Here's why I don't like it: - It's inflexible, and only useful under one circumstance. - It takes control away from the player that the player would ordinarily have. - It doesn't provide the benefits or address the issues that other suggestions do - the benefits and issues that have lead to the discussions and ideas in this thread.
The more players and commanders are linked together - the better. (this is not combat)
The player keeps his free will and can decide where he wants to go, but in those critical situations(you need lots of players defending an attack in a key position, or organizing a quick attack from a key position) - the commander can restrict it.
But for the awesomeness of instantly bringing you to this key position it will cost your team some res, since usually you would waste a few seconds travelling from pg to pg. If you are not watching the game carefully, optimizing your pgs(so you have too many => travel time gets very long) or defending areas properly there should be a cost, that you can be there and save the extra time. (we are talking about a few seconds, since this seconds are so gamebreaking that we have this thread...)
I dont agree that marines should be able to get to any phasegate they want instantly at anytime with no additional cost. (you are able to build defences, map awareness and scan, optimize phasegates, build forward bases armorys or obs with beacon, either you can manage this or you will have to pay some extra res saving you traveltime in critical situations.)
edit: also some extra menu that pops up, or must be +used on the phasegate would again give you some time delay, since there are ppl that take a bit longer and maybe also block ppl in front of the pgs.
My idea, commander sets it active and everybody can just jump into a phasegate. + its f##### simple to manage as a comm
You don't understand: It takes control away from the player that the player would <b>ordinarily</b> have. THAT is the problem. Ordinarily, the player has free will and can go where he wishes, then the commander suddenly decides "no free will for you". That is not a great idea. Now, if the players <b>never</b> have the control, and the commander always runs the show, then that is still perfectly fine, because the player does not <b>ordinarily</b> have the control - you can't take away from him what he doesn't already have.
I simply don't agree that being able to choose where you teleport to should cost anything - whether by the player or by the team. The infrastructure to instantly get from one location to another already exists. The gates in-between are just unnecessary noise. And noise is exactly what it is - it is random. You don't know whether you will teleport instantly to your desired location, or have to spend a few seconds walking through every single other gate, or something in-between - so then, really, how are you to possibly balance for it?
And if we're only talking about teleporting all our marines to defend a location then... don't we already have beacon? That has a cost.
Also, if there is an issue with bottle-necking, then you haven't seen Kalabalana's player-specified idea. Other commander-specified ideas address that as well.
Is your issue with "complex" systems that they are complex to use, or complex to implement? If the former, then most people would agree with you, we need to make things less confusing, more streamlined and reduce micromanagement where we can. If the latter, then mate, that's not your call.
Have to agree, there shouldn't be any costs associated with using phase gates, and having a panel at the phase gate is just going to cause traffic jams
So far i like my original idea of just having a 'deactivate' button. Majority of the ideas just wouldn't work well under combat conditions, not to mention the bottle neck it could create. As for adding a panel or a sub-section to the marine ui. I just think it would clutter the ui, not to mention marines would have to start macroing phase gates (competitive level).
Please keep your ideas simple, complexity just adds chaos.
@scotty: <!--quoteo(post=1891787:date=Dec 27 2011, 09:37 AM:name=botchiball)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (botchiball @ Dec 27 2011, 09:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1891787"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you really think that if a marine is too stupid to listen to you on which phase gate to go to, or what part of the map that they should head to, that locking a phase gate would in anyway help the situation?
I would think that it would just frustrate the player and cause squabbling/rage quitting.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Regarding complexity adding chaos... not necessarily. Complexity for the user may lead to that, yes (though the bigger issue is that it's just hard to use). However, a complex system that is very simple on the surface (see: any computer program or consumer electronics) is an indicator of good design.
And if we know that every marine will end up exactly where he wishes in one phase, then there is actually no chaos (except the chaos that human players represent), and we can account for that (as Kharaa players, or as a part of balancing the game).
Harimaus idea of a hybrid system is probably the simplest imo. If you forcibly bring up panels before entering pg's then your also taking away the players choice to simply phase as quickly as possible. It also isnt very ideal when you only have 2 phasegates.
