Mission System: Commander Votes/Ratings

[DDSHADE]

I only just realized a possible problem the Mission System in PS2 might run into.

If a player were to specialize as a Commander, then gets bored (somehow.. I don't really think it's ever possible with PS2) and decides for whatever reason to be a spy for another empire. Or if an outfit decide they could use an account that could play another empire on their server, and specialize as a commander.

With this Command Specialization, they have now theoretically gained the ability to create missions. A team or outfit wanting to divert enemy troops away from their main objective could now, in theory.. have someone playing on an account dedicated to the role of throwing off large amounts of enemy troops to parts of the map they don't care about.

I thought "What if" to this.. I think it would still supply both teams with objectives and kills and would not break the game in the smallest form, and in fact may even add to it.

I think a good idea to counteract this, or at least support commands given by the more specialized commanders - would be to give the other commanders the ability to vote on a given mission to that empire.
Votes could be given before the mission is given to the masses of troops waiting for more objectives, or simply afterward. Each vote towards the mission would perhaps amplify the rewards in xp and/or resources to the players.

Voting on other commander's missions could supply the commanders with possible rankings or ratings as commanders that don't stack up over time. They could give players an estimate on which commanders missions got the most votes in 2 week-1 month periods for the missions they created that were successful. (Successful battle-plans could give a higher rating, if the mission was completed within a required time frame)

This would allow for leader-boards among commanders, and achievements for those who held the top 5-10 for a week-month, and could allow unlocks of certain armour/vehicle addons. Or even titles/emblems.

I think this would be a good way to distinguish commanders and allow for the good ones to have their chance to stand out, yet not keeping their 'cr5 backpack' if they don't keep up with commanding regularly.

I 'm sure much could be added or tweaked with this idea, but please let me know what you think!

[Toppopia]

Originally Posted by DDSHADE

I only just realized a possible problem the Mission System in PS2 might run into.

If a player were to specialize as a Commander, then gets bored (somehow.. I don't really think it's ever possible with PS2) and decides for whatever reason to be a spy for another empire. Or if an outfit decide they could use an account that could play another empire on their server, and specialize as a commander.

With this Command Specialization, they have now theoretically gained the ability to create missions. A team or outfit wanting to divert enemy troops away from their main objective could now, in theory.. have someone playing on an account dedicated to the role of throwing off large amounts of enemy troops to parts of the map they don't care about.

I thought "What if" to this.. I think it would still supply both teams with objectives and kills and would not break the game in the smallest form, and in fact may even add to it.

I think a good idea to counteract this, or at least support commands given by the more specialized commanders - would be to give the other commanders the ability to vote on a given mission to that empire.
Votes could be given before the mission is given to the masses of troops waiting for more objectives, or simply afterward. Each vote towards the mission would perhaps amplify the rewards in xp and/or resources to the players.

Voting on other commander's missions could supply the commanders with possible rankings or ratings as commanders that don't stack up over time. They could give players an estimate on which commanders missions got the most votes in 2 week-1 month periods for the missions they created that were successful. (Successful battle-plans could give a higher rating, if the mission was completed within a required time frame)

This would allow for leader-boards among commanders, and achievements for those who held the top 5-10 for a week-month, and could allow unlocks of certain armour/vehicle addons. Or even titles/emblems.

I think this would be a good way to distinguish commanders and allow for the good ones to have their chance to stand out, yet not keeping their 'cr5 backpack' if they don't keep up with commanding regularly.

I 'm sure much could be added or tweaked with this idea, but please let me know what you think!

I could see this happening, but if anyone wastes their time getting an alt character to the highest command rank just to give bad missions, then they seriously must not like the game, or they will realise that they are actually having fun and will not do that but instead be a good team player. But what is to stop 100 people just spamming missions? Will there be a system where commanders vote on what missions they want to take place? So instead of 100 useless missions, we are left with 5 good missions? We will have to wait till beta to see if these things can be exploited or not.

[Zekeen]

The biggest thing is that there will be lots of minor missions by other commanders.

We also must take into account that outfits will be leading themselves.

The highest commanders will be deciding the main objectives for an empire, and the other empires are generally attracted to large enemy movements (more enemies = more exp). As a result, even a misleading commander will probably get their empire into the hotzones of combat without sacrificing their hold.

