Taking control of the harvester, in absence of commander or AWOL commander.

[Atomsk]

Continuing on from isupreme's thread on why no one wants to command, the issue of harvies rolling to their death came up.

I thought this topic deserved its own thread, so that the other thread can continue to stay on track. 

With any C&C game, starting up a good economy as fast as you can, is important to gain advantage over the opposing team. All too often, we see harvesters being sacrificed, resulting into lost income, VP for the enemy team to farm and less so - disrupting the vehicle build queue. When there is no commander OR the commander is preoccupied or AWOL, this is a concern to the teammates trying to hold down field. 

So we're looking for a game mechanic that allows players in general, to take control of the harv, in some way, overruling or acting instead of a commander.

I'll try to reiterate the suggestions from the previous thread:

• Allow players to control the harv, much like the commander, through some shortcut option menu. 
  • Expanded: To a specific class, like engi's and techs/hotties
• Stop harvester from rolling out, after being destroyed n amount of times. 
• Reduce the amount of VP rewarded by destroying a harvester
• Add a voting option, to return the harv
• Add a voting option, to designate a player who has control over harv

Lastly, what would happen to the harv when it is recalled? As discussed previously:

• Return the harv to the docking bay
• Return the harv to a set safe location provided by mappers

Hope I didn't miss anything, if so, please let me know and I'll edit this post.

My personal favorite is to use the voting system, although I have no real preference on where the harv is returned, ref or elsewhere. I don't believe in turning harv control over to multiple people nilly-willy, giving cause for willing or unwilling grief. Regretfully, there are still some players that join just to block your repair gun, spam you to death with voice commands or needlessly chuck c4 at your face. Some new people might not know what they are doing. 

What are your thoughts?

Edited June 9, 2020 by Atomsk
added suggestion by isupreme

[isupreme]

Also an option:   Players vote for a harvester manager.   Like a vote for commander.

The idea that it could be an Engineer thing is really intriguing.

Return to a preset safe location.   yep.

[Xtractor]

or vote to stop/start harvester ..stop at preset..or make an option for a grade lower of commander that could do that job and other non tactictal

[roweboat]

I try to think of it too from a mapper / development standpoint, what's the easiest, quickest thing to Impliment?

 

I like the idea of allowing a vote to dock harvester at it's Bay best. All the commands and waypoints are already set there. (And no issues with harvester being stuck or in someone's way)

 

If you're asking for a specific "safe spot" on the map, then all maps have to be modified to accommodate for that.

[Handepsilon]

I'd rather use vote as last resort option. Harvester is a decision that needs to be solved faster than 30 seconds vote that may or may not pass

[Agent]

7 hours ago, Handepsilon said:

I'd rather use vote as last resort option. Harvester is a decision that needs to be solved faster than 30 seconds vote that may or may not pass

I tend to agree, although we could immediately end any vote once half of eligible voters have voted yes (or alternatively, half have voted no).

[Atomsk]

12 hours ago, Agent said:

I tend to agree, although we could immediately end any vote once half of eligible voters have voted yes (or alternatively, half have voted no).

I like that! Any change sounds good to me. Can't think of anything else?
This is just me, but I'm not that bothered by the 30 second delay of a vote. The harv has probably been needlessly destroyed several times over by that point. Also just realized that we'd also need a harv restart vote. 

[Tytonium]

Just let me control the harvester. I promise I'll behave.

[Syntharn]

Being voted as the "harvester manager" sounds way less intimidating than taking on the full responsibilities of a commander, its also one less thing the commander potentially has to bother with.

[dtdesign]

A simple approach:

1. If there is a commander: All power to the commander.
2. If there is no commander:
   1. If the harvester gets destroyed 3 consecutive times: Harvester idles in the ref bay until eternity.
   2. If the harvester is idle in ref bay: Vote option to start the harvster again.
   3. If the harvester starts dumping tib at ref: Reset the destruction counter.

This requires no changes to existing maps, adds a rather simple counter for each team and introduces one new vote option which effectively clears the counter and starts the harvester.

It is possible to refine this idea by adding periodic reminder messages ("Your harvester is secretly wanking in the ref bay, do something!") and to add some sort of dynamic status light at the ref that informs on the harvy state, like a flashing red light with "Harvester is stopped" or something.

Edited June 11, 2020 by dtdesign
Remarks on possible additions

[Atomsk]

5 hours ago, dtdesign said:

A simple approach:

1. If there is a commander: All power to the commander.
2. If there is no commander:
   1. If the harvester gets destroyed 3 consecutive times: Harvester idles in the ref bay until eternity.
   2. If the harvester is idle in ref bay: Vote option to start the harvster again.
   3. If the harvester starts dumping tib at ref: Reset the destruction counter.

