<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Edit: I may have misinterpreted your idea. Is it that the game automatically "randomly" assigns orders to individual marines?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Change to current way points:</b>
It is basically a mix between initial way pointing for the entire squad, and then moving to more 'personal' way point markers for each member for the room, but that everyone can see. So what you call 'markers'.
So instead of having 'move, defend, attack' orders (which are a hang on from controlling NPC in RTS games - and not really appropriate for NS2 imo) you have a way point system that works on threat levels. 'Low', 'Medium', 'High'. These are interpreted automatically based on the contents of a room.
The reasoning for this is that in an RTS game you either want your units to 'move' somewhere, 'attack' something and/or 'defend' a space. But exactly that.
In NS2 you are commanding players with their own minds. 'Moving' somewhere people will interpret differently to 'attacking' somewhere. When really they are all move orders - but the threat level is either low, medium or high (if you cant see the room because of fog it would be unknown).
Moving indicates you are not attacking, where as attacking indicates you are going somewhere where there is a threat. In fact you are always attacking in this game, it just depends on the threat in that location. It sets the player up for different levels of attack, rather than you are or are not.
<b>Added personal way points:</b>
So after the initial threat waypoint has been given for the squad, you can hold a special key to give personal and close quarter markers / waypoints.
So if you have 4 people in the current selected squad, you have 4 actions that you can give.
These 'actions' can be seen on the floor as 'decals'. All are visible (greyed out) apart from the one that is specific to that marine and is highlighted / waypointed (blue not grey).
'Actions' are automatically read by the interface, depending on what you click on and assigned randomly to each player.
<b>For example:</b>
# Clicking on an empty resource node indicates you are going to be building in that room. "Defend New Build" # Clicking on a harvester indicates the marine to attack it. "Attack Harvester" # Clicking on the floor displays a 'hold position' icon. "Hold Point"
These personal markers/way points in the room could also be seen on the squad list (currently on the left) so players know what their squad mates are doing.
Also 'threat' levels could filter through to personal waypoints as well. So even if the room is a low threat room, getting someone to attack a harvester is going to put it up to a medium threat (because it is sure to attract some alien attention).
<b>How many clicks?:</b>
Essentially this could all happen in literally 2 - 3 seconds.
# Select squad # Way Point Location # Hold Special Key # Select Personal Tasks
Simple and very communicative. The added bonus is that you don't 'actually' have to use the personal way point system at all. You can even use one personal way point for everyone, by just holding the special key and clicking once in the middle of the room get the whole squad to hold that area.
I would be very careful about relying on context sensitive waypoints/markers. I still have bad memories of how clunky it felt in NS1.
Automatically recognizing when I click on an enemy Harvester that it is an attack command is good. However, the difference between defend/build/weld on a friendly location is sometimes huge and must be differentiated. Maybe I just want to deny a location to the enemy, other times I want only certain people guarding while others build, other times I want power building. Providing easy ways to do this is crucial, most likely through modified clicks.
@Runteh, I'm not sure the level of threat is necessary. Most players understand implicitly the difference between an Attack, Move, and Defend order. No need to re-build the terminology.
Really the commands Attack, Move, Defend, and Build should suffice for all of the cases in NS2.
Another really useful thing would be the ability to queue up a string of waypoints that the player can see. Sometimes you want players to take the sneaky route. =]
Words mean everything, details mean everything. For initial player experience this level of detail means... everything.
You tell me then what communicates more to a player in a game like this:
# Being given a 'move' command to a room in which necessitates fighting, compared to an 'attack' command that necessitates fighting, compared to a 'defend' move command that necessitates... oh yeah, fighting. It also tells you that you will either be moving to a location, or having a huge fight there. No in between.
# Compare that to a system that tells you the danger level when approaching the way point.
Which tells you more? Yup.
This is not an RTS game that is about ordering around brainless units. RTS commands just don't work, because the commander can see the threat - not the players.
<!--quoteo(post=1830892:date=Feb 9 2011, 08:49 PM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Feb 9 2011, 08:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1830892"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is not an RTS game that is about ordering around brainless units.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's partitially why I'm against the threat system.
If I'm told to do something, I bring out the map and estimate my threat level according to the whole map situation. Computer calculated algorhitm has no proper understanding of pressure, map control, game state and all that. What I need from commander is information on how this all goes into his strategy, how much time I've got to get the job done and ect. Then I use the comm's strategical information and my own game awarness to adjust my play so that it suits the situation at hand.
