Remove (or heavily restrict) the multiple commanders
ScardyBob
ScardyBob Join Date: 2009-11-25 Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
ScardyBob Join Date: 2009-11-25 Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
As far as I can tell, the best reasons for multiple commanders are
<ol type='1'><li>Allow new players to learn commanding without requiring them to actually command</li><li>Splitting commander duties to allow more effective micromanagement</li></ol>
However, I think the drawbacks of the current system far outweigh these advantages. These drawbacks include
<ol type='1'><li>Ease of griefing
<ul><li>Primarily the recycling of the base, but can also include purposeful wasting of team resources, spamming buildings, or blocking passageways with buildings. Please note that current system makes it easy for new commanders trying to learn the system to inadvertently grief the team by wasting team resources on unnecessary buildings or research, a very bad game mechanism imo.</li></ul></li><li>Too many cooks spoiling the soup
<ul><li>Each commander has their own strategy and research path that are not always compatible. This will lead to conflict between commanders, a lack of organized strategy, and (most likely) an unnecessary loss by the multi-commanded team.</li></ul></li></ol>
The easiest way to solve these problems would be to remove the multi-commander ability and change other game mechanics to satisfy the original reasons for the multiple commanders. For (1), I'd suggest a single-player commander tutorial modeled off of the intro tutorials of most RTS games. For (2), you could simplify the commander abilities (less research options, buildings, or ammo/health drops) or transfer some of these abilities to the player (such as allowing the gorge to drop buildings).
Another solution could be to restrict the additional commanders in some way, such as
<ol type='1'><li>Allow the primary commander to designate the number or which players can be the additional commanders</li><li>Restrict the abilities of the additional commanders (e.g. only allow certain buildings, research, or ammo/health drops)</li><li>Separate the buildings, resources, and research of multiple commanders (i.e. each commander gets their own resources and can only research or recycle buildings they've placed).</li></ol>
Basically, I don't think multiple commanders will work very well in NS2, but if UWE is determined to keep this, they need to either clearly distinction each commanders' items or create a commander hierarchy or chain of command.
<ol type='1'><li>Allow new players to learn commanding without requiring them to actually command</li><li>Splitting commander duties to allow more effective micromanagement</li></ol>
However, I think the drawbacks of the current system far outweigh these advantages. These drawbacks include
<ol type='1'><li>Ease of griefing
<ul><li>Primarily the recycling of the base, but can also include purposeful wasting of team resources, spamming buildings, or blocking passageways with buildings. Please note that current system makes it easy for new commanders trying to learn the system to inadvertently grief the team by wasting team resources on unnecessary buildings or research, a very bad game mechanism imo.</li></ul></li><li>Too many cooks spoiling the soup
<ul><li>Each commander has their own strategy and research path that are not always compatible. This will lead to conflict between commanders, a lack of organized strategy, and (most likely) an unnecessary loss by the multi-commanded team.</li></ul></li></ol>
The easiest way to solve these problems would be to remove the multi-commander ability and change other game mechanics to satisfy the original reasons for the multiple commanders. For (1), I'd suggest a single-player commander tutorial modeled off of the intro tutorials of most RTS games. For (2), you could simplify the commander abilities (less research options, buildings, or ammo/health drops) or transfer some of these abilities to the player (such as allowing the gorge to drop buildings).
Another solution could be to restrict the additional commanders in some way, such as
<ol type='1'><li>Allow the primary commander to designate the number or which players can be the additional commanders</li><li>Restrict the abilities of the additional commanders (e.g. only allow certain buildings, research, or ammo/health drops)</li><li>Separate the buildings, resources, and research of multiple commanders (i.e. each commander gets their own resources and can only research or recycle buildings they've placed).</li></ol>
Basically, I don't think multiple commanders will work very well in NS2, but if UWE is determined to keep this, they need to either clearly distinction each commanders' items or create a commander hierarchy or chain of command.
Comments
1. Main comm enters hive/cc at the start. Later I join in, drop some buildings I wanted somewhere or get 2 MACs where I want to attack and hop out. Same with missed upgrades.
2. 2 comms. Second joining later like previously but this time they split: 1 comm deals with 1 side of the map and 2nd deals with another.
With such small player numbers the benefits of multiple commanders is almost completely lost. With bigger servers and maps where multiple conflict zones are taking place at ounce, the ability for a second commander to help control and repair with macs, drop resupplies, put up quick defenses, drop res nodes, or do any other thing that could help turn the tide of battle will be far more noticeable and beneficial. I'm not 100% ready to completely remove or severely restrict second, third, and even fourth, commanders until servers are able to support the max amount of players UWE is wanting.
