Command - Page 5

Robert089 · 2011-02-12, 03:21 PM

Malorn's manifesto has some interesting ideas for command ranks and a mission system.

The Planetside Manifesto

Section 1.7 is about command rank, 2.4 is about CR5 missions and 2.5.1 cover CR5 gifted incentives.

DviddLeff · 2011-02-12, 03:27 PM

In my command overhaul the continent commander is simply the guy in charge of the company, which is made up of 3-4 platoons (120 players) on the continent. The continent commander would set missions for his platoon leaders, who in turn set tasks for their squads.

MasonGathers · 2011-02-12, 04:40 PM

I frequently turned global messages off in the chat window. Mostly when I got tired of getting spammed by CR5's who for some reason decided to have a personal bitchfight on global chat. Or, CR5's spamming 1000x messages of "Leave tower X, you're not being useful, primary is different continent" and stuff like that.

Sure, this meant that I also missed out on all the 'useful' globals, but in all honesty, do we really need to see messages telling what the primary target is? When I log in and check the map, I can see where the battle is raging. If there is none, I will hang around in sanctuary to see if there is a group forming and ask them where they're going. If I feel like going somewhere solo for whatever reason I will do so. If I'm in an outfit, I'll check who's online and join them.

People who like to play in a coherent team will form squads, platoons, and outfits anyway, and since they value teamwork, they will listen to their squad/platoon/outfit leader. If they turn out to be idiots, kick 'em.

There will, of course, also be outfits consisting only of people who do like to play together but don't value teamwork that much, but if you do and you're in one of those, then you picked the wrong outfit.

An added option to the squad joining system where you can add people on an 'ignore' list if you don't want them to join your squad would prevent anyone you've kicked to simply rejoin just to annoy you. (to be honest, I stopped playing shortly after the werner-gemini merge; as far as I remember an option like this was not available but I'm not sure anymore).

In my opinion, the CR system could be disbanded altogether. Those who like to develop strategies and have people execute them can do so within their own outfits, platoons, and squads. If you go to an empty continent with a full platoon, more people will show up eventually anyway. And even if they don't, you'll still have quite a decent battle.

And no matter whether or not a CR system exists, you can't get rid of random people completely destroying your plans by doing whatever the hell they want anyway.

And don't get all hyped up by some sort of 'OMG I want my outfit to be HUGE and I want it NOW!' feeling. If you invite people you hardly know into your outfit, you're bound to end up with a fair amount of assholes.

To summarize: If you like to make strategies and have people follow them, create an outfit, don't invite random people just because they have been in your squad for an hour, and you'll eventually have a team of people you like playing with.

And where does this leave OS, EMP and such? I'm thinking, just make them certable, but only after a certain BR.

Tool · 2011-02-13, 11:21 PM

I do like the idea of command rank degrading; those who lead well and often would maintain their rank while others would remain a lower rank. And as such, degrading only begins after a certain rank?

More tools for leaders I do agree with, various off map support options other than just orbital strikes like ammo, temporary orbital drop pod that allows only squad members to spawn from for a time, artillery barrages, etc.

Also the ability for Squad Leaders to assign specific targets such as towers, bases, vehicles, etc. to the squad allowing for bonus experience once the point is captured or object destroyed. Or something similar to the FRAGO ability in MAG or target objective in BC2, bonus experience near the objective set by the SL.

I would very much like to see a UI setup allowing for leaders of various levels to post requests or missions. Such as an infantry group posting a request for a transport ground or air. Someone with the required certs can accept and link up with the squad, proceeding to a predetermined way-point. Once accomplished the driver/pilot is awarded with exp in addition to any the squad gains for a short time after completion.

Experience gained could be mostly dependent on the amount of enemies and battle duration in the area the mission is completed? And of course whoever posted the mission/request is awarded an amount of CEP based on a similar formula.

Similar postings could be made for close air support, carpet bombings, artillery, AMS support, etc. Allowing for coordinated efforts across all forms of combat.

Lonehunter · 2011-02-13, 11:44 PM

I would really like a temporary Command Rank. Eventually everyone reach the max Command Rank would be ridiculous. What if your CR reset every week? Basically this would ensure only the people that are actively leading will get the benefits of doing so. If you stop leading, you can't Command Chat. It makes sense

I SandRock · 2011-02-14, 06:56 AM

I wrote this PvP Suggestion for SWTOR a while ago and based it mostly on DAoC + Planetside. I made these adjustments to the Commander system:

Basically you rank to CR5 but that doesn't mean you get access to the full CR5 abilities like global chat.
Each alliance (combination of guilds/outfits) or guild/outfit has to elect a CR5 from amongst their ranks to represent them. If there is such a thing as outfit levels then you could also put a minimum level before an outfit can start to elect a commander.

The commander that they elect is put in the CR5 pool for commanding. Perhaps to make sure there is a Commander representing their outfit you can have a Commander 1, 2 ,3. If 1 isn't on, 2 fills in, if 1+2 isn't on, 3 fills in.

