Player Voice. How player actions express themselves

[isupreme]

This post is about the many ways that players use the game.    It is  NOT about  players say in chat.   This is primarily just a thought exercise.

Player Voice in this post, is about the many ways players express themselves thru their actions and choices.   In this context, if i buy a med tank i am expressing myself in the game. If i choose to add a repair gun to my character,  If I put down a solid mine plan, or randomly leave them on the field  - that is my  Player Voice. 

I would like to see the game continue and expand the Player Voice which it has provided so well.   The first incarnation of this I think of, may have been the ability to place proximity mines.   Myself and many other players have enjoyed the freedom and flexibility and Voice they allowed.    If i see there is a threat from a X direction i can place more mines at X door.  (no wonder so many "discussions" result from mine placement!   - Let my voice be heard!)     RenX has continued this fine tradition with the addition of AT mines, Q spotting, air strikes, etc.    Nice!

The Essential theme i wish to bring up for discussion is --   The more you give Players Voice the more enjoyable the game becomes.

If this premise is acceptable, then the question that should always be considered in every decision about implementation of features is:

Does this decision maintain or increase Player Voice ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~d

Some example subjects:

When servers offer the option to rebuild destroyed turrets, then that is another option for Player Voice.

Recently i posted an idea to allow a bounty to placed on an enemy player.   Generally well received.  I mention it because  I now realize that part of the appeal for me in this idea, is the High Degree of Player Voice that this would allow.     I am not here to pitch  the bounty idea again, but i think it is what lead me to this line of thought.  If i can i donate towards goals i am given Voice.

The rise of commander  powers is another area to consider in this light.   Is there any way to shift some of the Commander abilities to the players - so as to allow them more voice?   In some sense the choice of a commander is when players are willing to give their Voice to someone else.  Not too bad.  I like how commander abilities can be used to increase the game action or the game conclusion.   If any of that can be shifted back to the players it would increase our Voice, for example.

To some degree the removal of Pedestal was a loss of Player Voice.  

 

 

 

[Syntharn]

I like the commanders ability to mark targets, but it requires the commander being on the front lines for it to be usefull which isn't always the case.
If the commander could promote someone to also have that abillity to mark targets i think that would be pretty neat, something like a field officer or whatever millitary term might be appropriate, let the commander worry about other things.

 

[Fffreak9999]

If I recall, there was a point when there was going to be a potential for multiple "commanders" on a team.

1 would be the main commander and then up to 2 "sub" commanders. It was shelved/scrapped for the currently implimented version.

 

Maybe some sort of revival of this mechanic is what you are after Syntharn

[Syntharn]

Commanders is a great addition as it is!  but yes I would like that, just for that extra coordination in field.
Maybe its just me but I often feel like the commanders get stuck in base organizing rushes for several minutes, spamming "DOZAS MEET HON 2/10" or something.
The few times I willingly become commander I dont have time to organize something like that and be effective in the field at the same time, it becomes a choice/preference. Much of it has to do with limited information, i got my FOV, radiochat and map but it doesnt come close to a RTS birds eye view.

On small maps or in low population games it might be overkill, but on maps such as Outposts or Lakeside I would love to have a sub-commander in field. I would be an awesome sub-commander

Edited December 30, 2018 by Syntharn

[HIHIHI]

Sub-commanders would be neat. Like you said, one commander can be limited in potential in large games, and multiple can be overkill in small games. Maybe make it scale with player count or something, maybe one commander until twenty players, then one for every ten? Anyway, it sounds neat.

HIHIHI

[NodSaibot]

Pretty sure the base functionality is already included in the game for that, it’s just not implemented anywhere yet.

[isupreme]

Quote

Pretty sure the base functionality is already included in the game for that, it’s just not implemented anywhere yet

That sounds like a plan !     (is it too late to suggest that silos could get a bounty? )

I kind of like the idea of being able to place a bounty when you are not in the thick of a fight, as in able to do it from base.    But if using something like Q when you are close could work too.

I missed discussions about commander that included the idea of sub command.     That sounds very useful and fun.   I know i have been aware of many times when a commander gets so focused on getting a plan launched - that they missed out on the flow of the battle.  More Player Voice = more Fun.

[NodSaibot]

I feel at least the bounty feature itself should be done as a mutator. I think it would be better as a mutator and not an official feature