Suggesting : Commanding in cRPG battles (which could also be useful in Siege mode battles)
Intention : refresh of discussion how to get tactics into battles
- i dont nessessarily want my idea to be the onlyone discussed in this thread , always open for better ideas and modifications , if they are reasonable better
Goal : Battles need tactical dimension
Referencing: thomeks battle improvement thread which which is a
great read and a must read (
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,1590.0.html)
and possible other thread with similar ideas...
How to find the point to start with? I want to find a way to modify the game in a way which will be accepted by the community and also come out to be "better" , as in "more fun to play" and with a additional tactical component. I want the community to allow the game to grow into a more tactical version of itself. I want to plant a grain.
Commanding is already happening quite often in battles. Some players seem to have more saying in the teams than others _Bjorn_ or Phaz for example make people follow their plans. Now the only thing left to do is support that with some tweaks in the game.
What options are there to get tactics into a game? What are the key requirements of a game with a tactical component ? It needs tactical organisation and communication.
Commanding: One commander (who possibly assigns subcommanders). and a voice to command with. And possibly some nice toys to do some things better.Squad system: But i actually think its not good .. e.g. squad system in bf3 has so many flaws , its so much forced , unflexible and causing anger ... how often i need to wait rounds or many minutes to get into a squad with my friend. An scalable squadsystem would result in very imlablanced squads ...
Other options ?
Commanding:
What can cause the players of a team to follow commands in a natural way. Bonus XP/gold are only a weak attempt to bribe players to obey orders. The motivation to fight is to win a round in a battle . The motivation to follow an order is trust . The resulting multiplyer is just the additional,sufficient payoff.EDIT:
in my initial version i was postulating the need of a persistant variable which accumulates the commander quality of a player, i did reconsider this to be not evidently nessessary. unless on a community scale there might be still the need of a way to quantify the commanding skill of a player and also might be connected to a "ladder ssystem" mentioned in a later post.
Here my new variable comes into play. The commanding history CH for each player telling the players commanding quality. This could be seen as a commanding reputation/proficiency rising or dropping with the amount of battles won or lost under his command. And this is a number. A number that players who want to become big battle commanders one day need to work on for a long time. A number that tells how well that player is reknown, valued and trusted by other players to lead them to victory. Much more worth than any skill or attribute point.
CP : elected commanders will earn Commanding Points CP for successfully commanding a battle round in relation to the a winstreak, the size of the battle and the current multiplier
( something like CP= <win_streak> * <battlesize> * <multiplier>/<CH>)
CH : each player will have a persistant commanding history CH = SUM([CP])
Commanding would need the election of a Commander by the team:
i think it might be best to make poll at each round start which also might be skipped by players in order to make it not much annoying.
commander election: (how to chose a commander )
each player can apply for commander at round start
optional commander poll at each round start for each team ( voting can be skipped ), a player can not vote for himself
elected player with most votes will become elected commander
if no player gets voted the CH decides who will be elected commander !!! IF A CH will be implemented
if no other player applied for commander there will be no commanding this round ~ equal to current battles
this routine needs some work, but i think you get the idea. e.g. in what case the commander of a previous won round should become EC automaticaly.
Commanding:What does it need to organize a commandship? The best tool is the commander chat since it is the most free one a commander can have. I only feel the need to make command lines distinguishable from the usual chatter. In best case would have a seperate place on the screen, but not nessesarily. Marking tactical locations or other players with flags(thinking of assigning subcommanders which are viewable by only a certain group of players ) or marking targets would be awesome tool to command subgroups. oh wait , we already have flags 
a Commander
can chose to command the battle from spec mode, obv the team loses a effective unit but commanding would be much more effective; commanding in spec mode should not disable team chat for the commander obviously
aswell as flag placement on locations or people should be available.
have a distinct team chat color for commands aviable (either a seperate channel that can only be used by EC or merely a different color when usinf teamchat)
have access to commanding menue: ... well alot of ideas might be put here
be auto "flagged" so each player can always locate the commander if not in spec mode
Questions and answers:how hard should it be to learn commanding ? hard imo.
whats if the commander plainly sux? dont vote him next round.
is CH cheatable? good question
Show Posts
