How are UWE going to make it fun having three commanders?
-Klaus-
Join Date: 2008-11-14 Member: 65447Members
Join Date: 2008-11-14 Member: 65447Members
After reinstalling NS this week and playing many hours on the [VH2] servers I'm curious how exactly UWE will balance three commanders on each side?
Being an avid RTS fan I've also been reading about the new C&C 4 gameplay changes. They're planning on implementing 3 unique flavours of each side (Nod and GDI) being offence, defence and support. With the aim that each three sub-factions would work together for victory. I think this kind of gameplay could work well if implemented with the NS2 commanders, each tech point and command chair having a slight bias to each of the three.
UWE have implied that each command point will unlock new tech and this could be tied to that comm chair, for example the siege cannon is tied to offence, catalyst packs to support, armour upgrades to defence... Each of these commanders could have a slight nudge to the tactics they implement too by tweaking the res cost of items and research, for example support may get cheaper med and ammo drops, defence cheaper turrets and offence could have heaper weapons. This would encourage the commanders to avoid overlapping each other and focusing their efforts more.
Something similar could be implemented with the Kharaa, maybe in line with the upgrade chambers (movement, sensory and defence).
Personally I think when a player enters a comm chair he should be able to choose his playstyle as long as it isn't taken. This would become fixed to that tech point, although pre-pinning each style to a different tech point could give maps interesting variations and tactics. For example a map could initially start with a defence commander and you work towards the offence tech point to enable a push against the enemy.
I'm not at all sure what UWE are thinking in this current time and they may scrap multiple commanders after playtesting has begun but I think this would add a very interesting layer to the strategy of the game.
Being an avid RTS fan I've also been reading about the new C&C 4 gameplay changes. They're planning on implementing 3 unique flavours of each side (Nod and GDI) being offence, defence and support. With the aim that each three sub-factions would work together for victory. I think this kind of gameplay could work well if implemented with the NS2 commanders, each tech point and command chair having a slight bias to each of the three.
UWE have implied that each command point will unlock new tech and this could be tied to that comm chair, for example the siege cannon is tied to offence, catalyst packs to support, armour upgrades to defence... Each of these commanders could have a slight nudge to the tactics they implement too by tweaking the res cost of items and research, for example support may get cheaper med and ammo drops, defence cheaper turrets and offence could have heaper weapons. This would encourage the commanders to avoid overlapping each other and focusing their efforts more.
Something similar could be implemented with the Kharaa, maybe in line with the upgrade chambers (movement, sensory and defence).
Personally I think when a player enters a comm chair he should be able to choose his playstyle as long as it isn't taken. This would become fixed to that tech point, although pre-pinning each style to a different tech point could give maps interesting variations and tactics. For example a map could initially start with a defence commander and you work towards the offence tech point to enable a push against the enemy.
I'm not at all sure what UWE are thinking in this current time and they may scrap multiple commanders after playtesting has begun but I think this would add a very interesting layer to the strategy of the game.
Comments
Offense - controls sieges, weapon upgrades.
Defense - controls turrets, and other defensive upgrades (armor?)
Support - Builder bots, medding/ammo, pinging etc...
If only one comm, he controls everything. If two comms, one of them picks who will play the other role in addition to their own.
It sounds like it would be difficult to coordinate all 3 commanders actions together, but if they are able to pull it off and streamline it, it sounds like a lot of fun.
Straight from the interview with Flayra at NSPlayer.net its not too old.
<a href="http://nsplayer.net/ns2interview.php" target="_blank">http://nsplayer.net/ns2interview.php</a>
3 commanders would be necessary at that point.
Each marine with their own personal med spamming com would be nice tho
With the limited knowledge we have of NS2 I cannot see how a second commander is justified when playing a game under a 14v14, assuming the first commander has 'average' RTS skill. NS1 played almost nothing like an actual RTS game and the commander's role was so <i>basic</i> compared to a real RTS. The reasons why I say that can be found <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=102260&st=240&start=240" target="_blank">here (3rd down from top)</a>. I've linked to this thread before, mainly because the RTS side of NS2 has come under frequently discussion recently, and I hope the people calling for multiple commanders read and reply to my concerns. If the post is too long and you don't feel like reading it, I basically say because NS is a FPS/RTS hybrid the core of what makes an RTS game an RTS game is not present in NS. Unless there is a bombshell that UWE has yet to release about commanding I cannot see how multiple commanders are justified short of servers hosting a flat-out stupid amount of players.
