Sub-Commander dissucs

[kira]

Hey guys,  

I am thinking about gathering ideas for creating new mutator - Sub Commander position  with limited abilites to assist the primary commander. 

I need your imagination.

I thought about those features so far:

 -  /c team messaging.

 - q -spot marking
 - radar scan 

- different pool only for sub commander (or commanders, like 2 or 3 sub commanders for each team ) 
 - disabling sub commander abilties if the other team doesn't match in number of sub commanders

I would love to hear your ideas and opinions before i start trying to build it, remmeber it should keep thing equal between teams.
Thank you

[Ryz]

Would be handy to have this, also to give out different roles (like defensive or offensive commander) or the ability for a 'sub commander' to request to use a certain power which the real commander has to approve. 

[isupreme]

Very much a need.  While i will always argue to put these abilities in the hands of the players,  I agree we would benefit from sub commanders.  Perhaps we might see more strategic plans beyond. .      Meet in refinery.

I would like to see sub commanders  empowered to manage zones such as one for tunnels, one for field, one for 3rd option.    Each would have: Highlighted or BOLD chat abilities.   Each would have radio commands appropriate.    Tunnel  captain could radio call out:    NOd inf rush inbound!   etc.   Use of Q could of course be implemented, however the roll of radio calls should not be underestimated.

I would like to see sub commanders   (is there a  better name for this is ?   Captains?  Sergeant?  ) able to rally forces even as the commander is busy doing something else. But also i see a real need for a commander to know that an area is being held, monitored, open to be used as a rush path, etc.   A sub comm could take on these roles with some thought and planning.     If i have a sub comm keeping the tunnels open and monitored, the success rate for calling a gunner rush goes up.  If the same sub comm can be trusted to scream if there is an opposing rush, i can mount a field push and buff without the paranoia of the base being lost.

I can see players talking/designing  new strategies to make use of such a design.

For a long time i thought the sub com should have a private chat line w commander, but now i think that is too hidden for a great teamwork game like this.  I vote you make them  call for help and plot plans in the public eye.    Good to help new players see /know what goes into pulling of a crushing  push. 

Could we us this time to enact a bounty system?   I would like to see sub comms able to place a bounty on enemy units.    This would allow the ability to focus the forces working in that area.    Of course what i really want is to allow any player to spend credits to place a bounty.   ...

AS an Aside,  I assume you would make harvester control a division of sub comm....      but may i say i still strongly feel that harvester control should/could be given to the general players base.    As in truth all of this should be..... ..

Edited June 23, 2019 by isupreme
added a push for bounty

[roweboat]

Yes I agree.

"Sub-commander" or maybe lieutenant =D haha

I think Sub, should have

/r /c ability, radar and smoke and harvester control.

Commander text be red, lieutenant text be green.

 

I recommend keeping it simple. basically just a "commander" with less powers.

 

On a slightly different note, I think it would be great if commanders could highlight vehicles and characters in the PT menu to "recommend" which units should be bought at that time.

Hey team is going to do stealth tank rush? Vehicle menu and then stealth tank will be highlighted in blue.

(okay honestly it'd be great if commander could just lock out certain things from being purchased... but I'm compromising here =D) 

[Madkill40]

Commander and two Captain's. 

All of them can Q-Spot units and they track but only Commander can use CP +powers. Maybe Captain's can request something and the Commander receives a prompt to accept or deny. 

Additionally, @yosh56 - What say you? Is Commander Mod okay to be mutated? 

[SvN91]

I'm thinking something like this:

 

Tank officer - gives a small boost to nearby vehicles

Infantry officer - gives a small boost to nearby infantry

Support officer - gives a boost to field repair

Base defense officer - gives a defensive boost inside the base.

 

I don't think there is any need to give them any other powers except maybe some smoke grenaids or something, leave the powers to the commander. 

The officers would not be very powerful but would take initiatives to lead groups in their class or territory. Infantry officers would primarily work in the tunnels while tank officers would work to control the field and assault the base, base defense officer would stay in base mostly and look that everything is getting repaired, mining and prevent sbh and hotties from sneaking around.

[Boomer]

7 minutes ago, SvN91 said:

I'm thinking something like this:

 

Tank officer - gives a small boost to nearby vehicles

Infantry officer - gives a small boost to nearby infantry

Support officer - gives a boost to field repair

Base defense officer - gives a defensive boost inside the base.