Situation 1) Commander locks phasegate to divert traffic. Players still have option to choose alternate destinations but have to bring up a menu. Players also have option to quickly enter and exit phasegates.
Situation 2) Phasegates are unlocked. Players still have option to choose alternate destinations but have to bring up a menu. Players also have option to quickly enter and exit phasegates.
Occams razor actually supports this dual solution system as its the simplest way that both the need for expedience and player freedom are satisfied.
<!--quoteo(post=1892927:date=Jan 6 2012, 09:08 PM:name=scotty)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (scotty @ Jan 6 2012, 09:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1892927"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Greetings all,
My first post since i created this thread. hehe.
So far i like my original idea of just having a 'deactivate' button. Majority of the ideas just wouldn't work well under combat conditions, not to mention the bottle neck it could create. As for adding a panel or a sub-section to the marine ui. I just think it would clutter the ui, not to mention marines would have to start macroing phase gates (competitive level).
Please keep your ideas simple, complexity just adds chaos.
Cheers,
-Scott.C<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice, I knew phase gates needed improvement way back in August when I created what this thread is a rehash of, glad to see others are starting to see what I have. Welcome!
Deactivating of phase gates is the wrong direction for two reasons, first, it's needless extra complexity for the commander to handle and it doesn't add any extra functionality over other ideas which achieve the same goal without PG deactivation (very inefficient). Secondly, deactivating phasegates would only lessen structure efficiency on the map. Like deactivating 4 of your 10 fingers to focus on shooting.
As for cluttering of the UI, no. I highly doubt special condition menus that are only viewed during moments of safety for the marines will be an issue (remember the armory menu?). At the competitive level, macroing will not be needed as many of the models have shown. Are you Scotty from 156?
<!--quoteo(post=1892951:date=Jan 7 2012, 12:48 AM:name=elodea)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elodea @ Jan 7 2012, 12:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1892951"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Harimaus idea of a hybrid system is probably the simplest imo. If you forcibly bring up panels before entering pg's then your also taking away the players choice to simply phase as quickly as possible. It also isnt very ideal when you only have 2 phasegates.
Situation 1) Commander locks phasegate to divert traffic. Players still have option to choose alternate destinations but have to bring up a menu. Players also have option to quickly enter and exit phasegates.
Situation 2) Phasegates are unlocked. Players still have option to choose alternate destinations but have to bring up a menu. Players also have option to quickly enter and exit phasegates.
Occams razor actually supports this dual solution system as its the simplest way that both the need for expedience and player freedom are satisfied.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Simpler than a single Situation that satisfies all of the above? Situation 1) Phase gate system is inherently vanilla until marine/commander specifies a PG exit Marines may use a menu to pick any exit location Commanders may select a default exit location
Minimal commander maintenance, marines aren't 'forced' to do anything (big no-no in game design), and all situations are satisfied in one single step for any player. No need for the commander to over complicate things by maintaining all the PGs in real time deactivating/activating them, setting pathing, etc. Commander just clicks a button in the commander HUD for the PG he wants marines to go to, and that's it! Now he may go back to focusing on the game, rather than spending more time needlessly on PG maintenance.
The only problem I see with this model is that marines might not do what you want. Well, guess what, that's what happens sometimes. lol. At the competitive level this will not be an issue, and at the public game level, might be the only time you see marines actively ignoring your commands, but again, what do you expect in a pub?
<!--quoteo(post=1893018:date=Jan 8 2012, 04:12 AM:name=Kalabalana)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kalabalana @ Jan 8 2012, 04:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1893018"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->text<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I have to agree with you :). Much better to just set exits instead of locking/unlocking
<!--quoteo(post=1893031:date=Jan 7 2012, 01:00 PM:name=elodea)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elodea @ Jan 7 2012, 01:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1893031"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have to agree with you :). Much better to just set exits instead of locking/unlocking<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thanks, I really think it's the simplest and most efficient way to handle PG control. It's dynamic, and never removes control from anyone.