Obviously it goes to a lot more chaotic situations where commander keeps feeding you halfway tactical information, you keep him informed on the field perspective when necessary and ect, but the basic concept goes something like described above.
Yup, there are issues with any new system, but I don't think the 'move', 'attack', 'defend' commands have sway. You are better off having a single 'move' command if anything.
Going back to the OP and what I spoke about in the second part of my post though it the idea of communicating what you want done in a particular move, and having the opportunity to work on a more tactical level with players.
At least after an initial move command is the point at which you start 'specifying' exactly what that entails.
Say, that looks familiar ... has anyone else recently watched Let's Plays of or just played Dead Space 2? Remember those Augmented Reality (AR) different coloured lines on the floor to help you find your way?
That is how I would want to see way points in NS2. Have for a while now even before I had a existing game example I could turn to.
Well, going along with that, I would love to draw/put text on the map as a commander, which would appear as AR on the floor for Strategy, like those things you would see when some commentator is drawing on a football game. Tactically, I would love it if I could just drop AR templates on a room - take a look at Runteh's mockup there, now expand the circle on the floor with arrows pointing outward from its center with the the words "Defend This Area" - I would hope I did that as a commander by ctrl + click, done. "Attack this area"? shift + click, now the circle has the arrows facing inward, maybe a different colour, done.
Whatever it ends up looking like, I just really hope for the marines the AR ends up on the floor now, instead of flashing in the middle of our view. The story side of things, better AR feels like an advance in software technology to deal with the evolving Kharaa threat :D
better signs need to be made to describe what marines should be doing, for example shield over RT would mean defend this. No need to write "hold position", players should see simple signs to know what to do.
<!--quoteo(post=1830892:date=Feb 9 2011, 12:49 PM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Feb 9 2011, 12:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1830892"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is not an RTS game that is about ordering around brainless units. RTS commands just don't work, because the commander can see the threat - not the players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Allow me to reference the Battlefield, Project Reality, and several other games where a commander uses the exact same commands and by extension RTS commands do work in FPS games.
I think you're not giving players enough credit. Why wouldn't players understand implicitly the dangers of moving in certain regions? If anything, the players have an even better sense of threat than the comm since once they arrive they have to assess the room and how to navigate it.
However, the "threat levels" give no information about what you want the player to do once they are in the region. Only react? Actively clear the area? Hide and wait? Also, you can't give players roles. If you want one to hunker down and guard the others, you either need a mic or more precise information in your waypoints.
I estimate that "threat level" and danger are implicit information in the types of waypoints/orders given, and each player's ability to look at the map and their situation.
You say players understand what is happening on the ground more than the commander, yet hundreds of times I see marines walking into rooms past Skulks in the ceiling that they have not seen, but yet I have because they are in view of the player. Usually they die even though I'm telling them to be careful because there is a Skulk near them, but I can't point it out.
There is no way a Marine knows what is going on more than the Commander. Does he know what I know, which is that there are X buildings in the room, Drifters moving in Skulks hiding in the ceiling and a Fade just outside the room?
Not usually, and if anything they are in a fire fight and the only thing they are thinking about is what their cross-hairs are pointing at. You can be cool and calm and considerate as a commander.
I haven't played PR, but Battlefield? Being a commander in BF requires you to press a few keys, spam radar and drop some ammo boxes occasionally.
To be honest, I don't even know why there is a Commander in BF because I don't think it really adds anything apart from air strikes - which is all about creating a more dynamic game by giving an advantage to the attacking team at spawn points. It feels more like a gap filler than a more permanent and important position the comm has in NS2. It also helps to direct squads on a public because they have to travel a few kilometres before they meet anyone on some of the maps.
Just because they have done it does not mean it works either.
If you had read the rest of the post, the important part was actually what occurs after the initial way point is given - which is to define a players and squads actions, once they have gotten to the way point / room.
The point was that 'move', 'attack' and 'defend' have no real meaning to a player. Where as 'move to this point, whereby you will be killing an extractor and there is a medium level of threat' tells me a lot more. It would also only require the LMB and a single key press to do all this.
As for checking the Minimap, I don't think that is relevant. The Marine does not know where the commander intends to send them, or when they are about to do that.
If the situation is that a Marine has gone into a room, uncovered the fog, and the Commander selects a squad and sets the move way point and intended actions for them. What happens when the fog covers things back up? There is also no telling whether the Marine will use his Minimap, or whether he uses it before the fog covers the room again.