My idea for that is:
<!--quoteo(post=1821931:date=Jan 6 2011, 04:12 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jan 6 2011, 04:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821931"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This can be achieved through for example: more intuitive and transparent tech trees, and perhaps a compulsory* offline "Commander Aptitude Test" which effectively serves as a challenging tutorial whereupon successful completion allows you access to the command chair online.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Basically they just have to "win" once, offline, then hopefully they grasp how to command, and are allowed to command on online servers. Could have a simple "Access denied" or "Access granted" when you attempt to log in to the comm chair. I'd make it challenging enough that it wouldn't be boring, and so that a complete noob wouldn't get through it on the first playthrough. But it would also serve as a disguised tutorial for new players completely new to NS commanding, and veterans getting updated on the particular quirks of NS2 commanding.
Same deal for alien commander, hivemind candidates, and hives.
Solves all problems forever.
Solves all problems forever.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see two deep and complex problems with that:
1) The inherent problems that arise from splitting resources. Think how it was for the alien team in NS1. Though total resources may be sufficient for something, the available individual resources are insufficient. There is also this issue of "getting extra funds", kinda like how the gorge did - I just didn't think that was intuitive; and rather than understanding the concept as the gorge getting extra funds, truly it was everyone else getting less funds.
2) A dependency on <b>dedicated</b> commander(s). In this system, people who step into the command chair would have to dedicate themselves to it. This is fine for one commander, as a dedicated commander is generally a good idea anyway. For many commanders though, this just means you have less players on the field. Even for one commander, it means that he <b>should</b> dedicate himself to it (because he has received the resource income) rather than be able to step in and step out, like some players are wont to do.
Now , medpack support and herding marines takes some focus , so sergeants have some use in larger games.
By default , other comm stations should start locked , then become available to a designed sergeant. Then the comm could also opt to make the sergeant a second commander with all abilities.
The commander's role should be emphasized as team leader some more , there's always the option of ejecting unsuitable candidates.
1) The inherent problems that arise from splitting resources. Think how it was for the alien team in NS1. Though total resources may be sufficient for something, the available individual resources are insufficient. There is also this issue of "getting extra funds", kinda like how the gorge did - I just didn't think that was intuitive; and rather than understanding the concept as the gorge getting extra funds, truly it was everyone else getting less funds.
2) A dependency on <b>dedicated</b> commander(s). In this system, people who step into the command chair would have to dedicate themselves to it. This is fine for one commander, as a dedicated commander is generally a good idea anyway. For many commanders though, this just means you have less players on the field. Even for one commander, it means that he <b>should</b> dedicate himself to it (because he has received the resource income) rather than be able to step in and step out, like some players are wont to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. Unless your entire team is commander I don't think that will be a problem, expect 2 or 3 commanders tops, they also have nothing else to spend money on other than team buildings, unlike the gorge which also sort of has to play at the same time, and not die. That should be plenty of monetary freedom, given that two commanders also cannot really cover the same part of the map, so 2 commanders means each has half as much territory to fill with expensive crap. Sure it splits the res income, but that's not really a problem when it's between two or three people and they all have enough to do their jobs. The problem with alien res is you would get maybe one res every 30 seconds, which is insanely low.
2. If you want to just jump in and spend your personal plasma, dropping a turret or two, you can do that. If you want to actually command then yeah you will need to invest some time into it, I don't see that as a problem. It's also not as though someone dropping out of comm causes problems, it just means one of the other comms gets his stuff. The team still gets it. If you leave the CC for a few minutes it should be assumed you are busy playing the shooter portion and aren't commanding, therefore other commanders should take over your commanding duties, money, and stuff. I also don't see anything stopping you from simply switching out commanders every now and then. You could easily have three people commanding and they just take turns, if there are no comms then the game gives all the stuff to the first person in the chair so they can start commanding. You could also have two people commanding at once through most of the game. The team is always going to need a commander so some degree of 'dedicated commanding' is required, but how you go about it is fairly varied, I don't see what the system prevents you from doing that the current one allows.