 

I don't think there is any need to give them any other powers except maybe some smoke grenaids or something, leave the powers to the commander. 

The officers would not be very powerful but would take initiatives to lead groups in their class or territory. Infantry officers would primarily work in the tunnels while tank officers would work to control the field and assault the base, base defense officer would stay in base mostly and look that everything is getting repaired, mining and prevent sbh and hotties from sneaking around.

 

[SvN91]

23 minutes ago, Boomer said:

 

Not sure what those are

[vandal33]

1 hour ago, SvN91 said:

Not sure what those are

Not sure if those things are even related to C&C.

[kira]

About the thing with "Request", i dont like much the idea that a captain need to request from the prime commander
to use buff, or radar scan and such.  it could be slow response, and the point of having "sub commander" class is to be an autonomus commanding unit, 
which can releif the prime commander duties.  if a captain relay on request for yes or no then it still a burden for commander to approve or deny (not just click or type but decide too, and explain why he decide that, all this can take a lot of precious time)
it could create a lot of aruging ("why you denied the buff, we lost our chance to kill hon", and such)

Ryz suggested different roles, different captain, like for instance on Islands map - 
one captain lead tunnels, other captain base defense,  prime commander out to field
that very good idea, i already heard suggestions for multiple captains and i like it.

Of course you can't have one team with one prime commander with 2 captain while the other team dont have neither, 
so there would be limitiations to create equality.

LOL and yeah from now on let's use the term "Captain" and not sub commander.

Another good idea, that commander and speak with his two captains (though it's prefered on voice chat),
in private and he can guide them what to do, and the captains can text message every one in different color , 
different place on screen ( you can play with the UI/UX for something that works) 

 To Isuperme question, yes i wont divide the captains they all share public chat in the team.

I really love the idea that a commander can plan comfortly while he knows there is a captain that defened the tunnels with team.
And also encoruge the commander and the captains to be on voice chat

@Isuperme, as for the bounty ,  it's less suitable for the game type, we want to work as a team, putting bounty is a waste of credits which can be used for rush.
it's nice and funny idea if you get pissed on someone that kills you a lot, so you place bounty of 500 credits to the one who kills him, but still part of the game is to kill the enemy so there is not point spending credits on bounty.
as for the idea of captain bounty enemy units,  someone on discord suggested we can use a shared credits pool only for the captains. 
with limited powers (not buff or missle cruise) , so when a captain q-spot enemey unit and it destroyed - that pool credits increased 
and prime commander credits pool (the regular credits we currently know ) is unaffected.
so it's like bounty hunt by captain.

as for the harverster control, it's part of the captain/commander options, i dont really know how to decide about that.

@SvN91 role assign could be neat,  
as I said one captain for tunnels, one for base defense, but make it tank or infa or support it's sounds too much divided.
i'll wait to hear more comments about this specific idea.
because you can have inf on tunnels and infa on field, depends the maps, 
but the 3 divisions of: field, base , tunnels is more likely to be rellavnt in our maps for my opinion.

[Goku]

You could make the request really easy to approve or deny. ctrl + y or ctrl + n

[kira]

1 hour ago, Goku said:

You could make the request really easy to approve or deny. ctrl + y or ctrl + n

i know, as i said the action to prove or denied can be quick, but it casue to arguments in the team, why you didnt approved that, and why you didnt respond to that we need buff\scan what ever. it's for the best that the captain wont have to request, but with limited powers. (no buff, no missle cruise)

 

[Ryz]

4 hours ago, kira said:

i know, as i said the action to prove or denied can be quick, but it casue to arguments in the team, why you didnt approved that, and why you didnt respond to that we need buff\scan what ever. it's for the best that the captain wont have to request, but with limited powers. (no buff, no missle cruise)

 

I see, but there are also some triggerhappy people who like to use CP to get veteran sooner. I guess in most calls a subcommander will be doing what is best for his team, but  just in case when someone isnt... 

[Guest once upon the time]

I think new creative ideas are generally very good, but in this case, I hope it really only remains a mutator.

I would not mind seeing this as the default in the game.
Meanwhile, I know a few more that have drastically reduced their playing time due to CP and VP.
Otherwise, I would still say a good idea as a mutator and i wish a nice exchange of ideas.

[Madkill40]

Two Captain slots, non-specific are more ideal and less bitchboi linear.
Maybe I want two Tank Captains? Or two Infantry Captains? 

