is as a leader - simple that they're popular. It shouldn't become a popularity contest by followers alone.

It needs to be tied with the effectiveness of a leader... how many of their missions are successful.. are they good missions? Do their missions achieve results for their empire? Some way to quantify their ability to be effective - not just someone with the most followers.

Reni · 2012-03-08, 12:08 AM

Originally Posted by Marsman

...It needs to be tied with the effectiveness of a leader... how many of their missions are successful.. are they good missions? Do their missions achieve results for their empire? Some way to quantify their ability to be effective - not just someone with the most followers.

^^This.

I'm sorry but if this only results in a popularity contest then this shit is going to get old QUICK. Plus...we are going to get bombarded with messages like, "hey will you follow me cuz i tink i can cmd and be rlly dope yo".

Garem · 2012-03-08, 12:18 AM

I kind of like the free-market style of this. I mean, winning popularity contests does mean something. You're popular enough for people to listen to you, whatever that reason may be.

It seems a little crazy to immediately dismiss someone based on these grounds alone. They probably got to being popular for a reason.

I'm not saying the system is perfect, but the "zoMg no popularity contests plz" argument doesn't hold. If they offer bad missions, oh well, they're not going to be as well rewarded as the good commander that only the good players know about.

Most importantly perhaps, popularity should definitely play a role at least somehow. If you're an asshole commander but you're GREAT at it, who gives a shit? This is a game. People shouldn't be pushed to play with people they don't want to play with by disincentivizing their free choices to do so.

Free markets on commanders, I say. Let the people choose based on whatever criteria they wish, not what this community (or any other community) thinks is in their best interests.

Sardus · 2012-03-07, 11:22 PM

I think the system will work well as long as you are able to take.. let's say.. up to three missions as a time.

It generally follows the same concept as PS1... people listen to the commanders (CR5s) that do a good job, and treat people well. It was pretty clear when someone logged in that he or she was worth listening to.

This system encourages good leaders to succeed, but by allowing you to take up to 3 missions at a time for example, it reduces the "popularity" contest thing.

And of course it should be designed in such a way that following your outfit leader gives the largest bonus, followed by squad leaders, and then "empire commanders". If those align and you actually get credit for multiple missions at once, is that such a bad thing? Synergy means you're doing it right.

Bittermen · 2012-03-07, 11:25 PM

you probably have to have some sort of to skill to create missions in the first place... correct?

Tom Peters · 2012-03-07, 11:29 PM

I don't like how he says "you have three people you can follow basically." It sounds like they're be putting an unnecessary cap on it. The more leaders you follow, the more missions you'll be able to look through to find one that meets your specifications.

This is clearly going to be an important part of the command structure of Planetside 2, and they still have plenty of time left to redux it if need be.

nomotog · 2012-03-07, 11:56 PM

Seems like a rather democratic way to do command. We kind of need more details to make any judgement though.

Sardus · 2012-03-08, 12:33 AM

Created a thread on some ideas I had

http://www.planetside-universe.com/f...ad.php?t=39477

Please feel free to comment

Ragotag · 2012-03-08, 01:45 AM

I really like Higby's idea regarding the number of followers dictating the size of the mission that a leader can create, but I might suggest a slight change to the leadership system in support of the valid concerns voiced thus far.

I am pretty sure that the Dev's have already implied that the mission creation ability can only be acquired somewhat deeply into the Leadership CERT tree. If this is the case, I would suggest instead of spending acquired Resource Points to unlock such Leadership CERT's, that a point system specific to the Leadership CERT tree be utilized; call them Command Points. Command Points would then be a special resource earned by Squad Leaders only, and spent only on the Leadership CERT tree. In order to earn Command Points, a squad leader must lead his/her squad in a successful mission.

IMO, this should be enough to reduce the potential of popularity contest style politicking while allowing those successful leadership players reasonable access to the mission creation ability. Everything else would likely balance out as per Higby's idea.

Figment · 2012-03-08, 03:20 AM

I just wonder how you are going to compare and get to know if a leader is worth following.

ringring · 2012-03-08, 04:22 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

I just wonder how you are going to compare and get to know if a leader is worth following.

lol yea.

I don't like it. Too elitist.

you know the current method worked fine, at least until servers merged into Gemini and pops dropped low.

I know on Werner TR we used to work out our priorities pretty well using command chat alone. If we were undecided on a target someone would call for a vote.

There was no counter-globalling.

In the early days with larger pops there used to be continental commanders for each cont we were fighting on.

Two further points .... if a large outfit doesn't agree and don't have one of these 'super commanders' they'll go elsewhere no matter what the 'supermen' say.
If an person in a platoon obeys a 'super commander' rather than their platoon leader .... kicky kicky and platoon commanders+outfits are undermined.