I have made many specific suggestions, you just refuse to consider them because you operate under the bizzare idea that empires cannot do anything other than putting everything under the control of the commander.
No wrong. I believe the commander should have signifigant more controls, but signifigant as a collective. Individually the controls are less obvious, ánd really don't give the commander any 'moar' power than they already have, just more flexibility in applying that power (for instance, being able to disable a barracks spawn point, without having to 'recycle' the barracks. Instant functionality, same power, without having to be so forceful with the action, as in not having to excercise it to the extreme to get the desired action): I also believe players should be given increased flexibility. Squads should have more communication and HUD / interaction powers, that are more intuitive. Have a better participation in the game, in team tactics, in generally making the RTS portion of the game at least a little more apparent to the non-commander players, thus enhancing the experience for everyone. In short Chris, I'm giving specific examples of things that could help, and be *added* to the game. You are giving general statements of *removing* mechanics that currently are not so intuitively implemented. The difference is, I am talking about enhancing the current gaming experience, whilst you are talking about narrowing it or paradigm shifting it based on attributes you find break the game. *the game will be based on teamwork, this will always be so *The game will be based on strategy, this will always be so *The game will have a large RTS style component, I.E. a commander. This will always be so. *The game will have a large shooter component. This will always be so. You run on the bizzare idea that any of these elements will be nerfed. You are wrong. The question is not which one of these should be dropped to make the game most fun, the question is how do we implement these in the same game in the best fashion? How do we enhance these elements and make them intuitive and interact with eachother to maximize usability, and work well together. Tweaking things to make these elements better integrated is the right way of thinking, not removing them.
And that is my point, you refuse to consider that any of the mechanics we have in at the moment are fundamentally flawed, and that removing them and reassigning the functions they perform is the best way to add to the game. Removing something broken and replacing it with something not broken is not narrowing the game, it is fixing the game. You would have me fix a broken car by simply bolting more fins on it and painting racing stripes on the side when the engine has more holes in it than a cheese grater. One person being responsible for the entire game's functioning will ALWAYS be a damn fool idea, no matter how you implement it or explain it. Having buildings and research are not bad ideas, I have no intention of suggesting they be removed and I have not said anything to suggest that, my objection is solely on the point that the idea of fundamental game mechanics working or not working based on ONE PERSON is not going to be reliable ever. Fundamental game mechanics must work in order for the game to be playable, and you cannot guarantee a good commander for each team, if one team has a poor commander you might as well stop all their guns working or make their tanks randomly stall, because research progression and building placement is exactly the same sort of mechanic as pressing W to go forwards or pressing mouse1 to shoot. It is a critical element of the game and must be made absolutely reliable. I don't know whether you're actually reading anything I suggest because I have not suggested removing the possibility for teamwork, I have made numerous suggestions which seek to enhance the capabilities of squads to work together and give squad leaders more ways to direct their squads and support them. I enjoy and do not object to teamwork as a feature, I only object when it is made mandatory for the game to function because, just as with flawless commanders, the idea that you will always have players willing to work as a team is utterly ridiculous. Encourage it and support it, foster its development, but do not demand it where it isn't present, because you will only alienate players.
Some of the things you want to replace, I don't really want to, but some of your suggestions are still worthy of debate. The real thing, I think, is to make sure everytime you play you get at least an average commander. There needs to be a way to ensure that someone always commands, and whoever it is, is basically capable of commanding the team. I think simplifying the elements and commander hud would go a long way towards this, also having tips on the screen and tooltips. There also needs to be a way to confer information to people in a way that isn't being done at the moment - people don't read the manual, so we need a splash screen showing commander view with short explanations (like an arrow to the research tab, saying a radar needs to be built for it to be enabled) to replace our loading screens maybe. We also need a way to show that information in a way that isn't forceful but will ensure they at least see it. Even if this means we need to make our homepage have this large image on the front, then we've gotta do it. Also adding it to an install screen or as a companion readme.jpg, is something that's needed. We won't stop getting people who don't know how to play unless we teach them how to. I would suggest a tutorial video, but all the attempts have so far failed, including BJ's comprehensive attempt. We need a consistent one or two images for load screens, because let's face it, those tips are fairly out of date and are too piecemeal. We could also use a menu item which just pops up the tutorial images...a manual link idea was good, but some people just won't read it. Quick guides, in a few images would be good, and I we have some already done, don't we?
