An ORIGINAL Planetside 2 - Page 3

DviddLeff · 2010-04-13, 02:49 PM

Yeah I was assuming CEP decay during time spent offline as well as when that character is online, but if it only happens when that character is online then it works fine (think Ill add that into my site in fact). This also keeps it worthwhile for commanders to keep commanding, which is one of our main goals here.

Continental and Global messages would now be handled by my Base, Continent/Planet and Galaxy Commanders who would be responsible for giving directions to the troops (no more CR5s bickering and counter ordering for all to see). Commanders would be able to access their command chat for the relevant levels still, but with fewer of them around due to the other changes they would have less idiocy to sift through.

I do feel that the planet and galaxy commanders need to have experience of leading squads and platoons (which in my system they can achieve by putting 3 points towards) and then if they want to take the next step up they can put the extra 2 in and get that opportunity. I want CR to have this cert cost as you get a lot of toys as it is with CR, and even more with my changes; enough to ideally keep commanders busy commanding (and fighting) with little time to perform other tasks. As it is commanders have their CUD with EMP, reveals and their OS, as well as command chat and way points to keep them busy, which is not difficult. With my proposals they would also have camera drones, context sensitive orders (point at a door lock and click, automatically tells your squad to hack it) and a command vehicle to play with.

Vancha · 2010-04-15, 07:00 AM

I love the idea of command vehicles and camera/defence drones, but I think all these different commanders are too many. As they say..."keep it simple, stupid!" (I'm not calling you stupid).

Sergeants - What's the benefit? Do we want a second person in squads receiving CEP when the idea is to cut down on non-commanding commanders?

Company leaders - I think these guys are redundant. Do you really need a person to lead the three people leading the 9 people leading squads? You could probably scrap the company idea and simply allow more squads into a platoon...or cut the squads in a platoon down to two, and have 6 squads in a company, then you'd end up with 3 platoons leaders and 6 squad leaders. I'm fairly sure between the nine of them they'd have suitable control over everyone without a company leader (assuming the squad leaders and platoon leaders had a channel they could communicate in).
If you're going to have company leaders, they need to have at least 8 platoons to make them worthwhile imo.

Planet+Galactic commanders - If Auraxis returns as a planet in the sequel, I'm guessing these would turn into planetary and continental commanders.

Is there any reason to have a separate galactic commander beyond trying to fix global chat abuse? I can't help but think that putting the power and responsibility into a single galactic commander alone would spawn a thousand new problems.

DviddLeff · 2010-04-15, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by Vancha

Sergeants - What's the benefit? Do we want a second person in squads receiving CEP when the idea is to cut down on non-commanding commanders?

The main idea behind the squad sergeant is that you then have a chance to split your squad in two and go after two separate targets/objectives. This is primarily designed to allow the sergeant to use the context sensitive key to direct the part of the squad that is with him quickly and efficiently. For example the squad enters a base and the SL wants to split the squad, half to attack the generator as a distraction and half to take the CC. The sergeant takes the distraction force down tot he gen while the SL leads to the cc both issuing quick orders to their troops as they go.

The Sergeant also gives new or inexperienced commanders a chance to start leading troops without all the responsibility of an SL.

Originally Posted by Vancha

Company leaders - I think these guys are redundant. Do you really need a person to lead the three people leading the 9 people leading squads? .... If you're going to have company leaders, they need to have at least 8 platoons to make them worthwhile imo.

Good point; in my proposal we go from having no separate leaders to having 4 of them. Perhaps tweak a company size to whatever the population limit is on a continent/world; in the current game that's 133 people per faction if memory serves, while my company only has 94 people. If we add another platoon onto our company (31 players) we then have 125 players including 5 (4 platoon leaders and the company leader). Leaves us with 8 left over, so we could stick 5 troops into a command squad with the leaders as body guards.

It is still a lot of leaders, but I do think they will be kept busy and more importantly useful analysing the battlefield and their troops and directing them; the company leader looking at the whole continent/planets strategy and the platoon leaders focusing on the individual battles. Then the squad leaders focus on small unit tactics.

I see the command structure as essentially providing radically different game play within PS, represented most by the following games:
Trooper: Standard team FPS eg Battlefield or CoD
Squad Leader/Sergeant: Brothers in Arms or Star Wars: Republic Commando
Platoon Leader/Base Commander: Company of Heroes or Dawn of War
Company Leader/Planet Commander: Supreme Commander

Originally Posted by Vancha

Planet+Galactic commanders - If Auraxis returns as a planet in the sequel, I'm guessing these would turn into planetary and continental commanders.

Yep

Originally Posted by Vancha

Is there any reason to have a separate galactic commander beyond trying to fix global chat abuse? I can't help but think that putting the power and responsibility into a single galactic commander alone would spawn a thousand new problems.

Other than the reason you stated it gives players the chance to really stand out and make a massive difference to the entire game world; everyone will remember and respect a good galactic commander (or a terrible one) and attribute success or failure to them. Most MMOs try to make everyone the hero yet only succeed in making everyone the same, and only a few MMOs try any different (Archlord tried). Remember that any commander could be voted out if they are poor.

Vancha · 2010-04-19, 07:54 AM

Sergeants:
Seeing as these guys are only used as either a half-a-squad sub-leader, do they really need to retain all their command abilities? I could understand a sergeant in command chat or sitrepping (maybe firing an EMP), but having them pull command vehicles or fire off an OS would seem slightly "beyond" a sergeant. Perhaps restrict them to CR3 commands and below?