This requires no changes to existing maps, adds a rather simple counter for each team and introduces one new vote option which effectively clears the counter and starts the harvester.

It is possible to refine this idea by adding periodic reminder messages ("Your harvester is secretly wanking in the ref bay, do something!") and to add some sort of dynamic status light at the ref that informs on the harvy state, like a flashing red light with "Harvester is stopped" or something.

I like this, it combines the previous suggestions into one neat little package. One thing it doesn't address is if commander is ignoring harv or requests to stop harv. Wouldn't it be useful to overrule a commander on harv with a vote?

[dtdesign]

19 hours ago, Atomsk said:

One thing it doesn't address is if commander is ignoring harv or requests to stop harv. Wouldn't it be useful to overrule a commander on harv with a vote?

If the commander is bad, you can always elect a new one, so there already exists a way to solve this issue without introducing new things.

Besides that, the commander should be always in charge of the harvester, period. For example, I once was commander for Nod on Field, with Nod being baselocked by GDI tanks. We had a somewhat okayish tunnel presence so I went with a pickle rush on GDI. Assembled everyone and right before we left, I started the harvester. That harvester died horribly and it was intentional.

The idea was that having so many players invested in the rush creates a vacuum in our base that GDI can exploit for a counter tank attack. Good luck with your buffed mammoths that get shoved back by a stubborn harvester, eventually buying enough time for players to respawn in our base.

Players tend to think of the harvester as a stupid money making machine, but as a commander you can make use it in a strategic way. Even in situations where you are not base locked, but the enemy is partially on the field, you can send out the harvester. Maybe it will die, but it will draw the attention of greedy enemies, while allowing your tanks and infantry to roll out, effectively trading a harvester kill for field control.

That's the rationale behind the first "rule" of not interfering with the commander powers. Players sometimes do not see the bigger picture, while you as the commander will spent a considerable amount of time evaluating different strategies. At the end of the day, the harvester is just another tool for you to work with.

[roweboat]

R E A L T I M E S T R A T E G Y

[Atomsk]

4 hours ago, dtdesign said:

If the commander is bad, you can always elect a new one, so there already exists a way to solve this issue without introducing new things.

Besides that, the commander should be always in charge of the harvester, period. For example, I once was commander for Nod on Field, with Nod being baselocked by GDI tanks. We had a somewhat okayish tunnel presence so I went with a pickle rush on GDI. Assembled everyone and right before we left, I started the harvester. That harvester died horribly and it was intentional.

The idea was that having so many players invested in the rush creates a vacuum in our base that GDI can exploit for a counter tank attack. Good luck with your buffed mammoths that get shoved back by a stubborn harvester, eventually buying enough time for players to respawn in our base.

Players tend to think of the harvester as a stupid money making machine, but as a commander you can make use it in a strategic way. Even in situations where you are not base locked, but the enemy is partially on the field, you can send out the harvester. Maybe it will die, but it will draw the attention of greedy enemies, while allowing your tanks and infantry to roll out, effectively trading a harvester kill for field control.

That's the rationale behind the first "rule" of not interfering with the commander powers. Players sometimes do not see the bigger picture, while you as the commander will spent a considerable amount of time evaluating different strategies. At the end of the day, the harvester is just another tool for you to work with.

I wholeheartedly agree, but there are still matches where the commander doesn't act on the harvester and no one else wants to command, or not enough players vote to elect a new commander. Or there is no commander and not enough people vote. It's good that you understand the role of the harvester, but that doesn't count for everyone, I'm afraid.

As for being baselocked and harvy running, the harvy can be a nuisance as it'll shove tanks and inf into the crossfire. Especially on maps like Field where there's only so much room for tanks to maneuver. 

 

[isupreme]

Quote

 Even in situations where you are not base locked, but the enemy is partially on the field, you can send out the harvester. Maybe it will die, but it will draw the attention of greedy enemies, while allowing your tanks and infantry to roll out, effectively trading a harvester kill for field control.

Strategy Tactic  #41599    I would like to see it tried more often.   I have never seen a commander announce the tactic and rally the troops to push out.

[dtdesign]

23 minutes ago, isupreme said:

Strategy Tactic  #41599    I would like to see it tried more often.   I have never seen a commander announce the tactic and rally the troops to push out.

It may make sense to not explain it.

That sounds counterintuitive at first, but the idea is to keep the communication with your team limited to essential commands. You simply tell your team to "PUSH FIELD NOW" while the harvy is rolling out of your base and your spy plane is inbound. Your team is already busy fighting the enemy and getting themselves in position. YOU already thought this through, YOU spend time evaluating the possibilities, YOU saw an opportunity. Tell them only what they need to know to make your dreams happen, keep them focused on their task!

[roweboat]

The more that know the plan runs the risk of the enemy knowing the plan...