The Commander - Strategic Or Tactical?
Agent_Taco
Join Date: 2011-02-06 Member: 80584Members
Join Date: 2011-02-06 Member: 80584Members
I only got into beta last night but this idea hold weight even from the first NS. I feel the commander's roll isn't super strategic its far more tactical. While there are a few strategic elements to the commanding, such as build/tech order and positional strategy, the real advantage a tops down view offers is seeing a room before the team goes in, or if nothing else having a plan. That plan needs to be quickly conveyed.
For example if I wanted to rush part of my team into the dual node room very quickly to have them setup both nodes and guard all entrances It would be nice to be able to quickly and easily grab guys and assign them to cover vent A, Vent B, double door, build a turret build a turret build this node weld this door etc. I think this needs to be easy to do even without voice chat or a more " practiced" team. It will make the strategic / tactical element of the game more feasible.
The issue is how do we make the interface do this easily, intuitively and well. We need to know what we want to happen and how the commander needs to make it happen. I will leave the how to code it to you guys because well, i'm no programmer.
<b>The What and How</b>
Real commands need to be displayed. There is a thread somewhere that I cannot now find where a guy did a mock icon that had a symbol and said HOLD POSITION. It was quite nice. Access to more specific commands would be nice. Issuing multiple commands to a selected group of guys would be nice. I'm not 100% certain how it would work but if you could have say 5 guys selected and use the shift key while giving orders it would issue an order to an individual marine in order and just that marine receives the one order.
Also in the vein that building a structure gives you +5 plasma doing this for following a commanders orders could maybe give you +1 plasma and have a cooldown so its not spamable / abusable or perhaps the ability to give some of your plasma to them as reward.. You could then order a command to get into position outside of a room. Your marines go there and get into position. They get to position and they get some bonus plasma. You now select them and issue the above example orders using the shift key each person goes in and follows their orders. The room is now more secure than a random taking and each member has a little more plasma for that coveted weapon upgrade.
I really feel the tactical aspect will flow well with squads and could interplay well if the command role is seen through the eyes of tactics instead of soley strategy.
cheers,
Taco
For example if I wanted to rush part of my team into the dual node room very quickly to have them setup both nodes and guard all entrances It would be nice to be able to quickly and easily grab guys and assign them to cover vent A, Vent B, double door, build a turret build a turret build this node weld this door etc. I think this needs to be easy to do even without voice chat or a more " practiced" team. It will make the strategic / tactical element of the game more feasible.
The issue is how do we make the interface do this easily, intuitively and well. We need to know what we want to happen and how the commander needs to make it happen. I will leave the how to code it to you guys because well, i'm no programmer.
<b>The What and How</b>
Real commands need to be displayed. There is a thread somewhere that I cannot now find where a guy did a mock icon that had a symbol and said HOLD POSITION. It was quite nice. Access to more specific commands would be nice. Issuing multiple commands to a selected group of guys would be nice. I'm not 100% certain how it would work but if you could have say 5 guys selected and use the shift key while giving orders it would issue an order to an individual marine in order and just that marine receives the one order.
Also in the vein that building a structure gives you +5 plasma doing this for following a commanders orders could maybe give you +1 plasma and have a cooldown so its not spamable / abusable or perhaps the ability to give some of your plasma to them as reward.. You could then order a command to get into position outside of a room. Your marines go there and get into position. They get to position and they get some bonus plasma. You now select them and issue the above example orders using the shift key each person goes in and follows their orders. The room is now more secure than a random taking and each member has a little more plasma for that coveted weapon upgrade.
I really feel the tactical aspect will flow well with squads and could interplay well if the command role is seen through the eyes of tactics instead of soley strategy.
cheers,
Taco
Comments
I don't really thinkt the comm should be micromanaging, it probably won't work very well, it's kind of what marines on the ground are best at. They are allegedly as smart as you, so have the game give the marines the information they need, and let them sort it out. The comm has enough to do keeping an eye on bases and managing the MACs and drifters and eventually the whips/ARCs
It also fits with the alien playstyle, what with them being much more individually mobile and working best when spread out somewhat.