Non-specific Captain roles are best. 

Additionally, the requesting of an specific commander power (i.e. Recon, EMP or Smoke) is an easier integration which wouldn't upset the balance which presently exists. Captains can still Q-Spot so you have 3 instead of 1 who can tag enemy players which is still useful for CP collection. But giving two additional players the ability to buff their team in any capacity is nuts and would lead to more bullshit - whereas requesting allows Captain's to request an strike even if the Commander isn't there to spot it themselves.  [Anything can cause an argument because people argue regardless, that's not an valid counter-argument]

They're subordinates without the clearance to activate the commander powers so they must request them, otherwise you don't have sub-commanders but 2 extra commanders.

[kira]

2 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

Two Captain slots, non-specific are more ideal and less bitchboi linear.
Maybe I want two Tank Captains? Or two Infantry Captains? 

Non-specific Captain roles are best. 

Additionally, the requesting of an specific commander power (i.e. Recon, EMP or Smoke) is an easier integration which wouldn't upset the balance which presently exists. Captains can still Q-Spot so you have 3 instead of 1 who can tag enemy players which is still useful for CP collection. But giving two additional players the ability to buff their team in any capacity is nuts and would lead to more bullshit - whereas requesting allows Captain's to request an strike even if the Commander isn't there to spot it themselves.  [Anything can cause an argument because people argue regardless, that's not an valid counter-argument]

They're subordinates without the clearance to activate the commander powers so they must request them, otherwise you don't have sub-commanders but 2 extra commanders.

I think you didn't read my post,   2 or 3 additioanl commander (captains) which have limited powers ( not any kind of buff, no missle cruise ) ,  
with a captain pool that only the captains share.  
this meant for team originizing (also displayed in different position on screen, different color)  the three main areas: 
 - field (front line) 
- tunnels (if exist  or path\forest)
 - base defense 

 

[isupreme]

Quote

@Isuperme, as for the bounty

thanks for the feedback about bounty .     I see your point.   Perhaps there is a role for Captains,  we shall see.

clap clap:   public chat

______

 

New Addition:  Can Captains have a differentiating dot on the map.     bigger?  color ?  circle around em..  ..

  this also opens the door to having the look of captains and command on the map INDICATING a mode of action.   ie:   i am holding this area.  i am rallying for a push.  I am Defending!  

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by isupreme
added map request

[Mystic~]

I like the idea of at least two people being able to access some of the command powers - presently there's an awkward way of temporarily transferring by calling a vote for a new person when say someone else is in position to launch an attack and the commander is sat in base strategising or seeing the bigger picture, whereas the new proposed way would mean it could be done more quickly and enable two people to share certain things. However, it would become irritating if someone else was simply able to use up all the CP for things like scanning or cruise missiles when the commander was saving it up for an important offensive attack later on. I would not be against two people having two different amounts of CP if one were used offensively and one was used defensively or for moderate support powers, or there was a main primary pool of available cp and then a smaller secondary one - for things like more frequent smoke or radar scans.

I like the idea of some sort of vehicle management screen where it says something like "Medium Tanks (Required: 3 of 7) Can we give these people the ability to auto destruct none required vehicles? i.e. people taking up humvees or APCs at a bad moment in the game. Or maybe another waypoint that says something custom like Hotwire/Technician required (2 of 3) for field repairs at a given set waypoint.

This (might) not be relevant, but it would be good to have some sort of commander approval rating so each commander can see how many of their team are on board and how many have some sort of grievance or criticism. I really don't like passive-aggressively voting out a commander half-way through a game simply because things aren't going perfect and someone else calls in a vote. This leads to fewer people wanting to command due to stress. Maybe this value or percentage can be stored as some sort of average and be used across different map games.

This is just random, but I'd like to see a flare gun or coloured smoke being used by a commander as a more obvious signal to commence a rush or attack, rather than using c/ or "move out" radio command.

[Madkill40]

2 hours ago, Mystic George said:

Can we give these people the ability to auto destruct none required vehicles? i.e. people taking up humvees or APCs at a bad moment in the game.

That's awful. Like, really awful.

[roweboat]

auto destruct non required vehicles! LOL that's even more of a radical idea than mine of locking out specific vehicles *ahem*mrls*ahem* from the PT menu as commander.