You can't just rely on the fact that every player is doing the right thing at the right time, you have to account for variables.
<!--quoteo(post=1830932:date=Feb 9 2011, 03:33 PM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Feb 9 2011, 03:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1830932"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->... You can be cool and calm and considerate as a commander.
I haven't played PR, but Battlefield? Being a commander in BF requires you to press a few keys, spam radar and drop some ammo boxes occasionally. ... Just because they have done it does not mean it works either.
If you had read the rest of the post, the important part was actually what occurs after the initial way point is given - which is to define a players and squads actions, once they have gotten to the way point / room.
The point was that 'move', 'attack' and 'defend' have no real meaning to a player. Where as 'move to this point, whereby you will be killing an extractor and there is a medium level of threat' tells me a lot more. It would also only require the LMB and a single key press to do all this.
As for checking the Minimap, I don't think that is relevant. The Marine does not know where the commander intends to send them, or when they are about to do that.
If the situation is that a Marine has gone into a room, uncovered the fog, and the Commander selects a squad and sets the move way point and intended actions for them. What happens when the fog covers things back up? There is also no telling whether the Marine will use his Minimap, or whether he uses it before the fog covers the room again.
You can't just rely on the fact that every player is doing the right thing at the right time, you have to account for variables.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For comms being calmer/more considerate, maybe, but comms have their attention diverted everywhere. Plus, Marines can see down hallways, and proper use of maps, noise, and so on are much better indicators of threat. You mention Fog of War. How does a commander know more about the map in Fog of War than the average player? Are comms always tracking where every unit is running around? One-the-ground and Comms have differing views of the battlefield, and they each have their own unique benefits. Saying the comm has a strictly better sense of the battlefield is incorrect imo.
BF comms may be a poor example (i beg to differ, but I digress), but in every other game these are the known orders. Every FPS game uses these terms on point defense.
Also, I'm not clear on your other argument. I think you're saying that the comm has a better map sense. However, I feel this isn't strictly true. He/she may have a stronger sense of the battlefield as a whole and their general strategy (beware, last time a squad went through there, they died to hydras), but individual players have to stomp through the area, listen, engage, and adapt based on new information. They often have a great sense of how dangerous the area is. They typically know when they are overextended. In NS1 typically the comm got danger levels based on Marines calling out what they saw and where (until MT reveals all).
Finally, while I concede threat levels would be nice to indicate, this isn't about what's nice. It's about what's more efficient. I would almost say we could have both, but I feel like that would start to overload the key combinations the comm would need to know. I also contend that the threat level information isn't as important as distinguishing and communicating the plan to the marines in absence of voice chat. Giving roles and goals, not telling them how screwed they might be, is the goal of the comm. To describe the strategy and an outline of good tactics, and letting the Marines on the ground handle the rest.
Comments
<b>Change to current way points:</b>
It is basically a mix between initial way pointing for the entire squad, and then moving to more 'personal' way point markers for each member for the room, but that everyone can see. So what you call 'markers'.
So instead of having 'move, defend, attack' orders (which are a hang on from controlling NPC in RTS games - and not really appropriate for NS2 imo) you have a way point system that works on threat levels. 'Low', 'Medium', 'High'. These are interpreted automatically based on the contents of a room.
The reasoning for this is that in an RTS game you either want your units to 'move' somewhere, 'attack' something and/or 'defend' a space. But exactly that.
In NS2 you are commanding players with their own minds. 'Moving' somewhere people will interpret differently to 'attacking' somewhere. When really they are all move orders - but the threat level is either low, medium or high (if you cant see the room because of fog it would be unknown).
Moving indicates you are not attacking, where as attacking indicates you are going somewhere where there is a threat. In fact you are always attacking in this game, it just depends on the threat in that location. It sets the player up for different levels of attack, rather than you are or are not.
<b>Added personal way points:</b>
So after the initial threat waypoint has been given for the squad, you can hold a special key to give personal and close quarter markers / waypoints.
So if you have 4 people in the current selected squad, you have 4 actions that you can give.
These 'actions' can be seen on the floor as 'decals'. All are visible (greyed out) apart from the one that is specific to that marine and is highlighted / waypointed (blue not grey).
'Actions' are automatically read by the interface, depending on what you click on and assigned randomly to each player.