<img src="http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/8364/floorwaypoint.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
I never used to command in NS1 - I don't think I had the confidence to, and often the pressure from players when things were not happening fast enough was just not worth the bother.
I actually love the tactical aspect 'more' than the strategic aspect. If I think about how I 'feel' and how I 'think' when I am playing the commanding role, generally the strategy is very mathematical.
So when I am playing, I get into the habit of knowing which buildings I need to place, what to upgrade and how to progress without thinking about it that much. It sort of sits on the back burner.
The exciting part is the immersion I get from seeing a marine in trouble, or how the game plays out. Where the other team is attacking, and telling players what to do - and caring about them. This part tends to be more dramatic and different in how it plays out every game, and with different players.
Still, interactivity is important. The comm needs to be able to feel like they are directly in control of things. Building placement, dropping packs, controlling MACs and turrets, that's where that all comes in.
I don't want to spend my time micromanaging waypoints. I trust my players to know what to do. Still, you bring up some good points about being able to provide more types of orders. The "context sensitive " system of NS1 was lacking. Or you can just get a mic.
So in summary:
Orders/Waypoints for squads/individuals.
Markers/Pings for entire teams (or effectively whoever's close enough).
I.e "There us a skull hiding in that corner on the right, no that corner, no near the boxes..."
Markers or tools for pointing or conveying this info (as a support to voice chat) would be a good thing to do.
General markers would also be good for rooms. Instead of having to tell every new player entering a room "hold position" it could be on the floor as above.
Still, interactivity is important. The comm needs to be able to feel like they are directly in control of things. Building placement, dropping packs, controlling MACs and turrets, that's where that all comes in.
I don't want to spend my time micromanaging waypoints. I trust my players to know what to do. Still, you bring up some good points about being able to provide more types of orders. The "context sensitive " system of NS1 was lacking. Or you can just get a mic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not saying the commander has to be the one in charge of tactics but I think it makes the most sense. He has a broader sense of whats happening. It would be great if they instead used squads to do the communications with squad leaders etc. Issuing commands using the aiming cursor similiar to some war games on consoles. That way you could point at a vent and say ok cover here etc. Problem is that in a tactical situation you can't have a guy run in and point 5 diff spots with his cursor and shoot at aliens. The commander can scan a room and see everything in the room then issue any commands. He knows whats in the room he can issue the orders then use his mic to say go.
As one poster above said often times its like hey go over to here and attack this guy by the boxes, not those boxes etc. The idea is to make it quick and user friendly. A new player might not fully know a map but if he sees a command to go cover this vent its then very easy to create a high level of tactical play with even newer more casual players. More seasoned teams can just ignore it and know what they need. Hell in NS1 i had a team who knew several strats for every map and we would execute them. I however would like to see this game be a tad more noob friendly. I have several friends who i would love to have play with me but have horror stories from when they played ns1 and got yelled at because of the learning curve. He playes League of legends, a game with a very high learning curve in its own right, but NS scared him away.
Exactly a game that goes so far as to have a top down Rts view needs to really focus somewhat on this type of interface functionality.
It is like saying "I'm going to place some buildings, but you have to work out where they are, what I am thinking and what my plans are for winning this game."
In RTS games you click on a unit then order it to attack a specific target, right down to the pixel location. Or set up up certain defensive or offensive areas before you attack.
I think this should exist in NS2, but should be advisory. Players don't have to do it (you are not punished) but it sure does help them a lot.
What I have found from commanding most of the games I play, is that the more you interact with players by talking to them, supporting them and dropping health and ordering them to certain positions, the more they trust in you and actually start following orders to the T.
I have actually commanded games whereby I know that the team is full of rookie players who don't know what they are doing, right though to winning. As soon as you get on the mic and start telling people what to do it completely turns a game around.
I had an instance once where I went from just building a base and upgrading to support a team that I thought was not really capable, through to encouraging them to move west round the level in a squad of 4 with shotguns and flamers for support. Once I explained to them to use the shotguns to take down the structures and use the flame thrower for covering, the game was won in around 10 minutes - and 3 hives went down in that time.