 

I love it =D

[HIHIHI]

I also think it would be neat to have a limited set (scans, smoke, and EMP, maybe) of Commander Powers available to captains (although I would prefer the term lieutenants), and give them an allotment of the main Command Points, the size of which can be set by the commander (so if there are 3000 CP, the commander can give the captains (or lieutenants, as the case may be), control over 500 CP, reserving 2500 CP only for the commander (who can also cut into the 500 if necessary for a double buff or something).

3 hours ago, Mystic George said:

This is just random, but I'd like to see a flare gun or coloured smoke being used by a commander as a more obvious signal to commence a rush or attack, rather than using c/ or "move out" radio command.

It's a neat idea, but perhaps you would want to do something that would be less of a possible alert to the enemy. It's already hard enough to get a successful rush together; making it even more difficult would not by good, in my opinion.

HIHIHI

[Mystic~]

Quote

That's awful. Like, really awful.

Well, you might politely say something in chat about it first not to be rude, but if they didn't respond, then I'd say Commanders word is final and hit the player ID destruct command if there is such a thing, it's not just about playing mindlessly, it's still a team game so they would need to listen and if this was the only way of freeing up a spot - say you're in a public game and you want a 3 APC rush but all the slots are taken and someone just bought an attack buggy or an MRL etc. There's room for abuse of course, but that's why there are moderators and team vote options.

 

Quote

It's a neat idea, but perhaps you would want to do something that would be less of a possible alert to the enemy. 

You could really fool or scare a team into thinking you were rushing and then not actually rush sometimes, it's possible it could be used to signal other things as well like simply group up at a said location, maybe a flare used in conjunction with waypoints or all three things combine into one single command like "Prepare to move in". I've not explored this in detail, but I know it would look good and it's a strong visual cue, where important chat messages sometimes get missed and don't always get read. 

A little bit off topic, back to sub-commanding...

[SvN91]

1 hour ago, Mystic George said:

Well, you might politely say something in chat about it first not to be rude, but if they didn't respond, then I'd say Commanders word is final and hit the player ID destruct command if there is such a thing, it's not just about playing mindlessly, it's still a team game so they would need to listen and if this was the only way of freeing up a spot - say you're in a public game and you want a 3 APC rush but all the slots are taken and someone just bought an attack buggy or an MRL etc. There's room for abuse of course, but that's why there are moderators and team vote 

I think this is a bad idea in every way, one player might have some command powers but every player is still equal and nobody should be able to destroy other players vehicles. It would also be very unforgiving to new players who have little money and just want to join in with the others on the battlefield.

What's wrong with a little anti infantry vehicles among the tanks anyways.

[Yeetler]

1 Sub commander should be enough, and he should automatically be Commander when the current commander leaves.

EMP and Smoke strike should be enough for him.

Edited June 25, 2019 by R E A P E R

[Madkill40]

7 hours ago, Mystic George said:

Well, you might politely say something in chat about it first not to be rude, but if they didn't respond, then I'd say Commanders word is final and hit the player ID destruct command if there is such a thing

I just think it creates elitist and stuck'up behaviours if you enable "I R COMMAND, UR NUTT HELPIN', DECONSTRUCT YORR VEHICLE" 

Commander commands and offers support to end an stalemate, not to be some fascist overlord by forcing players into an 'My way or the highway' situation - Lets say we're on Islands and the GDI commander is a dumbass who thinks 6 Mammies is better than 4 meds+2 Mammies on Islands - I lose my med and someone else buys an Mammy because I wasn't in base but defending the front ... we lose the front and the commander is forever a prick in my eyes

Nobody wants that, but something like that will happen if you give the Commander so much control over what their team can/cannot purchase

If you're commander and your team doesn't pay attention to what you type, then I always see it as I'm too unfamiliar to my team to be paid much notice, which happens. However, I don't need to assert my distaste for being ignored by also commanding which vehicles are allowed.

Edited June 25, 2019 by Madkill40

[vandal33]

10 hours ago, Mystic George said:

Well, you might politely say something in chat about it first not to be rude, but if they didn't respond, then I'd say Commanders word is final and hit the player ID destruct command if there is such a thing, it's not just about playing mindlessly, it's still a team game so they would need to listen and if this was the only way of freeing up a spot - say you're in a public game and you want a 3 APC rush but all the slots are taken and someone just bought an attack buggy or an MRL etc.

