Command concerns

[Huma]

The one thing that actually concerns me is how much control commanders will have over missions. Mainly how much control some asshat is going to get over them. Because let's face it, even if command doesn't give you a lot of combat abilities people are going to work it after getting what they want just for the OS.
At least right now we just have to deal with annoying globals. I can see someone who really doesn't care about commanding people countermanding good missions and sending people to stupid places just for fun. I'm hoping they give people some options to censor commanders who aren't really there to do the job.

[Volw]

You don't have to do those missions. They're completely opt-in and I'm guessing good commanders will make a name for themselves.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Volw

You don't have to do those missions. They're completely opt-in and I'm guessing good commanders will make a name for themselves.

OP brings up a good point, but this ^ is why I'm not too concerned about it either.

[DviddLeff]

Yeah I presume it will tell you who issued the mission, so the good, active commanders will get recognised as such.

I also hope to see some kind of rating system, so that these good commanders earn some kind of in game points/stars/whatever to designate them as such.

[Volw]

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

I also hope to see some kind of rating system, so that these good commanders earn some kind of in game points/stars/whatever to designate them as such.

No, no and no.

I can already see zerg guilds upvoting thier own and downvoting everyone else.

In fact, feels like reddit.

[Hamma]

Yea it sounds good on paper but it's a bad idea overall due to exactly what was said above.

[ShowNoMercy]

quick fix, commanders can not only make missions but also support pre-existing ones.

Scenario - some dickhead posts a mission to go dry hump a tree for 50xp. Another commander posts a legit mission to go take a tower that will put their empire in a good position to take a resource rich area. Other commanders click a support button for the tower take mission and consequently up the xp on it. Would make the incentive to dry hump a tree virtually non-existent (although it might be a lot easier, but thats just because it was a stupid example).

In that example i used xp as the incentive for doing player generated missions. In reality it may be a resource reward, or an xp percentage boost for the mission (since it will likely give you xp anyways (think of important ant runs)). Im not entirely clear on what the incentive to do player made mission will be, but i imagine it will be something, and by allowing other commanders to increase the incentive of a mission they can weed out commander dickhead's missions. Additionally an incentive cap should be added so that 1 zergfit cant load up on leader specific characters and run the empire's agenda.

[Skorne]

Maybe abuse of command facilities can be reported and the offender will have his powers revoked temporarily. More worried about when everyone gets max command and we have orbital strike disco as it is in PS now.

[krnasaur]

I think this current PS should serve as a lesson. I main the NC and are familiar with the commanders on there so i will use them as an example.


We are fighting on amerish, defending a homecont. One of the CR5 globals "cyssor is our new primary, attack there", sure 75% of the people will stay on amerish, but the other 25% will leave, and that 25% loss is enough to get overrun on both fronts.


when you say "well we will just ignore them" that only applies people who understand how PS works. The others will see "oooouuuu a commander says goto cyssor, let me recall and get my aircav."

Some people will still follow the sour grape. Those are the ones who ruin that system, if you can eliminate the sour grapes you can unify. but thats easier said than done

[EightEightEight]

Originally Posted by krnasaur

I think this current PS should serve as a lesson. I main the NC and are familiar with the commanders on there so i will use them as an example.


We are fighting on amerish, defending a homecont. One of the CR5 globals "cyssor is our new primary, attack there", sure 75% of the people will stay on amerish, but the other 25% will leave, and that 25% loss is enough to get overrun on both fronts.


when you say "well we will just ignore them" that only applies people who understand how PS works. The others will see "oooouuuu a commander says goto cyssor, let me recall and get my aircav."

Some people will still follow the sour grape. Those are the ones who ruin that system, if you can eliminate the sour grapes you can unify. but thats harder said than done

Well it's been like that since the game started you have the core outfits that generally listen and train their people and are on TS or Vent.

Then you have the Zerg the Mindless mob that just DOES things

Not really sure how to fix it other then making sure the outfits are recruiting and training and even then you still will probably have issues

[Redshift]

Well you could still have a rating system if it wasn't in the hands of players, i'm sure they game can track when the missions are completed, if the game has some way of working out a crude difficulty level then commanderes could get a rating based on how useful their missions are.

[CutterJohn]

Individual rating system. Perhaps with notes. So you can keep track if you wish too.

"Oh, i marked this guy with 1 star.. He must be an idiot.."