I love the title of this thread, specially the "How is UWE going to make commanding fun." I'd like to expand that by asking how is UWE going to have the commanders making dynamic strategic decisions based off events that unfold in the game and how are commanders going to avoid the role of baby sitter for the team?
I still see no need at all for multiple commanders, however, I'll keep my mind open about it and I have nothing against it as such. If it doesn't work out it's not exactly hard to "fix".
Support has tac scans, meds and ammo
offense has abilties like flame tipped rounds equipping the targeted marine with them to burn infestation etc
defense has laser halls and such and such.
alot of these things will mkae the game a lot more dynamic
Personally I dislike that everyone has to buy his own weapon, though I don't remember the details anymore.
What about the res pool? Does every marine has his own res pool now? Are buildings built by failry dividing the cost between all marines?
Well, I wonder how UWE worked that out. It'll be interesting to see.
Maybe they're assuming that most of the commanders will be FPS players that don't normally play RTS's. If that's the case it sounds like a smart move rather than a fatal flaw. I hope the RTS aspect of NS2 will have depth to it and maybe even allow for a single good commander to avoid babysitting duties. It's hard to say with the amout of "leet medpack" proponents on this forum.
This could be done in one of two ways:
1. Restrict command to the rooms around the command chair. If there is one commander, then the entire map would be available. Once two or more commanders are logged in, the rooms closest to each commander would only allow actions from that commander.
2. Designate the "first" commander with the authority to delegate the available areas in which the other commanders can perform actions. This would allow the first commander to delegate authority to command as he/she sees fit. Initially, commanders would have full authority.
Neither solution is perfect; but with a few tweaks, I think either could be effectively implemented.
With the limited knowledge we have of NS2 I cannot see how a second commander is justified when playing a game under a 14v14, assuming the first commander has 'average' RTS skill. NS1 played almost nothing like an actual RTS game and the commander's role was so <i>basic</i> compared to a real RTS. The reasons why I say that can be found <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=102260&st=240&start=240" target="_blank">here (3rd down from top)</a>. I've linked to this thread before, mainly because the RTS side of NS2 has come under frequently discussion recently, and I hope the people calling for multiple commanders read and reply to my concerns. If the post is too long and you don't feel like reading it, I basically say because NS is a FPS/RTS hybrid the core of what makes an RTS game an RTS game is not present in NS. Unless there is a bombshell that UWE has yet to release about commanding I cannot see how multiple commanders are justified short of servers hosting a flat-out stupid amount of players.
I love the title of this thread, specially the "How is UWE going to make commanding fun." I'd like to expand that by asking how is UWE going to have the commanders making dynamic strategic decisions based off events that unfold in the game and how are commanders going to avoid the role of baby sitter for the team?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The NS resource system is AMAZING compared to most RTS games. I have played my share of RTS games: starcraft, warcraft, every command and conquer, company of heros, and many more. The standard harassment of killing off “workers†that you seem to be talking about is complete ###### compared to the resource struggle associated with towers found in Natural Selection.
Natural Selection gameplay completely revolves around resource control. Yes, towers are strong, but they still die. It is <b>when</b> they die that creates a dynamic resources struggle. There is really no need to make injured resource towers perform less, in fact, it sounds like a pretty bad idea for game dynamics.
Second, I wouldn’t go as far as to say there are no counters in NS. Shotguns counter early fades, hmgs counter onos, GLs counter lerks, shotguns counter structures, etc… I do agree that the counters are typically not as sharp as traditional RTS games. In general, a shotgun does a lot more than just counter early fades and HMGs are simply better than LMGs at almost everything. But, it is important that the counters in NS are not as sharp as a typical RTS. Real players don't enjoy being completely at the whim of one teammate. Sharp counters would inherently minimize the significance of marine skill and shift the emphases on the commanders. The role of the teams single commander should not be overwhelmingly more important than any one marine on the field.