I don't actually think strategy comes from multiple people. I have heard people on this forum say that teams makes decisions together, but this is not true at all. I think sometimes the players on the floor OPEN UP tactical and strategic possibilities for the commander. At the end of the day through, there has to be one plan and one person calling the shots.
Such as a single alien attacking a marine outpost because they see the opportunity, and opening it up - but it is then the commander who makes the decision to push that room by building in it, or telling everyone to move there. Not the players (unless it is an IP takedown).
In the army, the people at the top develop an overall plan of what needs to be done. As those broad set of orders get given to those below them in the chain of command, they become more and more detailed. A platoon commander will tell his section commanders that their sections need to be in certain locations but he cant tell them how to do get there. its up to the section commander to come up with the plan on how he will get his section there. The platoon commander can reject the plan and tell him to come up with a new one if he doesnt agree.
I like the idea of squad commanders being able to issue out orders such as "hold this location" or whatever orders are passed down to him/her from the commander. Of course the commander can give the same orders as well, but being able to palm off tactics to someone on the ground will free him up to do other things. Also as suggested by Runtuh an "enemy spot rep" marker that appears on both a players screen and minimap would help with situational awareness and save time describing the box the skulk is hiding behind
The key to this all in communication and being able to pass on information as efficiently as possible. If you can allocate squad commanders who can think and act tactically on the ground on a brief set of orders you give them, then that would be great. Maybe they can be indicated by a few chevrons above their head indicating rank.
It is like saying "I'm going to place some buildings, but you have to work out where they are, what I am thinking and what my plans are for winning this game."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1830239:date=Feb 7 2011, 08:52 AM:name=Loey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Loey @ Feb 7 2011, 08:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1830239"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Theres no real chain of command which is why strategy/tactics are blurred<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Partly both true.
Too bad TheAdj's NSLearn comm guide no longer exists except as a word Doc on my harddrive, it explains this much better. Here's a block quote from it:
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=2004-10-01:name=TheAdj)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheAdj @ 2004-10-01)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Tactics and strategy are two terms thrown around too loosely in NS, and the reason why is many people simply do not understand what the two mean, and how they relate to one another. Strategy is defined by dictionary.com as "The science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of large-scale combat operations." Tactics are defined as "The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy". Notice that in the definition of tactics, the word strategy appears. The reasoning for this is simple: Strategy is one's overall objective, and tactics are the movements and techniques used to achieve the strategy. They are not interchangeable words, they mean separate things. The reason this is important is that people get confused as to who should be doing what in the world of Natural Selection, and having definitions makes it easier for people to perform specific roles. The Commander should set the strategy he wants to use in the form of a plan, while the marines execute whatever tactics are needed to perform the set strategy, hereafter known as "The Plan". More on constructing plans later. The last part of the introduction deals why any of this is important at all. Many players have spoken to me and made it appear that the Commander's role isn't even important in terms of skill in NS. Some people have the false impression that all the commander is good for is dropping medpacks and upgrading. This is a false impression that many people have, and I'm about to explain why. The Commander is the main decision maker on marines. The commander has to have a complete understanding of the underlying principles of RTS, as well as an understanding of the game of NS itself. If the commander doesn't understand this, it will be readily apparent to the marines, as they slowly wither away under the teeth and claws of the alien team. The core of NS is RTS; however most of the players only notice the FPS aspect of the game. Understanding the RTS portion of the game is critical to becoming an excellent commander, a competent marine, and is a requirement to understand how the alien team functions at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
tl;dr:
Basically, the core thing is that the comm sets up the strategy, but the players have to do the tactical execution.
For example, the Comm says "Let's siege Hive X". The comm also provides the means to execute this via packs, the Phase Gate, the TF, and so on in NS1. However, it is ALWAYS up to the Marines to actually do anything. That is the distinction.
The Comm is literally only able to "guide" and adding more waypoints so you can try to micro players isn't the solution. Just because you throw down a ton of waypoints doesn't actually help players. Instead you often get clutter. Not to mention the APM spam. See Empires and how well that worked out for their commanders.