Yes, it is a team game. Therefore, you must put up with your teammate's choice of vehicle instead of having 1 person deciding which vehicle to keep and destroy if he doesn't like it. You think your newbie teammate buying the wrong vehicle at the wrong time is wasting vehicle slots? Guide them, let them know and understand we need more useful vehicles and his vehicle is wasting slot. If he doesn't listen, then the team is in trouble because (like you said) it's a team game. Not to mention we had topics about how the toxic elitist community is already scaring away a lot new players.

Imagine if a team loses their power plant and refinery. There's one heroic player saved up money to buy a mammoth tank because he knows 1 Heroic mammoth can help defend the base. 5 minutes later, a commander wants an orca rush and he notices there's a mammy, he blows it up. How would the buyer feel?

10 hours ago, Mystic George said:

There's room for abuse of course, but that's why there are moderators and team vote options.

What if toxic people abuses it because they hold a grudge on another player they dislike? Teammates and moderators (especially if there are none in game) may not get the full picture of the situation and the commander guy can just justify his action is for the good of his team and he was just using the commander feature to remove unwanted vehicle to free 1 slot.

[Guest once upon the time]

Last words of the Commander Team to the Teammate 

 

[kira]

@ryz well in that case you might right, i think i will do it as request unless someone has
better argument against that

@isuperme ui\ux modifications are great, it give good hints and make the game experince even more incredible,
i would like to do it like you said and also like different qspot colors , shape,
smoke different (make like pink smoke to mark area to meet for one commander, other would be blue)

@Mystic 
maybe we can create two pools, one for prime commander and one for sub commander (captains)
and all the pools can be filled from the qspoting , but earning less cp per kill
so that if prime commander and captain marked same unit, both credits pools rise up by 5 cp each
and the use of captain powers (limited ofc) would be spent by the captains pool only.
and about the tanks, i dont want to force players to be too strictly, you gotta leave room to have fun
and ui suggestions are always wellcom, flare gun in pink or green would be awsome to set point for meet up

@reaper auto elect sub commander to prime commander is good idea, ill add it to the list.
and its not about emp or smoke strike, its about divding the authrity to moniter and control the battlefield.
orginized in a way that you can calmly plan without panicing when leaving base for some hottie sneaking in

remmeber guys, we are trying to make the game more playable and fun, restricing players is not an option.
if you think the newbie buying useless tank, pm him and explian, and if he doesnt listen, just let it be. 
 

[roweboat]

new commander power:

Kill all team tanks of 1 type. Cost: 3000CP

 

I'm kidding

 

Maybe for next april fools =D

 

But in all seriousness, yes I'm all for having teams be able to clearly define multiple "roles". Attacking from two fronts would be easier with more clearly defined ways to bring instructions and clarity to a group on a team.

I think all the ideas brought forth are great. If something like this isn't ultimately officially supported, the game should at least implement something ala "squads" so small groups can better coordinate. 

Like Kira said, it's less about additional powers and more about bring clarity to team goals.]

[isupreme]

Quote

something ala "squads" so small groups can better coordinate. 

There is tremendous value in this.   

Edited June 26, 2019 by isupreme

[Mystic~]

I like the squad's thing also, hope it isn't becoming too complicated. Some sort of flexible grouping system where people can drag their names into a list and then maybe a little number appears next to their name or the name changes colour for the rest of their team to see only.  This is similar to group select you can do in the top-down strategy games and enables people to work together better. Yosh is always calling for his special-ops Delta squad, so maybe these names could be used.

I get that being able to destroy a team members vehicle is controversial, but I think some people are being deliberately obtuse about the possible right or wrong use for something like this. It could be abused, but then everything can be abused and there are also existing ways to moderate, kick a player, vote out a bad commander. There are also going to be some instances where this would be fitting or desirable and like I said, communicating to someone was the first choice. And it's not about totally dictating another players style of play or choice of vehicle, or even spoiling their fun, but if they deliberately 'dick about' then I'd totally want to be able to auto-destruct it - that stank that won't get down from that wall, that afk chinook that is hanging above your base and at times that unwanted team vehicle whom isn't responding to team rushes and might cause the team to lose due to not following orders from their team commander. Maybe some sort of credit refund/recycle instead, but I feel this is digressing from the mutator discussion.