Also, I still think rewarding CEP to these guys may pervert the purpose of the role. If you take the CEP reward away, it ensures the sergeants have chosen that position to lead in some capacity rather than leeching CEP.

Companies:
I understand your direction, but I don't think it would translate to the game. In that 133 population cap, there are so many people who are either solo, in an outfit-only squad/platoon or in a zombie-squad (no leading/direction going on), I don't think you'd get enough people together to form a worthwhile company.

Same with the RTS comparisons. It's a nice idea but I don't think it would translate. The current CR5 is the only command rank that starts to feel anything like RTS commanding, and that's on a far more fluid scale than commanding individual squads or platoons.

Speaking of fluidity, it's also worth considering the amount of people who want to be lead. The majority of people at the big fights in PS aren't there because their commanders want them to be, but because that's where the fight is. The zerg can't be controlled by commanders...it's like a flow of water, you can guide it, block off some paths and try digging others, but it will largely go where it wants to go.

Galactic commanders:

everyone will remember and respect a good galactic commander (or a terrible one) and attribute success or failure to them.

This is what I'm worried about. By having a single mouthpiece, that one person is blamed for any mistakes that the empire's command makes as a whole. You also make it so that person has the sole control over the empire, which means they can over-ride the entire command section's decisions and create all sorts of drama.

Again, a brilliant idea if it worked as you envision it, but when translated into the game I think it could be disastrous. You need to consider what this could do in the hands of the worst kinds of people.

DviddLeff · 2010-04-19, 11:34 AM

Good point about restricting Sergeants to CR5 abilities; no need for them to have command vehicles and OS strikes.

CEP rewards for them I think they can earn however I need to think of some way of making them earn it rather than it just being given it just for filling the role...

You have hit on one thing I really want to do with companies; zerg-herding.

CR5s have always felt that zerg-herding was like pulling teeth; I am seeing squad and platoon missions as being methods of getting the zerg do follow the guidance of ultimately the CR5s. By giving them tasty experience rewards and merits for simply completing missions we should get more people doing so. The zerg is selfish; it has always gone for the biggest fights rather than the tactical choice which usually results in them hitting the closest base until it cracks. By giving them more XP for following orders rather than just butting heads with the enemy you can get them working for the CR5s. Look at support XP; when that was implemented many more players started being a lot more supportive; not necessarily because they wanted to help, but because they wanted the XP.

Are you happy with a single continental/planet commander? Is it just the galaxy commander you disagree with?

Vancha · 2010-04-19, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

CR5s have always felt that zerg-herding was like pulling teeth; I am seeing squad and platoon missions as being methods of getting the zerg do follow the guidance of ultimately the CR5s. By giving them tasty experience rewards and merits for simply completing missions we should get more people doing so. The zerg is selfish; it has always gone for the biggest fights rather than the tactical choice which usually results in them hitting the closest base until it cracks. By giving them more XP for following orders rather than just butting heads with the enemy you can get them working for the CR5s. Look at support XP; when that was implemented many more players started being a lot more supportive; not necessarily because they wanted to help, but because they wanted the XP.

I had a thought similar to this, but I also thought you might end up with a lot of people who resented "missing out" on XP by preferring to play their own way. The support XP worked because it rewarded people who before, were missing out on XP by helping the empire. It allowed people to play other roles and still benefit. I agree that some kind of reward system would help commanders guide the zerg, but I think you need to be careful not to have people missing out too much if they decide they'd rather do their own thing.

Also, you said you want companies to help with zerg herding, but go on to say it's CR5s who give out the missions to help control the zerg. Are you sure that whatever roles you have in mind for companies couldn't be adequately filled by CR5s?

The only objection I have to a single galactic commander is that he's the only one who can global. Personally I think both galactic and planetary command would be better spread among all the CR5s, but your system might work too...I'm still not sure how planetary commanders are decided though.

Wait a second...If planetary commanders are the only ones who decide primary/secondary targets, what can the other CR5s do to continue gaining CEP, apart from leading squads/platoons (infringing on lower CR's territory)? Between the galactic commander, planetary commander and company leader, you have 3 CR5s getting CEP for taking planets/bases...add another 2 CR5s for a planetary commander and company leader fighting on another planet, so you end up with 5 CR5s getting CEP out of an empires-worth?

DviddLeff · 2010-04-19, 05:38 PM

Hmm good point.

However remember that we are having our commanders actually commanding now, not just sitting around bickering while they whore for kills or run with their squads... CR5s dont have to only command planet/galaxy wide; due to CEP decay they can carry on leading squads and the extra command tools cater for that by providing them more equipment to use to directly aid their squads.

CR5 will therefore still be in the population; and they could retain their CR5 chat and then they really will have earned it by actively commanding recently; not 5 years ago.

Say you have just one pop lock; you have at least 1 company commander, 4 platoon leaders, 12 squad leaders and then another 12 squad sergeants. That is 29 people in the zone earning CEP. Sure they don't have to be CR5 but they could be, in fact CR5s should have more experience and also have more tools so they can do a better job leading.

I am happy to make the galactic commander role filled by the CR5s online voting for targets, I just worry it will slow the whole system down and keep it as the bickering and counter globalling we see now; but if the CR5s are actually leading then they have a squad/platoon/company to think about and ensure they are having fun and completing missions.