Let's consider for instance that a given commander is dedicating himself to a certain tech path. He's going to want and expect full resource income. Suddenly someone drops into the second comm chair, and branches off on a different tech path or spends "his" resources on things well outside the first commander's strategy. The first commander's own strategy has been compromised, and he can't advance along the tech path anywhere near as fast as he could when he was the only commander. The core issue isn't solved: team resources are still being spent; except with this method it's even more cumbersome, and "wasted expenditures" and "valuable expenditures" are both actually delayed (by the time it takes each commander to gather the remaining resources - which will be at half the rate) rather than instantly as it is now - the problem still exists, but in fact it's just dragging it on and wasting time.
A good team will have the commanders all working together, not stepping on each other's toes, co-operatively pre-planning their expenditure.
But then with a good team with the commanders all working together, co-operatively pre-planning their expenditure - it doesn't matter what kind of resource model you employ, whether split or common - everyone knows how much they're meant to be spending and what they're meant to be spending it on.
In fact, your split model is worse, because as I said before, with that model those expenditures are delayed by the time it takes each commander to gather the remaining resources. "Though total resources may be sufficient for something, the available individual resources are insufficient."
The thing is that with your "team RTS" comparison, it's not entirely accurate: In a team RTS, each commander has their own <b>independent</b> resource income. This is not the case in NS, nor should it be the case. (Each commander capping their own resource nodes?)
If you are going to have a "team RTS" in NS's case with its one shared source of income, you'd have to have dedicated commanders, right from the start; so that it doesn't end up as if one commander is getting less, because as I said before: "rather than understanding the concept as the gorge getting extra funds, truly it was everyone else getting less funds." I hadn't expressed that particular point quite as well before.
This means that someone *shouldn't* become a second or third commander to spend just plasma for a moment and then drop out (as people may prefer to do), as that would delay the income to the other commanders, even if the effect is only minimal (the few resources assigned to the player for the short duration he was in the chair) and short-lived (you say two minutes?), it can make all the difference.
If he just wants to spend plasma that's fine, but then how is that different from how it is now?
In fact, if they want something that requires carbon they will have to spend enough time in the comm chair to be able to gather enough carbon, - so they can't simply just jump in and jump out. The expenditure (the loss of carbon, the gaining of an asset - by the team as a whole) is delayed, and the player, being in the command chair, is not out on the field where he's more of an asset - while in the common model, he would be.
Switching out commanders with your system is an issue, because let's consider the following scenario:
We're dealing with four players, three are commanding and the fourth is waiting. Assume that resources are currently split evenly between the three commanders. They each have 1/3 of the resources.
One commander drops out. The other two get his resources, or 1/6 each, so they end up with half of the resources each. The waiting player jumps in. He has no resources from which to use, and he's currently a waste of space until he gathers enough carbon to contribute a building or a research.
One of the original commanders drops out. His resources are split. The remaining original commander has 3/4 of the team's resources, the new commander has 1/4.
The war potential of each commander is incredibly skewed, when it shouldn't be.
The first player to drop out jumps back in to a chair, he's on 0 resources - another waste of space.
The best situation with your system is when you have one commander, for the entire game. He may be replaced, but there should be no additional commanders. That way whoever is commander has full potential.
However, this is little different to how it is now; except that how it is now actually allows for greater flexibility, assuming commander co-operation.
IMO, the best solution to solving this particular issue with multiple commanders (not necessarily solving all of them, possibly even creating other issues), is allowing only a single commander by default - he may lock or unlock chairs at will, and designate and allow other players the use of team carbon. I think someone actually came up with this idea not far up, something about sergeants.
Solves all problems forever.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I imagine this system could work, but it justs seems much simpler to only allow one comm instead. The extra complexity doesn't seem to add enough benefit to justify any multiple commander system imo.
However, this might be a good idea for a mod. The nice thing of UWE making spark so moddable is that cool RTS/FPS ideas like this can be tried out. I just don't see the value in it being a part of NS2 and would rather not see UWE go under because of an unwieldly multi-comm system.
Let's consider for instance that a given commander is dedicating himself to a certain tech path. He's going to want and expect full resource income. Suddenly someone drops into the second comm chair, and branches off on a different tech path or spends "his" resources on things well outside the first commander's strategy. The first commander's own strategy has been compromised, and he can't advance along the tech path anywhere near as fast as he could when he was the only commander. The core issue isn't solved: team resources are still being spent; except with this method it's even more cumbersome, and "wasted expenditures" and "valuable expenditures" are both actually delayed (by the time it takes each commander to gather the remaining resources - which will be at half the rate) rather than instantly as it is now - the problem still exists, but in fact it's just dragging it on and wasting time.