Lastly, I agree that multiple commanders seems like a bad idea, but simply because the fundamental role of a commander is to dictate the actions of the entire team.
But as an RTS player I still hate the idea of multiple commanders
I guess we just blatantly disagree. In NS1 the marines are out scouting, they find an RT, and they may or may attack it. The other option is that the commander scans a RT location or sees/hears a gorge go to an RT spot and can safely assume and RT is there so they tell the marines to go kill it . Either way, both scenarios seem really basic compared to successfully micro'ing a battle and simultaneously sneaking in a smaller group of units to attack an expansion or the workers there, which I've found most RTS pub players can't really do.
Even if you think the structure / gameplay behind the 'resource struggle in NS1' is far above that of standard RTS harassment what the commander actually does is still really basic compared to a standard RTS harassment. In terms of player skill I can't even see a comparison between the two. The first and most common way of killing RT's I listed above doesn't even involve the commander.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is really no need to make injured resource towers perform less, in fact, it sounds like a pretty bad idea for game dynamics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
With the addition of weld-bots for the marines, and probably something similar for the alien commander, having damaged RT's resource slower sounds like a way to add skill to the commander's role and it's being done in a way that won't destroy the team if the commander is bad. It won't destroy the team because a concerned marine can just buy a welder and do it themselves. It would also encourage marines to go to places of actual value instead of rambo'ing around the map. I think every opportunity to add skill to the commander's role without increasing their ability to ruin a game should be looked at and the 'damaged RTs' idea does it in a way that does not make the commander 'overwhelmingly more important than any one marine on the field.'
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Second, I wouldn’t go as far as to say there are no counters in NS...I do agree that the counters are typically not as sharp as traditional RTS games...Sharp counters would inherently minimize the significance of marine skill and shift the emphases on the commanders.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well we at least agree there. Soft counter's are the only option for a RTS/FPS.
Commanding <b>well</b> is certainly not this simple nor hands off. Marines are not the scouts, the commander is. The commander instantly determines which RTS have been built as they are constructed; ideally, he knows where every chamber and alien is simply by listening to the map and following the flow of the game. Like any game, the initial play is predetermined but once the first marine or alien dies the game becomes dynamic. He must decide the optimal number of marines to send to an area and if that marine should take a weapon.
Almost every marine that is attacked is expected to get a medpack mid bite, which means the commander needs to be on screen with the marines at every battle. He has to pay attention to the movement of every marine and predict his micro movements as he enters combat areas. Although, the commander obviously does not <u>control</u> the micro movement of every marine he is expected to watch and <u>predict</u> the micro movement of every marine. If the marine is obviously dead (out of ammo, heavily outnumbered, positioned badly, etc...) then no meds should be dropped. In contrast, it may be beneficial to drop a huge amount of meds (game changing amounts of res) in a single battle to take a room. This means that the commander inherently performs the same actions he would in a standard RTS in his head without actually dropping waypoints. In fact, the commander does dam near the same thing hovering medpacks over where marines are about to jump.
Certainly, this is not performed equally well by pub commanders. The main difference is that pub marines run off and do random things, making it much harder for the commander to follow the flow of the game and pay attention to every marine. Nevertheless, all of the same elements are performed by a decent pub commander.
The role of the commander in NS is obviously more forgiving than a 1v1 classical RTS simply because NS is a team game. However, the macro and micro required to command <b>perfectly</b> is still above anyone that plays the game. Different, but equally challenging in its own right.
Lastly, I am yet to see the benefit to gameplay by adding multiple commanders (other than slightly reducing the rage of marines on the field in pubs). I also believe that marines purchasing their own weapons takes away a huge part of the commanders macro responsibilities. In NS, dropping weapons, is the equivalent of choosing which units types to build. I would have preferred MORE weapons and per-unit options available to the commander, not less. Hopefully they will be adding in A LOT of per-unit upgrades that only the commander(s) can grant.
Have patience until we get to know more about the role, then speculate. It's pointless to do it now!
At worst it's going to wreck public play and people will block it somehow. If it works, we've got a lot better and smoother comm learning curve. Doesn't seem that bad.
I just hope they aren't making big tradeoffs to include it in the game.