I'd like to see this implementation, the only thing left is a simple way for marines to pick pg exits. I like my radial menu idea, but I don't feel it's the most efficient method. I'm sure the combined minds of those in this forum will boil down an idea to it's base functionality. But what is it? Horizontal list of PG locations? A dynamic radial menu? Key bindings?
Also, another idea that popped into my head while writing this, I think it might be cool if a commander could select a squad or group of rines, and pick a one time PG location for them all.
Well then lets hope we get good tooltips... so ppl know that there is a menu they can use, but its not a must(at first) - and after the commander sets a default exit it becomes a must to use IF you want to go somewhere else then this default exit.
But maybe i didnt understand the default exit part right - since the way i get it, every phasegate redirects you to this...
Or you mean it kinda as a very timebased(so the comm would not have it active more or less all the time) thing(maybe with some global announcement, so marines know that the default exit is now active/inactive) for the commander to use, which is basically my idea just without costs or other drawbacks and the basic selectable pg menu idea in addition on top of this)
Or you keep the basic loop - with a little change because of this default exit, so ppl can use the menu or will have to make a compleate circle(or reset after X seconds, opening the menu whatever) until it resets it. (had a similar idea and even made a <a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12784365/pgcircle.jpg" target="_blank">drawing</a> but didnt post it until now)
I think Kalabalana has the right idea here. Can I also add that it might be nice if the commander can set a "base" exit for players entering back through the default phase gate? Or would that over-complicate things?
Either the phasegate would need 2 entries, so one sends you forward the other one backwards in the loop, or we would need an additional hotkey/modifier whatever so you can press this to jump to your last pg(jump 1 pg backwards in the loop) without opening a menu.
<!--quoteo(post=1893183:date=Jan 8 2012, 07:41 PM:name=Koruyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Jan 8 2012, 07:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1893183"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Either the phasegate would need 2 entries, so one sends you forward the other one backwards in the loop, or we would need an additional hotkey/modifier whatever so you can press this to jump to your last pg(jump 1 pg backwards in the loop) without opening a menu.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I just read your edited post (3 above this one), and I love the drawing! I think it's perfect.
<!--QuoteBegin-Koruyo+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->- and after the commander sets a default exit it becomes a must to use IF you want to go somewhere else then this default exit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yep, that's exactly the idea.
As far as commander specification, there's some thinking to do in terms of getting a suitably simple implementation - my previous suggestion for that looked similar to Koruyo's. We need to decide: 1 - degree of control 2 - manner of control 3 - graphics
For 1, I think I've seen 3 suggestions in order of increasing complexity and control: a - Set a "priority" phase-gate; all other phase-gates will exit to that location by default (over-ridden by the player); the "priority" phase-gate itself will exit to the default build order location. b - Simply re-order the cycle. c - Set the exit-point for every phase-gate individually.
For 2, this is dependent on 1 a - Click a phase-gate, click "set priority". Clicking any phase-gate, clicking "reset" changes to the default (cycling through build order). b - Click any phase-gate, click "change cycle", opens a "list" menu alongside a map, where players can drag and drop phase-gate locations above or below one another, changing the order. Clicking any phase-gate, clicking "reset" changes to the default (cycling through build order). c - Click any phase-gate, click "change routes", opens a map, players can drag and drop connections between phase-gates. Not making a selection snaps it back to what it was previously. Possible to have all phase-gates exit to one phase-gate. Clicking any phase-gate, clicking "reset" changes to the default (cycling through build order).
For 3, this is dependent on 2 a - Only indicates on the overhead view and the minimap which phase gate is the priority. b - "list" menu alongside a map, the map shows the route as arrows that the current cycle will take (something like Koruyo's suggestion: <a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12784365/pgcircle.jpg" target="_blank">http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12784365/pgcircle.jpg</a> ) c - Map opens, shows the current route as arrows, and clicking and holding breaks a route and drags the head of the arrow.