The furthest I would go is to give more types of waypoints so people have a better feel for what you want. Do you want me to move here? Attack here? One has you barreling down the halls. The other has you approach the area cautiously and take out anything around. And these easily extend to more minute things like try to get to a certain spot so I and build something.
In fact, I would argue that the comm's have a WORSE sense of tactics than the players on the ground. Seeing things from a safe top-down view is way different than being in the muck and staring the enemy in the face. You have WAY better situational awareness as a Marine than as the Commander.
Similarly, players on the ground typical have a weaker sense of the strategy, placement around a room, and so on.
This doesn't preclude either side from doing the other's roles. It's just more inefficient.
Also, mics are always the most efficient form of communication. Period.
True, but if someone sends a Siege west and everyone else goes east - the Marines are screwed. The difference is that Marines see opportunity, where as the commander sees 'set strategic plays' in the safety of the command station.
Marines may go west, but chasing a Skulk around or discovering a Hive or taking down a Harvester creates opportunity for the Commander.
If a marine goes east instead and takes down a Harvester, it creates an opportunity. But the Commander does not necessarily have to build there, and may not do (at the time) because there could be a high alien presence in the area, and any extractor that was placed would just be taken down.
This is the difference between public play, which is more about marine created opportunity than clan matches that is more about the strategic decisions of the commander, based on an a agreement that he is in charge. I have played big clan matches before, and you always make sure there is 'one' person calling the shots. Otherwise there is confusion and indecision.
The illusion that players have freedom in this game is that you can do what you want, but not in any sense that you may win game. When is the last time you saw a team succeed in any sense that did not require 'team work'?
This is how I view the distinction between strategy/tactics in NS2. Stuff like building locations, tech research, and general attack plan are strategic decisions that are (mostly) made by the comm. Weapon/class choice, teamwork, and specific attack plan (such as which building in a tech node to attack first) are tactical decisions (generally) made by the players. However, the two do blur for the commander. For example, sometimes I tell people to attack an extractor/harvester before the cs/hive or I micro med/ammo packs, which I would consider tactical decisions made by the commander.
Ideally, at least for me, strategic decisions should be mandatory but tactical decisions optional for the commander.
And I totally agree. While we have distinct roles they are suited for, it still is about the interplay between the two, especially in pub games.
I've had great games where the Comm controlled every nuance about what we did, adjusting our plays for what Aliens did. I've also had games where two squads worked independently, leading the charges, and the Comm merely supported with goodies and let us do our thing.
There is the possibility. And we should encourage cross-exchange. What we don't need is "step on this marker and get +1 plasma" so that comms can "micro" the marines. That's not their role.
As for marines on the ground taking charge instead of the comm, i can still see that working if its still only 1 person in charge with a strategy (this is how i saw aliens playing in ns1). That would relegate the commander to more of a support/intelligence role providing updates on alien movements/progress as well as dropping medpacks/ammo and researching upgrades. Advantage is that being in the battle he can make quick assessments and changes to his strategy, disadvantage is he has less situational awareness of whats happening in other areas unless his team is continually relaying information
I don't think this was the suggestion, or I sure hope this wasn't the suggestion.
Commanders should have more tools with greater versatility, variety and detail to order their units, though. They should also be <b>much easier to execute</b> than going through the interface and selecting a specific order, and commands should utilise as much of the left half of the keyboard, and the two buttons on the mouse, as possible. Actions should be as context-sensitive as possible, and as instantaneous as possible.
For example,
rather than:
<u>Case A</u>
1. Select the Assist Tab using the hotkey
2. Select the Medpack/Ammo using the hotkey
3. Click to Drop at your cursor
4... Repeat steps 2 and 3
Instead, drop the 3rd step, so:
<u>Case B</u>
1. Select the Assist Tab using the hotkey
2. Drop the MedPack/Ammo at your cursor using the hotkey
3... Repeat step 2
Of course, when selecting the Medpack/Ammo through the interface with your mouse, Case A must be used, but there's no reason not to also have Case B; hotkeys should be encouraged, with a little Q,W,E,R in the top right corner of an interface button, for example - so Case B would in fact be used by default, and Case A is simply optional.