<b>For example:</b>
# Clicking on an empty resource node indicates you are going to be building in that room. "Defend New Build"
# Clicking on a harvester indicates the marine to attack it. "Attack Harvester"
# Clicking on the floor displays a 'hold position' icon. "Hold Point"
These personal markers/way points in the room could also be seen on the squad list (currently on the left) so players know what their squad mates are doing.
Also 'threat' levels could filter through to personal waypoints as well. So even if the room is a low threat room, getting someone to attack a harvester is going to put it up to a medium threat (because it is sure to attract some alien attention).
<b>How many clicks?:</b>
Essentially this could all happen in literally 2 - 3 seconds.
# Select squad
# Way Point Location
# Hold Special Key
# Select Personal Tasks
Simple and very communicative. The added bonus is that you don't 'actually' have to use the personal way point system at all. You can even use one personal way point for everyone, by just holding the special key and clicking once in the middle of the room get the whole squad to hold that area.
Automatically recognizing when I click on an enemy Harvester that it is an attack command is good. However, the difference between defend/build/weld on a friendly location is sometimes huge and must be differentiated. Maybe I just want to deny a location to the enemy, other times I want only certain people guarding while others build, other times I want power building. Providing easy ways to do this is crucial, most likely through modified clicks.
@Runteh, I'm not sure the level of threat is necessary. Most players understand implicitly the difference between an Attack, Move, and Defend order. No need to re-build the terminology.
Really the commands Attack, Move, Defend, and Build should suffice for all of the cases in NS2.
Another really useful thing would be the ability to queue up a string of waypoints that the player can see. Sometimes you want players to take the sneaky route. =]
You tell me then what communicates more to a player in a game like this:
# Being given a 'move' command to a room in which necessitates fighting, compared to an 'attack' command that necessitates fighting, compared to a 'defend' move command that necessitates... oh yeah, fighting. It also tells you that you will either be moving to a location, or having a huge fight there. No in between.
# Compare that to a system that tells you the danger level when approaching the way point.
Which tells you more? Yup.
This is not an RTS game that is about ordering around brainless units. RTS commands just don't work, because the commander can see the threat - not the players.
That's partitially why I'm against the threat system.
If I'm told to do something, I bring out the map and estimate my threat level according to the whole map situation. Computer calculated algorhitm has no proper understanding of pressure, map control, game state and all that. What I need from commander is information on how this all goes into his strategy, how much time I've got to get the job done and ect. Then I use the comm's strategical information and my own game awarness to adjust my play so that it suits the situation at hand.
Obviously it goes to a lot more chaotic situations where commander keeps feeding you halfway tactical information, you keep him informed on the field perspective when necessary and ect, but the basic concept goes something like described above.
Going back to the OP and what I spoke about in the second part of my post though it the idea of communicating what you want done in a particular move, and having the opportunity to work on a more tactical level with players.
At least after an initial move command is the point at which you start 'specifying' exactly what that entails.
Say, that looks familiar ... has anyone else recently watched Let's Plays of or just played Dead Space 2? Remember those Augmented Reality (AR) different coloured lines on the floor to help you find your way?
That is how I would want to see way points in NS2. Have for a while now even before I had a existing game example I could turn to.
Well, going along with that, I would love to draw/put text on the map as a commander, which would appear as AR on the floor for Strategy, like those things you would see when some commentator is drawing on a football game. Tactically, I would love it if I could just drop AR templates on a room - take a look at Runteh's mockup there, now expand the circle on the floor with arrows pointing outward from its center with the the words "Defend This Area" - I would hope I did that as a commander by ctrl + click, done. "Attack this area"? shift + click, now the circle has the arrows facing inward, maybe a different colour, done.
Whatever it ends up looking like, I just really hope for the marines the AR ends up on the floor now, instead of flashing in the middle of our view. The story side of things, better AR feels like an advance in software technology to deal with the evolving Kharaa threat :D
Allow me to reference the Battlefield, Project Reality, and several other games where a commander uses the exact same commands and by extension RTS commands do work in FPS games.
I think you're not giving players enough credit. Why wouldn't players understand implicitly the dangers of moving in certain regions? If anything, the players have an even better sense of threat than the comm since once they arrive they have to assess the room and how to navigate it.
However, the "threat levels" give no information about what you want the player to do once they are in the region. Only react? Actively clear the area? Hide and wait? Also, you can't give players roles. If you want one to hunker down and guard the others, you either need a mic or more precise information in your waypoints.