Other than that, I think I'm now on-board with Kalabalana's idea, with a few modifications for ease of use: <!--QuoteBegin-Koruyo+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well then lets hope we get good tooltips... so ppl know that there is a menu they can use, but its not a must(at first)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-Harimau+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I do have some ideas about trying to improve on your suggestion, to help mitigate some of these issues. <!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->- The first is that the player gets the last say as to their next exit point: the commander can only encourage it by setting default exit points.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> - The second is that we'll keep the radial menu, but it will be a sub-function of the map key (haven't worked out how best this would be done; probably by pressing the map key, then holding left-click to activate the PG-selection sub-function); when the PG-selection sub-function is active, each radial menu option will have an arrow that leads to the corresponding PG on the map. When hovering over a radial menu otion, that corresponding PG and its radial menu option will be highlighted while all other options will be subdued. <!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->- When a PG is used, the selection is immediately cleared.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> - Leaving the mouse in the centre of the screen when using the radial menu will clear (cancel) any selection. - Every time a PG goes up or down, upon opening the map next, it will flash: to unambiguously illustrate to the player that the PG locations have changed; and that they have to clear their assumptions. As a bonus, this would, by extension, also indicate when the first PG goes up [and when you first get the ability to set your own phase-gate locations].<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We also need to consider "expiry" and "priority" of specifications: + All player-specified exit locations over-ride commander-specified default exit locations. - When do player-specified exit locations expire? I'm thinking after one phase or death, whichever comes first; no time limitation, but can be cancelled. - When do commander-specified exit locations expire? I'm thinking no time limitation, but can be cancelled (or reset or re-ordered, as the case may be). - Do <b>newly</b> commander-specified exit locations <b>replace</b> player-specified exit locations? I'm thinking no.
<!--quoteo(post=1893186:date=Jan 8 2012, 09:09 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jan 8 2012, 09:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1893186"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We also need to consider "expiry" and "priority" of specifications: + All player-specified exit locations over-ride commander-specified default exit locations. - When do player-specified exit locations expire? I'm thinking after one phase or death, whichever comes first; no time limitation, but can be cancelled. - When do commander-specified exit locations expire? I'm thinking no time limitation, but can be cancelled (or reset or re-ordered, as the case may be). - Do <b>newly</b> commander-specified exit locations <b>replace</b> player-specified exit locations? I'm thinking no.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agree with all, but I think at the end when the commander sets a new default phase gate exit it does reset all current player selections. While I am usually against this sort of thing, to be honest, when a commander does actually go out of their way to pick a new exit point, the reason is probably going to be enough to justify the one time reset of player exits. I actually think more players would prefer this than be against it as well, which is justification in itself. Also I don't see a need to add the functionality for players to unselect a phase gate exit, since the process of cancellation would be the same amount of work as just picking a better exit, and as such, would be done. No need to add anything extra in this regard, simplicity is more control.
<!--quoteo(post=1893204:date=Jan 9 2012, 01:04 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jan 9 2012, 01:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1893204"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, the 'cancel' function would just be bringing up the radial menu and not making a selection (leaving your "cursor" in the centre of the screen).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, that is a fast way to do it, but in under what circumstances would you need to cancel your pick?
I guess it depends on the commander implementation. If the commander picks a priority phase-gate and doesn't overwrite your selection, then you might want to cancel it so that you can go along with his plans. If the commander sets the routes or re-orders the cycle, then that's pretty much passive (wouldn't overwrite your selection anyway), and maybe you want to follow a team member. It's hard to say without actually trying it out, but I see no reason not to have the cancel feature unless it somehow gets in the way.
Comments
Here's why I don't like it:
- It's inflexible, and only useful under one circumstance.
- It takes control away from the player that the player would ordinarily have.
- It doesn't provide the benefits or address the issues that other suggestions do - the benefits and issues that have lead to the discussions and ideas in this thread.
The more players and commanders are linked together - the better. (this is not combat)
The player keeps his free will and can decide where he wants to go, but in those critical situations(you need lots of players defending an attack in a key position, or organizing a quick attack from a key position) - the commander can restrict it.
But for the awesomeness of instantly bringing you to this key position it will cost your team some res, since usually you would waste a few seconds travelling from pg to pg.