The same thing can be done with the Orders Tab, eliminate the Click - the "confirm". Of course, buildings require the confirmation, so you should leave the Build Tab as is.
You could have multiple order 'types' in the middle row. These order types should be as context-sensitive as possible.
In addition to Orders (for squads, individuals), add the capability for team-wide Markers (much like what the aliens have*); this can be in the same Orders tab, in the lowest row. Commanders could right-click a marker to quickly remove it.
In addition, utilise the Alt, Ctrl, Shift, and Spacebar as much as possible.
Alt+Click could do a temporary^ ping (a la any modern RTS) - this would be used most effectively with voice communication. The commander could say over the mic "take out that skulk" and ping the location on the map - the marines would instantly know what he's talking about and where it is.
^One way I envision the duration is: for example, a single ping lasts 10~15 seconds, and pings can stack on the map, but successive pings will decrease the duration of any previous pings. There should also be a minimum between-ping interval of say, 1 or 2 seconds, to prevent spammability.
For that matter, field marines could also do minimap pings. For example, they bring up the minimap with M (which is a toggle), holding ALT will display a cursor and lock the player's view, releasing ALT will remove the cursor and release the player's view, clicking on the minimap while there is a cursor will result in a minimap ping.
And I think the first thing a player needs to be told upon spawning is "Listen to your commander." I think that many people play with the absence of the understanding that the commander is a guiding and directing force, and not just a researching monkey. Just that one phrase will tell people that "this is how the game is meant to be played".
* Before someone comes in with "there should be more asymmetry", differing the GUI <b>visuals</b> for each species is fine, but differing the GUI <b>functionality</b> for each species is stupid. People need and want these tools, and the asymmetry is not worth the cost of leaving each species deficient in functionality. Giving people a common, versatile set of tools will only make them play better; and it's not as if there isn't enough asymmetry already - just by the way that each unit on the alien team functions, the teams will of course play and function differently, but you don't have to sacrifice functionality for it.
As a corollary, <b>for those actions common to both species</b>, you should be able to achieve them with the same keypresses or actions on either side. For example, placing a resource extractor/harvester should use the same Build Tab in the same grid slot, as well as the same building grid slot for the extractor/harvester itself - on both teams.
To back this idea up, is there any high-quality RTS you've ever played that has completely different GUI functionality for each race? I didn't think so.
<b>Plasma</b> in the I&S forums also came up with the excellent idea of having commanders able to issue general objectives at game-start - i.e. pre-plan their attack strategy. I'll edit in the link.
Link: "<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=112031" target="_blank">Task/Objective system for commander orders</a>, Dramatically improving team play and organisation for a team"
I know the personally, I love receiving goals from the commander when playing as a marine or alien. Achieving them gives me satisfaction. For a new player, having an experienced commander giving bite-sized, obvious goals (e.g. secure this hallway) would be very welcoming and encouraging.
I think Harimau has summed up this thread with the use of 'special' keys. I think you could actually do this with one key, not 3.
# Holding 'special' and using LMB on a location can be used as a 'ping' or 'pointer' tool for signalling a position in a room or location you are talking about.
# Holding 'special' after selecting a squad and then clicking on multiple locations in a room with the LMB could stack up commands automatically for each player in turn - either 'hold point' or 'attack' or 'defend' command orders. Everyone in the squad can see them, but the ones not specifically for you would be faded.
# Holding 'special' whilst - etc, etc.
So if we put this into a story like context:
<i>The commander selects a squad, and left clicks on a room issuing a movement way point to the whole squad. If he wants he can then hold the 'special' key and clicks on the floor near the door (<b>hold point marine 1</b>), then he clicks on the tech point (<b>defend new build marine 2</b>) and then clicks on a harvester (<b>attack building marine 3</b>) and then clicks on the floor near the opposite entrance (<b>hold position marine 4</b>).
The commander spots a Skulk, mentions it on the mic and pings the location under the floor for the marines.</i>
As everyone can see each other's 'personal stacked commands' (on the floor) you all understand that the commander is intending to build in the room, whilst at the same time understanding your role in the room. So not everyone is building and then getting chomped, and an understanding is maintained - especially for new players.