[Madkill40]

1 hour ago, Mystic George said:

I get that being able to destroy a team members vehicle is controversial

Its justified team-hampering

1. Team mates may not fully understand english, so when a batshit commander is threatening them they still won't understand

2. Commanders idea for a rush could be absolute trash, therefore fuck that trashcommander for destroying my vehicle - F5 > donate credits to enemy team > Quit

3. Lets at least try to enhance CMod, rather than turn it into absolute evil

Edited June 26, 2019 by Madkill40

[Mystic~]

Yeah, well, meanwhile, a Commanders gotta do what commanders gotta do.

 

[vandal33]

3 hours ago, Mystic George said:

Maybe some sort of credit refund/recycle instead, but I feel this is digressing from the mutator discussion.

Might as well allow all players the ability to sell their vehicle. Because allowing commander to refund team vehicle is the same as that and if this is implemented, then commanders would be using this ability to allow teammates sell their unwanted vehicle so you might as well let each players do it themselves to their own vehicles.

As for your other points regarding team vehicle destruction in that paragraph, I've already explained why it's bad.

[kira]

being able to destroy teammate tank is crossing the line in-game experience, it's forcing your opinion and i don't like it at all, few agree with me on this.

if you want to deal with afk, noobs, people that don't understand or wont - we find other solutions.  like chat, nagging, hinting on the UI level with signs and text, whatever. just won't force on someone.

except for that,  good ideas being suggested here, I am getting the vision for the features,
Keep it coming!

 

[Madkill40]

Thanks for the video it just made me think of how you could unfairly abuse being able to self-destruct one of your teams' vehicles

Your team loses a vehicle to the enemy, as in the enemy steals it - that vehicle is still counted as your teams' vehicle and uses up a vehicle slot. 

No worries guys, commander can self-destruct that Stank GDI just stole off us. 

Yet another reason against fascist commander control

8 minutes ago, kira said:

few agree with me on this.

*many agree

 

Edited June 26, 2019 by Madkill40

[Mystic~]

It would be nice to be able to sell a vehicle bought by mistake (even swop a character for free for that matter) or maybe auto-destruct your own tank if you wanted to exit and abandon it on the battlefield, might allow for some interesting strategies or decisions for infiltration. I'm coming round to the idea that being able to destroy another's tank might be bad, although I think people were taking it a bit too seriously and I wasn't envisioning 'arsehole commanders' abusing it, I imagine it wouldn't be used much even if it was allowed or implemented, but it's not popular, so maybe we can leave this now.

Anyway, plenty of other ideas and suggestions offered or advocated for and so far I really like the sound of Squad groupings/assignments, Captain sub-roles, I mentioned vehicle management screen, there's already something, maybe a commander could input in a box how many of each he/she would like, as in preference but not forced - so as to avoid the everyone is in a mammoth tank problem. Different smoke and flares are just neat ideas if they have a valid purpose and add something. The suggestions are to either help with the management or make things more conducive to a team effort.

[Handepsilon]

On 6/26/2019 at 8:57 AM, roweboat said:

 the game should at least implement something ala "squads"

What are you, a bot?

[isupreme]

Quote

I need your imagination.

ok...

so....  right now if you press m you get the map.  To this page has been added the status of the base buildings. Could we add more stuff  for command and captains ?

When i join a game, i could pull up the map and learn even more than base status and team distribution.  If there was some indication of command voice I might be drawn to join an ongoing effort.   It could indicate the command structure and options available that i can then join to support the effort. 

In effect, use the addition of more command structure to create some sense of what is going on for the new/joining player.

Is the map essentially a tactical display?   I wonder where on my uniform it is located.

Edited June 27, 2019 by isupreme
added humor

[Boomer]

On 6/25/2019 at 6:57 PM, roweboat said:

the game should at least implement something ala "squads" so small groups can better coordinate.

Return to Armory to revive dead squad members?

[isupreme]

Could the players be accumulating CP while they play and then are able to donate to commander or captains?

In this scenario a captain who has several team clustered up in the tunnel, could call for buff donations.  Chat would begin to look like our familiar rush chat: "Tunnel buff 800/1300 CP   Need more!"     and requests and interest and fighters start gearing up for the  buff.

I could even see a nice exchange between players ...  you want cp?  ok..  but i need some cash .

Edited June 28, 2019 by isupreme
added vision

[Madkill40]

23 hours ago, isupreme said:

Is the map essentially a tactical display?   I wonder where on my uniform it is located.