If you are not watching the game carefully, optimizing your pgs(so you have too many => travel time gets very long) or defending areas properly there should be a cost, that you can be there and save the extra time. (we are talking about a few seconds, since this seconds are so gamebreaking that we have this thread...)
I dont agree that marines should be able to get to any phasegate they want instantly at anytime with no additional cost.
(you are able to build defences, map awareness and scan, optimize phasegates, build forward bases armorys or obs with beacon, either you can manage this or you will have to pay some extra res saving you traveltime in critical situations.)
edit: also some extra menu that pops up, or must be +used on the phasegate would again give you some time delay, since there are ppl that take a bit longer and maybe also block ppl in front of the pgs.
My idea, commander sets it active and everybody can just jump into a phasegate.
+ its f##### simple to manage as a comm
Now, if the players <b>never</b> have the control, and the commander always runs the show, then that is still perfectly fine, because the player does not <b>ordinarily</b> have the control - you can't take away from him what he doesn't already have.
I simply don't agree that being able to choose where you teleport to should cost anything - whether by the player or by the team. The infrastructure to instantly get from one location to another already exists. The gates in-between are just unnecessary noise. And noise is exactly what it is - it is random. You don't know whether you will teleport instantly to your desired location, or have to spend a few seconds walking through every single other gate, or something in-between - so then, really, how are you to possibly balance for it?
And if we're only talking about teleporting all our marines to defend a location then... don't we already have beacon? That has a cost.
Also, if there is an issue with bottle-necking, then you haven't seen Kalabalana's player-specified idea. Other commander-specified ideas address that as well.
Is your issue with "complex" systems that they are complex to use, or complex to implement?
If the former, then most people would agree with you, we need to make things less confusing, more streamlined and reduce micromanagement where we can.
If the latter, then mate, that's not your call.
But fine, maybe you guys should finalize your ideas and write it down nicely.
My first post since i created this thread. hehe.
So far i like my original idea of just having a 'deactivate' button.
Majority of the ideas just wouldn't work well under combat conditions, not to mention the bottle neck it could create.
As for adding a panel or a sub-section to the marine ui. I just think it would clutter the ui, not to mention marines would have to start macroing phase gates (competitive level).
Please keep your ideas simple, complexity just adds chaos.
Cheers,
-Scott.C
<!--quoteo(post=1891787:date=Dec 27 2011, 09:37 AM:name=botchiball)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (botchiball @ Dec 27 2011, 09:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1891787"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you really think that if a marine is too stupid to listen to you on which phase gate to go to, or what part of the map that they should head to, that locking a phase gate would in anyway help the situation?
I would think that it would just frustrate the player and cause squabbling/rage quitting.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Regarding complexity adding chaos... not necessarily. Complexity for the user may lead to that, yes (though the bigger issue is that it's just hard to use). However, a complex system that is very simple on the surface (see: any computer program or consumer electronics) is an indicator of good design.
And if we know that every marine will end up exactly where he wishes in one phase, then there is actually no chaos (except the chaos that human players represent), and we can account for that (as Kharaa players, or as a part of balancing the game).
Situation 1)
Commander locks phasegate to divert traffic.
Players still have option to choose alternate destinations but have to bring up a menu.
Players also have option to quickly enter and exit phasegates.
Situation 2)
Phasegates are unlocked.
Players still have option to choose alternate destinations but have to bring up a menu.
Players also have option to quickly enter and exit phasegates.
Occams razor actually supports this dual solution system as its the simplest way that both the need for expedience and player freedom are satisfied.
My first post since i created this thread. hehe.
So far i like my original idea of just having a 'deactivate' button.
Majority of the ideas just wouldn't work well under combat conditions, not to mention the bottle neck it could create.
As for adding a panel or a sub-section to the marine ui. I just think it would clutter the ui, not to mention marines would have to start macroing phase gates (competitive level).
Please keep your ideas simple, complexity just adds chaos.
Cheers,
-Scott.C<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice, I knew phase gates needed improvement way back in August when I created what this thread is a rehash of, glad to see others are starting to see what I have. Welcome!