How far you take this (as a commander) is up to you. You could just click on a resource node and issue a build command to one player - everyone can see it and help, and there is still that understanding. But this gives you the option to micro manage an important room say.
The only issue I really see with this extended system, is the attack command. Selecting lifeforms would be difficult, but perhaps based upon the rooms 'contents' or whether you click 'near' to a life form changes the 'threat level' of the initial way point - and thus the personal stacked way points feed off this info. So Marines can see the danger level between a currently empty room, a room with a life form in it or a fully set up alien hive room.
In fact why are there generic 'attack', 'defend' and 'move' commands in the menu. Essentially they are all move commands, it is just the threat level that is different.
Does anybody see where I am going with this in terms of how important this stuff is? It is complicated, and you may think a change in wording is nothing. But I think it was mentioned a while ago about how 'move' means you will be running there, where as 'attack' and you will be far more cautious about approaching that position.
It completely changes peoples mindsets when going about tasks.
<i>The commander selects a squad, and right clicks on a room issuing a movement way point to the whole squad. If he wants he can then holds the 'special' key and clicks on the floor near the door (<b>hold point marine 1</b>), then he clicks on the tech point (<b>defend new build marine 2</b>) and then clicks on a harvester (<b>attack building marine 3</b>) and then clicks on the floor near the opposite entrance (<b>hold position marine 4</b>).
The commander spots a Skulk, mentions it on the mic and pings the location under the floor for the marines.</i>
As everyone can see each other's 'personal stacked commands' you all understand that the commander is intending to build in the room, whilst at the same time understanding your role in the room. So not everyone is building and then getting chomped, and an understanding is maintained - especially for new players.
How far you take this (as a commander) is up to you. You could just click on a resource node and issue a build command to one player - everyone can see it and help, and there is still that understanding. But this gives you the option to micro manage an important room say.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
sounds like too much micro that a commander shouldnt be doing. if its not automatic that 1 person builds, 1 person defends, then a reminder over voice comm should fix the problem. there shouldnt be a need to designate each individual marine in a group to a task.
Unless a squad together says on the mic "I'm going to defend you whilst you build, and the other guy is going to guard the entrance point from behind the wall" then it can and is a bit of a mayhem.
I really don't see the negativity towards creating tactical abilities and options for the commander that add a lot, without adding a lot for the commander to do because it is an option.
People assume too much based upon their skill level. Not that on-line it is group of people who are completely different in experience, knowledge and ability of gaming in general and their understanding of NS2. This is where this sort of thing can be used to facilitate a better gaming experience for different levels of experience.
It would be a further mess, because then people would have the indecision of where to place themselves.
The point I'm getting at with this system would be that most of the time the commander/people would not use it as extensively as could be done. But if you waypoint to a room with a 5 person squad, even if you place two waypoints, there are still two specific people doing those jobs. Everyone who is not assigned can either help, see what is occurring in that room or push further up.
At the end of the day, it just communicates the commander's intentions - which is important. They don't necessarily have to be followed, but i'm sure they would be.
Although I see you've somewhat covered for this, with the faded out orders that aren't specifically for you.
Edit: I may have misinterpreted your idea. Is it that the game automatically "randomly" assigns orders to individual marines?
One way you could combine the two, waypoints and markers, (but the point is not to remove either and leave them as options) is for the commander to place the markers which will be team-wide (but not considered orders); then select a marine and right-click* that marker, and it will be re-interpreted as a waypoint, an order. So to secure a room, a commander will place markers, and then if he chooses to, select individual marines to fulfil those roles, if one doesn't listen, it's a simple affair of selecting another marine and giving him the order instead, but marines may very well take the initiative and fulfil the role with just the marker and not a waypoint.
*I just realised there would be a clash between this suggestion, and my 'remove markers by rightclicking' suggestion, so one or the other may have to change.
Another way you could modify markers, is to ping an already-placed marker, and it will send a global message to your teammates that they need to get 'here' and do 'this'.
There definitely needs to be a (visual, etc.) distinction between a <b>marker</b> (<i>objective</i>), <b>waypoint</b> (<i>order</i>) and <b>ping</b> (<i>alertion</i>).