A good team will have the commanders all working together, not stepping on each other's toes, co-operatively pre-planning their expenditure.
But then with a good team with the commanders all working together, co-operatively pre-planning their expenditure - it doesn't matter what kind of resource model you employ, whether split or common - everyone knows how much they're meant to be spending and what they're meant to be spending it on.
In fact, your split model is worse, because as I said before, with that model those expenditures are delayed by the time it takes each commander to gather the remaining resources. "Though total resources may be sufficient for something, the available individual resources are insufficient."
The thing is that with your "team RTS" comparison, it's not entirely accurate: In a team RTS, each commander has their own <b>independent</b> resource income. This is not the case in NS, nor should it be the case. (Each commander capping their own resource nodes?)
If you are going to have a "team RTS" in NS's case with its one shared source of income, you'd have to have dedicated commanders, right from the start; so that it doesn't end up as if one commander is getting less, because as I said before: "rather than understanding the concept as the gorge getting extra funds, truly it was everyone else getting less funds." I hadn't expressed that particular point quite as well before.
This means that someone *shouldn't* become a second or third commander to spend just plasma for a moment and then drop out (as people may prefer to do), as that would delay the income to the other commanders, even if the effect is only minimal (the few resources assigned to the player for the short duration he was in the chair) and short-lived (you say two minutes?), it can make all the difference.
If he just wants to spend plasma that's fine, but then how is that different from how it is now?
In fact, if they want something that requires carbon they will have to spend enough time in the comm chair to be able to gather enough carbon, - so they can't simply just jump in and jump out. The expenditure (the loss of carbon, the gaining of an asset - by the team as a whole) is delayed, and the player, being in the command chair, is not out on the field where he's more of an asset - while in the common model, he would be.
Switching out commanders with your system is an issue, because let's consider the following scenario:
We're dealing with four players, three are commanding and the fourth is waiting. Assume that resources are currently split evenly between the three commanders. They each have 1/3 of the resources.
One commander drops out. The other two get his resources, or 1/6 each, so they end up with half of the resources each. The waiting player jumps in. He has no resources from which to use, and he's currently a waste of space until he gathers enough carbon to contribute a building or a research.
One of the original commanders drops out. His resources are split. The remaining original commander has 3/4 of the team's resources, the new commander has 1/4.
The war potential of each commander is incredibly skewed, when it shouldn't be.
The first player to drop out jumps back in to a chair, he's on 0 resources - another waste of space.
The best situation with your system is when you have one commander, for the entire game. He may be replaced, but there should be no additional commanders. That way whoever is commander has full potential.
However, this is little different to how it is now; except that how it is now actually allows for greater flexibility, assuming commander co-operation.
IMO, the best solution to solving this particular issue with multiple commanders (not necessarily solving all of them, possibly even creating other issues), is allowing only a single commander by default - he may lock or unlock chairs at will, and designate and allow other players the use of team carbon. I think someone actually came up with this idea not far up, something about sergeants.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS doesn't HAVE tech paths, it has like five or six things to research tops, and there isn't really any choice in what you get, you unlock stuff as soon as you can to keep pushing and until you get the next tech point. If it costs say 50-100 carbon to unlock shotguns, that's still not expensive. because once you do it basically equips your entire team with shotguns for free, because otherwise your team has nothing to spend their plasma on. Once you get flamethrowers/GLs you research them because they're needed by that point in the game. And weapon/armor upgrades are just there for when you have spare cash lying around. There are no 'tech paths' involved. You get tech points and research stuff as quick as you can to hold your own.
Most team RTS games I know of share resource income. Generally everyone gets full income from all the team's res nodes but I still don't see a problem with cutting that in half for two commanders. You aren't going to spend all your money on upgrades, most of it goes on dropping structures for the team because as stated, there aren't very many upgrades to get. And if I drop sentries to defend a base, that means you don't have to do that as well.
Yeah you have to wait to get some money, this is hardly a major problem. Assume your team has two res nodes by the time it has two comm chairs, that means each comm is just as effective as the one at the start of the game was. Which is to say, each comm should be capable of expanding to a new tech node, because the original comm was capable of that. That's plenty effective. He could also perhaps do some actual commanding, as in ordering people around, while he waits the 30 seconds for some money to pile up. Or maybe he could look at the battlefield and see what's happening before he starts dropping things. People don't just jump into the chair and immediately start commanding anyway.