If you have a system to guarantee that every game you will get a commander who can and wants to command, I'd love to hear it. I'd love to know how you make a task which is inherently separate from the main game, but which is more essential than any other player role, both enjoyable, and easy to do. If you simplify it, where is the fun? People get bored and leave, if you complicate it, people can't do it properly. If you add things to keep people engaged you will end up with lots of people who can't do all of them at once, if you take things out you lose interest. The whole reason this doesn't affect the main game is because if a player is of lower skill and can't handle a huge amount of stuff, it doesn't matter because he is but part of an average, he may not be able to do it but someone else can, so his slack is picked up, the commander does not have this luxury. It is for this reason of averages that I suggest turning commander functions over to players, because then the vital functions of the commander can be given the reliability of a team, why require an average commander when you already have an average in the game, the team. The team DEFINES average, and if your team is always of average skill, giving it the ability to uphold its own mechanics is as reliable as you can get. Keep a commander if you want, don't keep all the mechanics under the commander control only, it's silly.
script a bot for it, bot is commander thats the only way i see the commander function fixed in "this" form
If we had the money to spend researching commander AI, I'd suggest that. Well, actually no I wouldn't because the game is better when players play it, but it would be my fix of choice for this implementation.
what is there to research? just make it a scripted behaviour the commander does not need a higly advanced AI, since its not mimicking a human behaviour, or having lots of inputs that need processing it sould be basically a list of buildings with priority numbers that the commander runs trough semi-randomly (so buildings with a high priority will be built first far more likely) then script in some often used strategies, like putting an armory when advancing forward with lots of engineers to the enemy the most troublesome would be the command vehicle and making it move around, but you could probably make the commander ask people to drive around the command vehicle to the assigned location by waypoints (for example, a few friendly players are in main base when some enemy tank rams the cv and starts unloading, the commander emediately waypoints all the friendly players to his vehicle and ask "enter command vehicle" if someone gets in, he cancels the other players waypoints and makes them defend him instead, he then targets the nearest friendly barracks for the driver and gives order to the driver "drive to the assigned location")
I don't want to be pushed around by some dumb AI. I don't particularly want to be pushed around by some dumb nerd sitting in a monster truck either, which is why I support chris's arguments.
I know what you say makes sense, but I also know there's a middle ground. You're far too happy just chucking commanding in the bin, but I know there's a way we can remove the reliance on the commander, without removing the kind of edge having a commander gives. The ideal situation is to be able to play the game with or without a commander, but the solutions you put forward all involve dissolving the command role. Commanding is a central facet to Empires, there must be a middle ground, or we're removing a very large part of the game. And yes I know you just want to remove it because that's how your mind works - if somethings broke, replace it, don't fix it. But I still don't get why you don't know how to replace the commander other than giving everyone the ability to place buildings and research. Those are bad ideas for a half dozen reasons - chiefly that if anyone can place buildings then resources will be used up pretty quickly, and if everyone has to agree on a research, then you will have a lot of bad research decisions that will lose the game for you. Now I know you said individual research, and if you are thinking about personal resources for dropping buildings then this also applies. If you have players with individual skills, individual research and individual resources, then that game is much a role-play game. Skills are exactly like they are in RPG's atm (you unlock them with levels) and research is like weapon & armour upgrades. The only thing that defies this definition is the ability to drop buildings, and if they are based on personal resources, then it could quite easily fit into the RPG mold. Now you might argue that that's how the game is already, but the difference is in scope. In that version people have less reason to move with their team because they don't need to coordinate with anyone else. If people are selfish, why would they bother to drop buildings? If you really had the same kind of noobs as we do right now, you could see games where no one on the team drops anything, and every one of them lonewolfs to the enemy. Indeed, I wouldn't even play that game, because there'd be no point in working with anyone - it's not a team game, in your version. As an engineer, i'd probably be able to win the game without ever seeing a friendly troop, in fact to maintain your version, you'd have to rebalance the classes to be less powerful alone, so there'd be a reason to work together. You may say that Empires is not a team game because the commander controls the team, and it is a broken mechanism. I agree, it's broken, but it's still the game we wanted to have. When people play properly, the game really shines and that's what we need to focus on - making it so that the game is played properly more of the time. And yes, i'd love to see the game with less reliability on the commander, but i'm not giving it up just because no one's come up with the answer yet. Like I said earlier, if you can think out your system and show it to us, then it'd be pretty dang easy to decide whether it is good or not. /wall. Edited to be less agressive.
I've outlined a system whereby dropping buildings where they are needed is of value to yourself, because you get money from them being used, dropping more than one building in an area is less useful because you will get less money from it than dropping it in an area where it is direly needed. It hardly stops being a team game, you have an inherent benefit to working with other people, because they protect you, plus it'd be pretty damn hard to avoid everyone else and there isn't any benefit to doing so. Everyone works together because everyone is doing the same thing, you all want to kill the enemy base and you will all spawn at the closest area to do so, just as you do now. If you have people playing 'properly' under either system it still works, if you have a team of clanners vs another team of clanners they can do all their organisation over the mic, as now, and they can have a commander to order them around, as now and they can place buildings where they're needed, as now. You act like I'm suggesting adding in things which kill you if you show any hint of cooperation but I am not doing anything of the sort, if you have a coherent team you can still work together, if you don't however it still works, unlike now where it just falls apart. You are suggesting that it's broken but we don't fix it because it's somehow sacred and cannot be touched no matter how broken it is. Think about what you said: If commanding gives you an edge, you are reliant on it, you essentially just said you know there is a way to make the game not reliant on the commander while keeping the commander the absolute most important part of the game. If it's important you have to do it, if you don't have to do it it's not important, it's logically impossible.