Now these CR5s have access to the full CR5 pool, BUT a voting UI is put in place in which the current active CR5s vote for one of their CR5s to lead them in the current battle and give most of the orders. You could then give this CR5 full control over all chats. While the other CR5s have a limit on how many messages they can send over global per X minutes.

This is where I wrote it down:
ALLIANCES - Alliances of guilds are important as well. Each ALLIANCE can nominate a limited amount of COMMANDERS depending on the amount and size of the guilds in the ALLIANCE as well as their ranks.

COMMANDERS - These are a group of people that get access to a global pvp channel through which they can relay information and tactics to the rest of their faction. COMMANDERS are elected by ALLIANCES. The amount of COMMANDERS that can be elected depends on the amount and size of the guilds as well as their ranks. Only players of a certain PERSONAL PVP RANK can be elected as COMMANDER as well.
These COMMANDERS are the representatives of their alliances and guilds, together they can discuss global tactics for the faction wars and agree upon which strategy to follow. Which they then relay to the faction through the GLOBAL PVP CHANNEL

[This has been shown to work very effectively in Planetside. We also believe this will promote the community feel BioWare is trying to go for. As well as promote a command structure to further promote tactical gameplay. COMMANDERS represent their alliances and guilds and discuss global (macro management) tactics with the other COMMANDERS while GUILDS can then organize further tactics on a smaller level (micro management). ]

GLOBAL CHAT - The channel that broadcasts to all PvP zones. Only 5 messages per 3 minutes can be broadcasted by all COMMANDERS combined.

From: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...NTI3NmIx&hl=en

Originally Posted by Tikuto

Telling people what to do in their game, for most of the attempts, does not work especially if they're paying for it.

What I suggest is let everyone command so that Commanders can make the decisions (not orders). e.g. Everyone could have a Laze Point, they use it and Commanders see it on their map. There the 'Officers in Command' (like an ever-changing pool of selected commanders) then make decisions for their artillery, air or orbital strikes.

Originally Posted by basti

years of planetside has showed two things: You are wrong, and you are wrong.
You can lead people, if they trust you. It works, plenty of guys did it, including myself.
letting everyone command is what we currently have, and now take a look at /c ...

+1

Aractain · 2011-02-14, 07:36 AM

The simplicity of the squad leaders chooseing the commander is pretty cool. I know Planetside tried to go in this direction toward the end with SL chat etc but fixing the command system is quite important for the new game.

We don't want to go back to people grinding for their OS. If every should be able to get one just make it freely avalible to everyone who has played the game for 300 hours. (Don't do that btw SOE... thats dumb).
Without the 'toys' there is no purpose to the grind or CR in general.

You don't need reveal friendlys, or reveal enemies (those were both terrible systems). Friendlys should be shown as an info display (a bit like RUSE) to all squad leaders. For the acutal commander he would see a far more detailed friendly troop map with both type and more acurate numbers wise.

RUSE shows units as 'types'; Light, Heavy and Air. The fact it hides exactly what kind of unit it is creates a lot of the gameplay. Not only that but certain units are hidden (in forests mostly).

For enemies could have a recon system which sends out the data to everyone - it would certianly actualy add gameplay (creating recon, anti-recon (hunting/killing) and stealth generator roles).

Like this but 2D (mostly heavy units here):

The EMP isn't useful for commanders. Its useful for assualt squads, so give it to assault squads - say 2 cert points or an implant.

If your a SL or PL or something similar you already would have 'command chat'. No use for seperate command channels and sitrep.

Firefly · 2011-02-14, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

The way it is sucks because it gives nobody incentive to listen to anyone else, so you end up with legions of zerg just doing what they want, and command ranks that are useless for actual command, and used instead as bonus combat abilities, and a selection process based on presence, not performance.

This is only a problem if you give a shit what the zerg does.

There's this thing called an outfit. The reason we have outfits is because, theoretically, some outfits actually do stuff and organise themselves, and they organise with others. If you want "actual command" go join the fMarine Corps. This is a video game, not some branch of the service. I don't pay to play this game just so I can listen to dipshit armchair-generals who don't know shit about shit except what they learned in the chess club.

If I feel an idea has merit, I will listen and act. Again - access to CR5 doesn't mean you are smart, it just means your EMP and your OS is bigger, and you can use global. Big effin' deal. You could implement a perfect system that puts smart people in charge - but it will NEVER happen. You can't fix stupid. You can't regulate intelligence in a video game. Stupid idiots and intellectually inferior people will always find a way into top spots. It's impossible to regulate that sort of thing in a video game. Hell, even the military hasn't perfected it.

My advice is, go find an outfit. If that outfit doesn't meet your playstyle, go find another outfit. If that doesn't work, create your own outfit and populate it with people who know how to follow orders and believe in teamwork and coordination.