Deactivating of phase gates is the wrong direction for two reasons, first, it's needless extra complexity for the commander to handle and it doesn't add any extra functionality over other ideas which achieve the same goal without PG deactivation (very inefficient). Secondly, deactivating phasegates would only lessen structure efficiency on the map. Like deactivating 4 of your 10 fingers to focus on shooting.
As for cluttering of the UI, no. I highly doubt special condition menus that are only viewed during moments of safety for the marines will be an issue (remember the armory menu?). At the competitive level, macroing will not be needed as many of the models have shown. Are you Scotty from 156?
<!--quoteo(post=1892951:date=Jan 7 2012, 12:48 AM:name=elodea)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elodea @ Jan 7 2012, 12:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1892951"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Harimaus idea of a hybrid system is probably the simplest imo. If you forcibly bring up panels before entering pg's then your also taking away the players choice to simply phase as quickly as possible. It also isnt very ideal when you only have 2 phasegates.
Situation 1)
Commander locks phasegate to divert traffic.
Players still have option to choose alternate destinations but have to bring up a menu.
Players also have option to quickly enter and exit phasegates.
Situation 2)
Phasegates are unlocked.
Players still have option to choose alternate destinations but have to bring up a menu.
Players also have option to quickly enter and exit phasegates.
Occams razor actually supports this dual solution system as its the simplest way that both the need for expedience and player freedom are satisfied.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Simpler than a single Situation that satisfies all of the above?
Situation 1)
Phase gate system is inherently vanilla until marine/commander specifies a PG exit
Marines may use a menu to pick any exit location
Commanders may select a default exit location
Minimal commander maintenance, marines aren't 'forced' to do anything (big no-no in game design), and all situations are satisfied in one single step for any player. No need for the commander to over complicate things by maintaining all the PGs in real time deactivating/activating them, setting pathing, etc. Commander just clicks a button in the commander HUD for the PG he wants marines to go to, and that's it! Now he may go back to focusing on the game, rather than spending more time needlessly on PG maintenance.
The only problem I see with this model is that marines might not do what you want. Well, guess what, that's what happens sometimes. lol. At the competitive level this will not be an issue, and at the public game level, might be the only time you see marines actively ignoring your commands, but again, what do you expect in a pub?
I have to agree with you :). Much better to just set exits instead of locking/unlocking
Thanks, I really think it's the simplest and most efficient way to handle PG control. It's dynamic, and never removes control from anyone.
I'd like to see this implementation, the only thing left is a simple way for marines to pick pg exits. I like my radial menu idea, but I don't feel it's the most efficient method. I'm sure the combined minds of those in this forum will boil down an idea to it's base functionality. But what is it? Horizontal list of PG locations? A dynamic radial menu? Key bindings?
Also, another idea that popped into my head while writing this, I think it might be cool if a commander could select a squad or group of rines, and pick a one time PG location for them all.
But maybe i didnt understand the default exit part right - since the way i get it, every phasegate redirects you to this...
Or you mean it kinda as a very timebased(so the comm would not have it active more or less all the time) thing(maybe with some global announcement, so marines know that the default exit is now active/inactive) for the commander to use, which is basically my idea just without costs or other drawbacks and the basic selectable pg menu idea in addition on top of this)
Or you keep the basic loop - with a little change because of this default exit, so ppl can use the menu or will have to make a compleate circle(or reset after X seconds, opening the menu whatever) until it resets it.
(had a similar idea and even made a <a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12784365/pgcircle.jpg" target="_blank">drawing</a> but didnt post it until now)
I just read your edited post (3 above this one), and I love the drawing! I think it's perfect.
Yep, that's exactly the idea.
As far as commander specification, there's some thinking to do in terms of getting a suitably simple implementation - my previous suggestion for that looked similar to Koruyo's.
We need to decide:
1 - degree of control
2 - manner of control
3 - graphics
For 1, I think I've seen 3 suggestions in order of increasing complexity and control:
a - Set a "priority" phase-gate; all other phase-gates will exit to that location by default (over-ridden by the player); the "priority" phase-gate itself will exit to the default build order location.
b - Simply re-order the cycle.
c - Set the exit-point for every phase-gate individually.
