Multiple commander problem
OPIE
Join Date: 2002-11-12 Member: 8343Members
Join Date: 2002-11-12 Member: 8343Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Idea for only allowing 1 commander at a time.</div>We've all had those games where a player would switch sides, jump into the command chair and recycle everything and the game was ruined.
Not sure if someone already came up with this idea or not but it works very similar to locking doors.
When a new chair is built instead of it just opening up and becoming accessible it should remain closed. The current commander can decide if he wants to open it or keep it closed and can further continue to do this through out the game. There can even be a light system involved to tell if the chair has been built yet, if its just locked or if its the one with the commander inside it.
Red lights on the chair indicate the chair is not fully built yet, yellow indicate that it's locked, and green indicate that it's the chair the commander is in.
This wouldn't get rid of the issue entirely but severely limit the problem. If a commander can lock and unlock chairs just like he could lock and unlock doors he could decide who he lets in the other chairs or even if at all. If the main chair were to go down any other chairs out there would unlock and await a commander to jump in and lock or keep unlocked any other chair out there.
Theres always the danger of the commander coming out of the chair to deal with an issue or to build something that needs building and then someone else jumping in and locking the chairs or recycling everything. But Charlie has announced that the Eject Commander vote option will be available soon so that would solve that problem of someone stealing the chair. It would essentially be no different from NS1 with the added feature of the comm locking the other chairs.
This would mainly be for pub games as I am sure an organized match no one is going to sabotage their own team and someone switching teams would be disqualified.
Not sure if someone already came up with this idea or not but it works very similar to locking doors.
When a new chair is built instead of it just opening up and becoming accessible it should remain closed. The current commander can decide if he wants to open it or keep it closed and can further continue to do this through out the game. There can even be a light system involved to tell if the chair has been built yet, if its just locked or if its the one with the commander inside it.
Red lights on the chair indicate the chair is not fully built yet, yellow indicate that it's locked, and green indicate that it's the chair the commander is in.
This wouldn't get rid of the issue entirely but severely limit the problem. If a commander can lock and unlock chairs just like he could lock and unlock doors he could decide who he lets in the other chairs or even if at all. If the main chair were to go down any other chairs out there would unlock and await a commander to jump in and lock or keep unlocked any other chair out there.
Theres always the danger of the commander coming out of the chair to deal with an issue or to build something that needs building and then someone else jumping in and locking the chairs or recycling everything. But Charlie has announced that the Eject Commander vote option will be available soon so that would solve that problem of someone stealing the chair. It would essentially be no different from NS1 with the added feature of the comm locking the other chairs.
This would mainly be for pub games as I am sure an organized match no one is going to sabotage their own team and someone switching teams would be disqualified.
Comments
I'm already against the whole several commanders part but this doesn't make it better in my opinion.
In most pub match, I would likely just keep the 2nd CS permanently locked, but I could see how it would be useful in an organized or clan match to have 2 comms. Multi-comms work only when both comms are using the same strategy and their roles and responsibilities are clearly defined. I could see having a system where one comm dictates structure placement and research while the other micros med/ammo packs and opening/closing doors.
make the chairs lockable
And if the comander exits his chair all CCs should be open again.
<!--quoteo(post=1845418:date=May 11 2011, 05:40 AM:name=OPIE)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OPIE @ May 11 2011, 05:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1845418"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would say give the commander a choice. There are many pubs out there that can become organized and everyone co-operates. Two commanders actually working together can and is very beneficial. It's always nice to have the option.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
also +1
I think an 16v16 match it will be very useful if one com builds and the other com dropping medpacks.
(and if the one runs out of plasma, they just switch roles)
Building and dropping medpacks for 16 players might be a little tricky for one com ;)
Why do need more than one commander at all? Honestly? I can understand having Squad Leaders with some functionality (point and click ordering of squad mates and possibly A.I. entities to some degree) overlapping with the Commander, but is there any situation where we need more than one person spending T.Res? Is the commander so swamped with responsibility?
If it's about micromanaging players in larger servers, then surely Squad Leaders that can order squad mates but still take orders from the Commander seems like a much better idea than taking people out of the fray just so that they can Med/Ammo spam. Are maps going to be so monumental that we're going to need this faux-democratic (more like anarchic at the moment) mechanic?
I know what you're saying OPIE, and I'm all for this idea as long as Multiple Comms exist. But still..... wah
At most, two commanders seems viable for a large game. Three or more is simply a waste of manpower.
Still, among multiple commanders there needs to be ONE commander with the utmost authority/privileges, otherwise the Comm/Marine relationship is going to be akin to kids and divorced parents (or still married ones in some cases).
Kid A: "Comm1 research Shotguns!"
Comm1: "No!"
Kid A: "Comm2 research Shotguns!"
Potential Answers:
Comm2: "Ok!" (MUTINOUS)
Comm2: "Ask <strike>your mother</strike> Comm1 (USELESS)
Comm2: "No!" (REDUNDANT)
Comm2: "You research shotguns!" (??)