I SandRock · 2011-02-14, 01:50 PM

I think Commanders did a good job, you filtered out those who knew their stuff and would pretty much follow their stuff. Just calling out 1 base for everyone to hit is better than nothing.

You'll always have the zerg, they'll go where the biggest fight is. You can somewhat control them by calling out the next target base for them as soon as you are about to capture the one they were fighting at. But that's about all you can control the zerg. Which is fine, it has it's place.
Spec Ops outfits is where the real deal is. And a good commander knows these teams and can communicate with them to hit certain targets.

Manitou · 2011-02-14, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Firefly

There's this thing called an outfit. The reason we have outfits is because, theoretically, some outfits actually do stuff and organise themselves, and they organise with others.

When good outfits team up, they can accomplish stuff. I have seen and experienced this over and over. Yes, the zerg is always there, but I have seen a few good outfits teamed up that can hold against the mindless zerg.

Numbers can impact, and that is why the zerg sometimes appears to be effective. But remember, if the zerg gets slapped hard, typically it loses interest and moves onto something easier.

Good outfits will know to whom to listen and where to go.

Goku · 2011-02-14, 03:47 PM

I like the concept, Basti. My only issues with the structure is the Continental Commander and the picking and choosing of commanders.

I don't see the Continental Commander being that useful. Most outfits usually run their own armor columns. Back when my outfit had its prime we would be doing around 10 VGs during prime time. I am not entirely sure how effective a Continental Commander could do its objective as long as outfits are running around doing their own agenda. Sure you could have everyone try and cordinate, but I am not sure I would even want to par take in that. I think this can just be easily done with an actual armor channel people can talk in. That would be a good way for people to coordinate.

My only other issue is the picking and choosing of commanders. High population outfits could easily control the agenda of a empire. That is why it can be easily abused. I do like the breakdown of roles though. It will help keep people doing on active role and force more communication between everyone. There has to be some kind of way to get ass hats off of the /com system too. I am sure we could do some sort of voting system, just again have to make sure there is ways to prevent it from being abused. Such as putting a limit on how CR5s from a single outfit can vote. That would put a stop from big outfits abusing this at least.

LesserShade · 2011-02-14, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by Bags

It comes down to reward / fun. I usually ignore my fellow CR5's unless the fight they're suggesting everyone goes to is more fun than the one I'm currently at.

There's absolutely no incentive (lol 2250 capture BEP) to go to an enemy base farm currently unless you're working on CR. I'd much rather stay in my foot zerging fight and go 19 / 2 instead of going to an NC base and going 35 / 42.

Base caps XP / bonus XP amounts are paramount to getting people to listen to CR5s. You can't tell me hardly anyone would get an ANT if there was no XP bonus XD.

This^^

What might be interesting to take it a step further would be for squad leaders to receive some amount of CEP for giving orders that squadmates then followed for BEP. As it is now, you only get CEP for base caps and resecures right? Capping a base makes sense, but if you're successfully defending a base, the opposing force shouldn't be hacking your CC in the first place.

TRex · 2011-02-14, 05:27 PM

It just seems ironic that a commander is voted for by the general minions that are supposedly 'under their command'. Generally armies are not a democratic process , the exact reverse is true. Yes, they may have to give a report for their actions to the public they serve and protect , but the power given to them works from the top down, not the other way around.

Maybe instead of all the voting etc implied, command is a rank based upon results . You gain ground consistently , providing new tech and benefits to your troops , your ability and information to allow you to increase your effectiveness as a commander grows along with your rank.
The reverse should also be true -you lose a base or continent as the commander , and you lose command points and rank if it persists.
That way command is a mix of you giving the right orders and acquiring information correctly to allow your troops to gain ground , and likewise the troops quickly beginning to trust the commander and following their orders . It's a balance that needs to benefit both sides , and defending should be just as rewarding as offensive manouvres.

There just needs a mechanism so that those who follow poor leadership and fail to defend or attack effectively , lose is a meanigful way - their 'leader' cant use /cont all because hes lost enough command points to lose his cr5 status - and because they lost information they could have had from the commander , their BEP is reduced for everything they do until or if another cr5 takes over and corrects the mistakes the previous commander made ie gaining ground and defending well. Tasty carrot with a big stick.

Hamma · 2011-02-14, 07:45 PM

Thinking about this more honestly I believe command rank should just provide more "Information" for the commander. Similar to what was posted above, and if global chat exists it should be severely limited and have spam protection.

The ONLY time CR5's were effective was right at launch and a few months after. There were only a few of them and they were pretty good at giving direction. After that it was all down hill and now it's just totally useless.

Firefly · 2011-02-15, 08:47 AM

Oh, I don't know. I used to log in and ask in CR5 command chat "Where do you want the Chinese zerg?" Then I'd proceed to all-caps the global channel in Chinese, telling them to go fight wherever. Did anyone ever see Chinese CR5s?