Games get to overlook this from the equation of logic to be fair

A more interactive map would be nice

[HIHIHI]

How would players accumulating separate pools of CP make it better than it is now? If they can't do anything with it except donate it to the commander/captain, why would they use it as bargaining material (CP for credits, like you said)? It won't do the person who got it any good (unless they are a captain or commander - maybe that's what you meant earlier). However, if they are, since CP is used to help the whole team, generally speaking, I don't think individual players should buy and sell it. You could make them help earn it faster by participating in combat, but if the commander (and possibly captains) is q-spotting, they are doing that anyway whenever they kill a target.

Also, having to mess with donating CP to commanders to use for buffs doesn't sound like much of a good idea to me... It just makes coordination and rushes harder (if the commander and captains are the only ones who can use it, just give it to them in the first place, without an extra step of donation). And I, for one, am against pretty much anything that makes executing a rush harder. The lack of consistent teamwork is enough of a hamper on that already, in my opinion. And if your team is working together enough to consistently rush, I think that they deserve any success that comes their way, without having to donate CP.

Just some things to think on.

     HIHIHI

[isupreme]

HIHIHI  those are some good points to consider.    I certainly agree that one goal is to not make things harder.   I did not intend to make players sell their accumulated CP.,    but having made the joke i should acknowledge that could happen.  Rather i am always looking for ways to give players more voice in the game.

Maybe it is  just more grain for the grinders.

   I do enjoy considering the possibilities of sub command and i could easily see the map becoming an information and actions panel.

[HIHIHI]

<BEGIN TRANSMISSION>

Maybe my point was lost in that mess... I tend to repeat myself with slightly different words two or three times sometimes...

I was basically asking, "Why would anyone buy or sell CP if it couldn't do them any good?" Unless you can use CP, you have no reason to buy it. And since it is used to benefit the team, and not commanders/captains personally (in most cases), they should not have to buy it from players.

I do like your "player voice" philosophy, and I think that taking it into account in development considerations and balancing that with simplicity and elegance (as RenX is already pretty complicated) is a very good idea. I also see potential in the idea of sub-commanders, and there have been some good ideas put forth on that concept in this thread, I think.

     HIHIHI

<END TRANSMISSION>

 

[isupreme]

New point on original idea of sub commanders>

 

If sub commanders  as captains could take responsibility for an area such as field or tunnels....  Then.. .if the captain could state the situation   .. ( rush forming.   we are in control    etc) ..... then if that info was presented to a player when they are back in base to reset. .. Then!  They the player are informed and able to choose an action based on the current situation.

What i am working on in this idea, is the problem  of a player only being able to see the part of the game they just fought in.  When what a player needs to know is how the fight is going overall, and who won that fight i just died to win?   Are we holding the field or losing it?   Should i buy a technician or a LCG?

We need ways to keep players informed about the battle...  ways that allow  them out of a narrow blinkered tunneled viewpoint. This especially is true  when we play bigger maps and bigger teams.

 

~~  more random fodder for thought.

Edited August 17, 2019 by isupreme

[kira]

6 hours ago, isupreme said:

New point on original idea of sub commanders>

 

If sub commanders  as captains could take responsibility for an area such as field or tunnels....  Then.. .if the captain could state the situation   .. ( rush forming.   we are in control    etc) ..... then if that info was presented to a player when they are back in base to reset. .. Then!  They the player are informed and able to choose an action based on the current situation.

What i am working on in this idea, is the problem  of a player only being able to see the part of the game they just fought in.  When what a player needs to know is how the fight is going overall, and who won that fight i just died to win?   Are we holding the field or losing it?   Should i buy a technician or a LCG?

We need ways to keep players informed about the battle...  ways that allow  them out of a narrow blinkered tunneled viewpoint. This especially is true  when we play bigger maps and bigger teams.

 

~~  more random fodder for thought.

kInd of mad idea, but if you really want to get prespective knowledge about the battlefiled, 
an hologram would be a good soluition.

like here:




In one specific building or using a terminal to access , or simply modified map under "M" key -   player could see a 3D hologram map, with enemy colors and friendly colors, see the ground\building\ every other detail on the game in the 3D hologram (enemy units will be limited according to q spotting)

For example on Under a Nod player can see that his rocket buddies goes pipiline to attack WF, 
so he would grab LCG \Doza to hold tunnels to counter attack any incoming rush , and another Nod player notice it also from the map and hold field with flame tank near Nod entrance and such.

This would give the best visual.

Bonus: add controls for the map to zoom in or out, move across point or what ever.

Edited August 17, 2019 by kira