Waypoints could show up as text on the HUD in one colour, and markers in another - both would display in the 'game world' and on the minimap; pings would only display in the 'game world' and on the minimap, but they would be much more obvious than markers or waypoints (give it that sort of radar animation that RTSs have), however there would be nothing on the HUD for it.
One concern that this whole commander thread has brought up for me; is the problem of multiple commanders. I think multiple commanders was toted as a way for players to learn commanding in a less intensive environment - but I see two reasons not to have this:
1. It causes confusion in the chain of command and the team strategy
2. If you make commanding generally more intuitive (by incorporating all of these suggestions, as well as making things more obvious for new players) you won't really need a secondary commander.
I don't personally see the benefit of multiple commanders outside of this, as it simply takes another player out of the fight. If you had a super-organised team where you have 1 commander per squad providing support (with 1 overall commander calling the shots), then that's something different, and that's where it could be used very effectively.
Re-working the commander interface / command system is definitely going to be some (graphical and game-coding) work, but it'll be worth it.
<b>Noobs</b> don't know where to go at all.
<b>Casuals</b> know the hot spots, but don't know the commander's current intent, unless u ave a mic. Not everyone should need a mic to command.. if it's required it will keep this game super niche.
<b>Veterans</b> won't listen to the commander, ever, (unless they know him personally/same clan) so markers won't change anything here.
I don't see the downside, except people that feel threatened by the commander giving them a specific order. Of course you don't have to follow it (and most vets won't).
If a game requires players to work together then the game should have features that enable the teamwork to take place. Relying on people communicating with each other through voice comms/chat isn't good enough because when the players don't communicate (which is usually the case) the game breaks down. When games break down they become frustrating.
How can game encourage teamwork through design? I'd like to place myself in the shoes of someone who wants to be a useful asset to a team and just joined a game in progress. Having a button that they could press to show the map and the current target or objective (ie; push to this node, take this room, guard siege cannon here) would be a good start. If I want to be a team player I can hit one button and without voice coms or chat I know exactly what to do and where to go to be helpful.
Other examples of the game encouraging teamwork, and not relying on the players' communications, is Left 4 Dead. You can see teammates through walls, you can see if they've been spit on, under attack, pinned, or otherwise incapacitated, the game characters scream commands like "help me up" when appropriate, etc. The game inherently encourages and promotes teamwork outside of player communication.
In the end you can't force someone to be a team player but when the game encourages teamwork it's more likely to take place. If the players choose to talk to each other you'll have an excellent gaming experience; if they don't you're at least still going to enjoy a good game rather than a frustrating one.
Although I see you've somewhat covered for this, with the faded out orders that aren't specifically for you.
Edit: I may have misinterpreted your idea. Is it that the game automatically "randomly" assigns orders to individual marines?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
are they allowing scripts in ns2? if so it would be handy if they allowed you to have orders preset. eg once the marines hit a waypoint/area/cross a line, the guard/build/hold markers pop up at locations you;ve pre designated akin to standard operating procedures.
obviously the scripts would be optional and would require individual scripts for each map but would save time clicking around the interface which would still exist so you can use it in the odd occasion or if you do not wish to use scripts
<!--quoteo(post=1830678:date=Feb 9 2011, 01:56 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 9 2011, 01:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1830678"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->One concern that this whole commander thread has brought up for me; is the problem of multiple commanders. I think multiple commanders was toted as a way for players to learn commanding in a less intensive environment - but I see two reasons not to have this:
1. It causes confusion in the chain of command and the team strategy
2. If you make commanding generally more intuitive (by incorporating all of these suggestions, as well as making things more obvious for new players) you won't really need a secondary commander.
I don't personally see the benefit of multiple commanders outside of this, as it simply takes another player out of the fight. If you had a super-organised team where you have 1 commander per squad providing support (with 1 overall commander calling the shots), then that's something different, and that's where it could be used very effectively.
Re-working the commander interface / command system is definitely going to be some (graphical and game-coding) work, but it'll be worth it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
if the first commander can designate the 2nd commander while everyone else has limited access to features, then that should stop random people jumping in and griefing