I'm pretty sure two sentry guns covering a forward base is more valuable than five-ten carbon which will be refunded in 2 minutes. The sentry guns will prevent far more losses than a minute amount of carbon. There's also nothing stopping the player from giving all his cash to another comm as soon as he gets out of the chair.
<!--quoteo(post=1822605:date=Jan 8 2011, 09:07 AM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Jan 8 2011, 09:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1822605"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I imagine this system could work, but it justs seems much simpler to only allow one comm instead. The extra complexity doesn't seem to add enough benefit to justify any multiple commander system imo.
However, this might be a good idea for a mod. The nice thing of UWE making spark so moddable is that cool RTS/FPS ideas like this can be tried out. I just don't see the value in it being a part of NS2 and would rather not see UWE go under because of an unwieldly multi-comm system.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The benefit is the same one that justifies NS being a team game and not just two people shooting each other. It is ostensibly more fun when you have teammates. Two commanders should work better than one because they have twice the awareness. One commander cannot manage the battlefield as well, just as one marine can't fight skulks as well as two. The entire marine team is built around teamwork, so should the commander be.
Dont be silly, you can manage with 60APM in SC2 top 5% just fine. NS1 20-30 , NS2 at the moment 10ish and I highly doubt few extra upgrades are going to matter.
Multiple commander is rather desperate attempt to make comming more accessable or at least not well thought as we can see but I'm sure it will find its place somewhere sometime.
Most team RTS games I know of share resource income. Generally everyone gets full income from all the team's res nodes but I still don't see a problem with cutting that in half for two commanders. You aren't going to spend all your money on upgrades, most of it goes on dropping structures for the team because as stated, there aren't very many upgrades to get. And if I drop sentries to defend a base, that means you don't have to do that as well.
Yeah you have to wait to get some money, this is hardly a major problem. Assume your team has two res nodes by the time it has two comm chairs, that means each comm is just as effective as the one at the start of the game was. Which is to say, each comm should be capable of expanding to a new tech node, because the original comm was capable of that. That's plenty effective. He could also perhaps do some actual commanding, as in ordering people around, while he waits the 30 seconds for some money to pile up. Or maybe he could look at the battlefield and see what's happening before he starts dropping things. People don't just jump into the chair and immediately start commanding anyway.
I'm pretty sure two sentry guns covering a forward base is more valuable than five-ten carbon which will be refunded in 2 minutes. The sentry guns will prevent far more losses than a minute amount of carbon. There's also nothing stopping the player from giving all his cash to another comm as soon as he gets out of the chair.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Having read all that, and I see your points; it still leads to me to the conclusion that <b>you gain nothing valuable</b> from changing the current "common resource" system to your "split resource" system. In fact the only thing you achieve is to make it <u>more cumbersome and less flexible</u>. The same amount of resources are ostensibly available to each commander, each commander can still expand as they wish - this all of course depends on co-operation, communication and trust. The one thing you might say you "gain" from your system, is that you make each commander more independent, so that they don't need to co-operate, or communicate, or trust.
Also, I honestly hope there will be tech paths in NS2, and just generally a greater variety of strategic decisions. Not: build and research everything as fast as you can once it gets unlocked / you can afford it.
The main reason for it is that it entirely prevents people from annoying each other in the CC by nicking stuff you're using/recycling everything etc. In a sense it helps with organisation because each commander knows which stuff is his and which stuff is the other guy's.
You could do more or less everything that's present in either system in both systems, you could divide resources between people without a system for it, you could divide unit and map control between people without a system for it, the systems are just there to enforce it and help with organisation, as well as to prevent griefing/stupidity. Having a 'ruin the game' button accessible to anyone on the server is quite stupid, the system fixes that without removing the 'anyone can command' idea. If people have to lock the CC in order to prevent griefers, it's going to put a big damper on the whole idea of people being able to co-command. Simply restricting players from doing any harm to the server as a whole, and allowing them to basically explore commanding with their own little set of units and structures on a full scale server, that should help with commander training considerably, and of course players who can already command can take advantage of the organisation to divide their efforts better.
The main reason for it is that it entirely prevents people from annoying each other in the CC by nicking stuff you're using/recycling everything etc. In a sense it helps with organisation because each commander knows which stuff is his and which stuff is the other guy's.