[DDSHADE]

That's a good point, a lot of it is still up in the air for us, as we still don't really know the inner workings of how the system will play out with us a part of it. I bet a lot of it is still up in the air from a design standpoint too, and that is why I wanted to give a suggestion like this, to allow commanders to be ranked, if not in the traditional, PS1 way.

And yes, a problem could be a hundred people just spamming missions... We don't know if such a thing would be possible, or what different measures are in place to allow only certain missions to surface, instead of having 100 different missions with far less people at each battle. It would make sense that SOE has already thought of this and are in the process of implementing a mechanic (or already have) to allow only a certain influx of new missions at any given time. Still, I don't think a rating system based on successful missions would be a bad thing! =)

Most likely the player who would have another account just to make bad missions would somehow turn out to be successful anyway for their empire and have a great time and perhaps even switch sides for good! Each empire has a lot to offer.

[Zekeen]

You really do pull up a lot of very good points, but the biggest problem is there is not really any big solution that can fix all of it. Any solution will open holes for another problem. The devs know of it and are working hard, but I don't think there is really any solution for such issues, but hopefully they will be mild and rare.

But voting on missions would be too tedious. Missions are acted on when created, and we sort of "vote" on commanders. Those who betray their followers will quickly fall out of the spotlight. So I dunno if an actual voting mission mechanic would be too effective.

[DDSHADE]

Yes, perhaps simply following orders could count as a 'vote'.

The more players that follow your orders and are successful in doing so could then be tracked! Genius!

[SpcFarlen]

It would be cool to have some rating system in place for that. I do like the idea of having commanders get "up rated" by doing well in missions they make. Its kind of like medals and decorations. If you see a commander with a lot of decorations then you know that you can trust him. You know that if he makes a call its in your best interest. I like that idea a lot.

[Jinxsey]

I like the posative reinforcement option for ratings. "Bad reviews" are always more devisive than they are helpful, but simply giving people the option to give a given commander "thumbs up" does solve alot of issues. A commander with fifteen thumbs up versus a commander with five hundred thumbs up gives players an "at a glance" way to determine who is reliable or experienced, while protecting people from being the target of harassment or bullying by permitting people to give them "thumbs down".

[kunzadar]

I also like the idea that even if you are not specifically making missions yourself you can still participate in the command structure by rating current missions or commanders.

[Saifoda]

Originally Posted by Jinxsey

I like the posative reinforcement option for ratings. "Bad reviews" are always more devisive than they are helpful, but simply giving people the option to give a given commander "thumbs up" does solve alot of issues. A commander with fifteen thumbs up versus a commander with five hundred thumbs up gives players an "at a glance" way to determine who is reliable or experienced, while protecting people from being the target of harassment or bullying by permitting people to give them "thumbs down".

I like that thinking, Jinxsey; having a lot of negatives (i.e. grief system PS1) I think really only detracts from the overall experience of the game.





I'd also like to point out that by allowing platoon leaders and squad leaders (potentially team leaders? other thread discussing that at the moment here: http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=41806) to give their own mini-missions (or "tactical orders") would offset a lot of mission spamming issues, but the overall point is still definitely valid. Perhaps having additional rating systems for missions, such as how "much" combat or contention there is on a given mission (determing how many shots have been fired or kills/captures have occured within the last 5 minutes or so) via a rating bar, and then allowing players to filter or organize the available missions based on those criterion will help with it too (so a "useless" mission that has no combat going on would be at the bottom of the list and the missions with the most combat be towards the top of the list).


Of course outfits giving their own missions will allow a lot more player-driven content as far as the missions go. So, for example, perhaps in a given outfit, only players of a certain rank within the outfit [outfit rank] can give missions, or that missions must be approved by certain ranking officers who are actively playing before they can be implemented would go forward.




I tend to look at this from a more real life military view. You don't have lieutenants and captains just saying "oh I think it'd be cool to go do this." You have colonels and generals saying "our mission is to do XYZ in sector ABC" and then the boots on the ground leaders will make decisions such as "in order to accomplish XYZ through ABC, we're going to do 123 in area LMNOP" then the platoon leaders etc... say "in order to accomplish 123 in area LMNOP, we're going to attack building EFG from rally point TUV" and so on.