Personally I believe that it is possible to have the game play well being centred around the commander but the commander role first needs to be sorted out. Once the commander view is simplified to the point where a new player with the gist of the game can use it and do an adequate job then you will find you have a lot more applicants for the position as you will only have to fight the enemy not the ******* interface as well. Once that is done you can then start to add more layers onto it. Chris I see multiple problems with your system, mainly the potential for griefing, unintentionally or otherwise. What if one player, acting in good faith, walls up one of the choke points with a layer of walls and armouries? You will not be able to get tanks past onto that choke point and there will be no commander to create a gap for tanks to go through. I can see a large number of situations where it would be possible for one player to greif his team through this by accident and an even larger number of ways to do it on purpose. You also assume that new players will be able to manage the research tree and remember to keep the research going despite being shot at or otherwise engaged in battle. Seeing people who don't know the research tree going straight for heavy tanks with no engine armour or weapons or players still having paper lights in the end game will be commonplace.
No i'm not, stop saying that. I'm suggesting that your solutions aren't as perfect as you would like them to be. If you are as intelligent as you like to show, then you should be able to come up with a solution that can satisfy people in the moderate camp from both sides, and that's where I am. But you're not interested in that, it's either your way or the highway. There is no compromise there, which is what would really bring people around. So you get more money to field your tanks? That's a good idea for your system, however, it will lead to one person placing all the buildings, or two people or three, and a whole lot of the type of people you are trying to combat will cluster the area with buildings in roughly the same places because they want their buildings to be used, so they can get money. Why do you need people protecting you? Isn't one of your recurring points that people don't work together anyway? People won't be in the same place you are, trying to do the things you are, to help your team win - isn't that one of the problems with Empires you were trying to solve in the first place? Edit: To prevent sounding like a nutter, I have to point out that your reasoning for people to work together is because they need protection and because there's no benefit not to. There's no benefit not to work together now, and people still don't do it. The nonsense that happens in Empires is precisely when people spawn in one place to kill the enemy base or command vehicle, and they leave every other area wide open for the enemy to take advantage of. Will your system not aid that type of mindless play and, in a way, leave no one to actually point out that they're doing something that is potentially pretty disasterous? My mistake, I meant without removing the edge a good commander gives, and conversely the disadvantage a bad commander gives. So the regular system you have works as if a commander was average, but not as good as if you had a great commander. And anyway, your logic is flawed precisely because the game mechanics you are trying to fix don't work because people aren't doing the things that give them the edge. Every day we play Empires, we see a player or dozen not doing the things that would mean victory for them. Only rarely do you lose because the opposing team was more skillful than yours, it's more often because they did what they should, i.e. taking refineries and holding key areas. I wonder if you actually see what you've written too, sometimes. You write something that should be logical, but you're applying it to a context that apparently lacks logic and you don't take that into account. "If it's important, you have to do it"...well, apparently not, eh?
silly Ikalx, you should know by now that there's no way in hell he's going to meet you anywhere near the middle.
If he's serious about making the mod better, then meeting people in the middle is always going to get the most backing. Whether my viewpoint is actually the middle-ground or just a fallacy is for everyone else to decide for themselves...
:eek: In the context of this debate? Surely if i'm advocating keeping a purely niche gameplay mechanic, and Chris is moving to abolish that, the middle is almost as far away from mainstream fps shooters as current Empires. The middle-ground of these forums, not the middle in the whole of the industry, lol Shouldn't post so much, but seriously that was...
Okay, i said this earlier and people basically ignored it: we need to focus on making the empires we have better. we cannot significantly change the gameplay. we cannot plan for empires 2. if getting the development team to give grenadiers more starting ammo was an absolute chore, we're not seeing any major changes. let's discuss making the empires WE HAVE, BETTER - through "easy" to add, basic changes. these might get through to the dev team.
I am certain is that an everyone participates in an economy type system will not work. Forget balancing, this is an FPS videogame, and a economy cannot help but confuse new players. Suggestion: Give squad leaders the ability to drop buildings. Squad leaders only gain squad points by being near and working with other members of their squad, yes? Allow squad leaders to drop buildings with squad points, while commanders get to use the resources for buildings and everyone uses the resources to build tanks. P.S. And make refineries free for anyone to place. And create a squad leader change vote. And make all players be a member of a squad. And possibly let all the members of a squad use squad points for stuff? And this P.S. stuff is the stuff I'm less certain about. :p
Meeting people in the middle is only worthwhile when doing so is not fundamentally stupid. I will compromise when two ideas both have validity and do not interfere, I compromised when I suggested adding more comm elements into squad leaders and keeping current comm functionality, I would just as soon remove it as superfluous but as having it does not detriment the game neccesarily, I suppose there is little harm in leaving it in if you also add all its functions to the players. I outlined the economic system and the methods for making it feasible and non-griefable extensively in my last big thread on this subject, I suggest you read it. It doesn't matter if it not immediately obvious to new players because they can learn it by playing, it is not neccesary that they become immediately proficient in it because someone else will know how to do it and they will be able to use buildings and see the value of them, and how they earn money and suchlike.