I estimate that "threat level" and danger are implicit information in the types of waypoints/orders given, and each player's ability to look at the map and their situation.
There is no way a Marine knows what is going on more than the Commander. Does he know what I know, which is that there are X buildings in the room, Drifters moving in Skulks hiding in the ceiling and a Fade just outside the room?
Not usually, and if anything they are in a fire fight and the only thing they are thinking about is what their cross-hairs are pointing at. You can be cool and calm and considerate as a commander.
I haven't played PR, but Battlefield? Being a commander in BF requires you to press a few keys, spam radar and drop some ammo boxes occasionally.
To be honest, I don't even know why there is a Commander in BF because I don't think it really adds anything apart from air strikes - which is all about creating a more dynamic game by giving an advantage to the attacking team at spawn points. It feels more like a gap filler than a more permanent and important position the comm has in NS2. It also helps to direct squads on a public because they have to travel a few kilometres before they meet anyone on some of the maps.
Just because they have done it does not mean it works either.
If you had read the rest of the post, the important part was actually what occurs after the initial way point is given - which is to define a players and squads actions, once they have gotten to the way point / room.
The point was that 'move', 'attack' and 'defend' have no real meaning to a player. Where as 'move to this point, whereby you will be killing an extractor and there is a medium level of threat' tells me a lot more. It would also only require the LMB and a single key press to do all this.
As for checking the Minimap, I don't think that is relevant. The Marine does not know where the commander intends to send them, or when they are about to do that.
If the situation is that a Marine has gone into a room, uncovered the fog, and the Commander selects a squad and sets the move way point and intended actions for them. What happens when the fog covers things back up? There is also no telling whether the Marine will use his Minimap, or whether he uses it before the fog covers the room again.
You can't just rely on the fact that every player is doing the right thing at the right time, you have to account for variables.
You can be cool and calm and considerate as a commander.
I haven't played PR, but Battlefield? Being a commander in BF requires you to press a few keys, spam radar and drop some ammo boxes occasionally.
...
Just because they have done it does not mean it works either.
If you had read the rest of the post, the important part was actually what occurs after the initial way point is given - which is to define a players and squads actions, once they have gotten to the way point / room.
The point was that 'move', 'attack' and 'defend' have no real meaning to a player. Where as 'move to this point, whereby you will be killing an extractor and there is a medium level of threat' tells me a lot more. It would also only require the LMB and a single key press to do all this.
As for checking the Minimap, I don't think that is relevant. The Marine does not know where the commander intends to send them, or when they are about to do that.
If the situation is that a Marine has gone into a room, uncovered the fog, and the Commander selects a squad and sets the move way point and intended actions for them. What happens when the fog covers things back up? There is also no telling whether the Marine will use his Minimap, or whether he uses it before the fog covers the room again.
You can't just rely on the fact that every player is doing the right thing at the right time, you have to account for variables.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For comms being calmer/more considerate, maybe, but comms have their attention diverted everywhere. Plus, Marines can see down hallways, and proper use of maps, noise, and so on are much better indicators of threat. You mention Fog of War. How does a commander know more about the map in Fog of War than the average player? Are comms always tracking where every unit is running around? One-the-ground and Comms have differing views of the battlefield, and they each have their own unique benefits. Saying the comm has a strictly better sense of the battlefield is incorrect imo.
BF comms may be a poor example (i beg to differ, but I digress), but in every other game these are the known orders. Every FPS game uses these terms on point defense.
Also, I'm not clear on your other argument. I think you're saying that the comm has a better map sense. However, I feel this isn't strictly true. He/she may have a stronger sense of the battlefield as a whole and their general strategy (beware, last time a squad went through there, they died to hydras), but individual players have to stomp through the area, listen, engage, and adapt based on new information. They often have a great sense of how dangerous the area is. They typically know when they are overextended. In NS1 typically the comm got danger levels based on Marines calling out what they saw and where (until MT reveals all).
Finally, while I concede threat levels would be nice to indicate, this isn't about what's nice. It's about what's more efficient. I would almost say we could have both, but I feel like that would start to overload the key combinations the comm would need to know. I also contend that the threat level information isn't as important as distinguishing and communicating the plan to the marines in absence of voice chat. Giving roles and goals, not telling them how screwed they might be, is the goal of the comm. To describe the strategy and an outline of good tactics, and letting the Marines on the ground handle the rest.