For 2, this is dependent on 1
a - Click a phase-gate, click "set priority". Clicking any phase-gate, clicking "reset" changes to the default (cycling through build order).
b - Click any phase-gate, click "change cycle", opens a "list" menu alongside a map, where players can drag and drop phase-gate locations above or below one another, changing the order. Clicking any phase-gate, clicking "reset" changes to the default (cycling through build order).
c - Click any phase-gate, click "change routes", opens a map, players can drag and drop connections between phase-gates. Not making a selection snaps it back to what it was previously. Possible to have all phase-gates exit to one phase-gate. Clicking any phase-gate, clicking "reset" changes to the default (cycling through build order).
For 3, this is dependent on 2
a - Only indicates on the overhead view and the minimap which phase gate is the priority.
b - "list" menu alongside a map, the map shows the route as arrows that the current cycle will take (something like Koruyo's suggestion: <a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12784365/pgcircle.jpg" target="_blank">http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12784365/pgcircle.jpg</a> )
c - Map opens, shows the current route as arrows, and clicking and holding breaks a route and drags the head of the arrow.
Other than that, I think I'm now on-board with Kalabalana's idea, with a few modifications for ease of use:
<!--QuoteBegin-Koruyo+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well then lets hope we get good tooltips... so ppl know that there is a menu they can use, but its not a must(at first)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Harimau+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I do have some ideas about trying to improve on your suggestion, to help mitigate some of these issues.
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->- The first is that the player gets the last say as to their next exit point: the commander can only encourage it by setting default exit points.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
- The second is that we'll keep the radial menu, but it will be a sub-function of the map key (haven't worked out how best this would be done; probably by pressing the map key, then holding left-click to activate the PG-selection sub-function); when the PG-selection sub-function is active, each radial menu option will have an arrow that leads to the corresponding PG on the map. When hovering over a radial menu otion, that corresponding PG and its radial menu option will be highlighted while all other options will be subdued.
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->- When a PG is used, the selection is immediately cleared.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
- Leaving the mouse in the centre of the screen when using the radial menu will clear (cancel) any selection.
- Every time a PG goes up or down, upon opening the map next, it will flash: to unambiguously illustrate to the player that the PG locations have changed; and that they have to clear their assumptions. As a bonus, this would, by extension, also indicate when the first PG goes up [and when you first get the ability to set your own phase-gate locations].<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We also need to consider "expiry" and "priority" of specifications:
+ All player-specified exit locations over-ride commander-specified default exit locations.
- When do player-specified exit locations expire? I'm thinking after one phase or death, whichever comes first; no time limitation, but can be cancelled.
- When do commander-specified exit locations expire? I'm thinking no time limitation, but can be cancelled (or reset or re-ordered, as the case may be).
- Do <b>newly</b> commander-specified exit locations <b>replace</b> player-specified exit locations? I'm thinking no.
+ All player-specified exit locations over-ride commander-specified default exit locations.
- When do player-specified exit locations expire? I'm thinking after one phase or death, whichever comes first; no time limitation, but can be cancelled.
- When do commander-specified exit locations expire? I'm thinking no time limitation, but can be cancelled (or reset or re-ordered, as the case may be).
- Do <b>newly</b> commander-specified exit locations <b>replace</b> player-specified exit locations? I'm thinking no.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agree with all, but I think at the end when the commander sets a new default phase gate exit it does reset all current player selections. While I am usually against this sort of thing, to be honest, when a commander does actually go out of their way to pick a new exit point, the reason is probably going to be enough to justify the one time reset of player exits. I actually think more players would prefer this than be against it as well, which is justification in itself. Also I don't see a need to add the functionality for players to unselect a phase gate exit, since the process of cancellation would be the same amount of work as just picking a better exit, and as such, would be done. No need to add anything extra in this regard, simplicity is more control.
Actually, that is a fast way to do it, but in under what circumstances would you need to cancel your pick?