You could do more or less everything that's present in either system in both systems, you could divide resources between people without a system for it, you could divide unit and map control between people without a system for it, the systems are just there to enforce it and help with organisation, as well as to prevent griefing/stupidity. Having a 'ruin the game' button accessible to anyone on the server is quite stupid, the system fixes that without removing the 'anyone can command' idea. If people have to lock the CC in order to prevent griefers, it's going to put a big damper on the whole idea of people being able to co-command. Simply restricting players from doing any harm to the server as a whole, and allowing them to basically explore commanding with their own little set of units and structures on a full scale server, that should help with commander training considerably, and of course players who can already command can take advantage of the organisation to divide their efforts better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I can now recognise that anti-griefing is one benefit to your system. But my other points still stand, particularly in relation to the clarity and responsiveness of the resource system, as well as the concept of team cohesion and common strategy.
Also, if buildings are locked to each different commander, what about resource towers or tech points? You'd also need some kind of colour coding. And if a commander leaves the chair, what happens to the buildings that are locked to that commander?
<!--quoteo(post=1822814:date=Jan 9 2011, 11:55 AM:name=Kuriin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kuriin @ Jan 9 2011, 11:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1822814"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am actually very surprised there isn't a brief tutorial on how to be a commander. Especially with how drastically different they are from marine to alien. I'm currently learning how to be a good alien commander (and I'm almost there), but, when I play the marine, I just blow hard. The community does not support new players to learn how to be a commander. I don't even think the original NS community did, either. However, it was more new then.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is true of any online game where a single player's role is important. People don't have the patience to teach or wait for them to learn, while they're trying to play a game - they want to win. And that's not unreasonable of them. One up-coming game that I think is doing it right, is Valve's DotA 2, check out the <a href="http://www.dota2.com/2010/11/dota-2-qa/" target="_blank">Q&A</a>:
Excerpt:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Q: Are you going to do anything to make it easier for new players to get into the game and feel welcome? (by Arvin)
A: Some of what makes it hard, in current DotA, stems from the lack of services around the game that can help foster a better relationship between players and that it’s hard for players to be matched up with equally skilled allies and opponents. Things like tutorials, matchmaking, AI bots, identity, coaching, and community contribution will go a long way to making it easier for new players to fit in.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And from the <a href="http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2010/10/13/dota-2-announced-details.aspx" target="_blank">Gameinformer announcement article</a>:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Valve believes that the solution to the huge barrier to entry is threefold. The first, obvious solution is to have excellent skill-based matchmaking for both individuals and teams. Valve believes that the work going into Steamworks for Dota 2's release meets that requirement. Second, interactive guides will allow players to do more than just read a guide for their favorite hero that has been deemed helpful by the community at large. Valve plans to allow guide-makers to tie their work back into the game by doing things like highlighting suggested item purchases or displaying useful information during a match.
Finally, a coaching system is being deeply integrated into the game. By logging in as a coach, veteran players can do their part to help out newer folks. Valve hasn't entirely decided on the specifics of how newbies and coaches will be matched up, but once they're together a few things happen. The coach sees the pupil's screen, and gets private voice and chat channels to communicate with them. The coach probably won't be able to take control of anything directly (once again, the details are currently under discussion), but information is power in Dota 2 and having a mentor whispering in your ear can make all the difference in the world.
Of course, the pupil will be able to rate the coach's helpfulness. Being a well-regarded coach will have explicit in-game rewards, just like writing useful guides, posting constructive feedback, or engaging in interesting strategy discussions. If the overwhelming response to Battle.net achievements is any indication, vanity rewards like these will be extremely effective in channeling the community's energies toward positive contributions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I came up with the idea of a tutorial disguised as a "commander aptitude test", <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=112312&view=findpost&p=1822313" target="_blank">in a post above</a>. It would teach you and brief you on all the things you need to know to be competent, but it would also be challenging enough to not be boring and so that a complete noob can't pass it in one shot. Upon successful completion it would give you access to the command chair online.
What we just need is a tutorial. A great example would be the Blizzard games. In all of their RTS games, they always start out with the tutorial of building units, moving them, etc. I think in order for someone to do the multiplayer, they <b>have</b> to go through the tutorial if they wish to partake as a commander. However, I do believe a quiz would be quite interesting and might even help to test their new found knowledge.
Of course I really have no idea what the abilities of the two separate chairs would cover and how much they would overlap. It also adds a new strategic element for aliens as taking out the "primary" commander would be a greater blow than taking out a secondary station.
Each comm chair would have to have advantages and disadvantages, i.e. maybe one can support more IPs or turrets built in a radius. Or added to the pwoer node system would this all be too complicated?