Get rid of the commander target ability

It wouldn't, but that's only a problem for people who bitch and moan because they aren't getting targets while the enemy are.

Wallhax or not, it makes commanding easier, and less frustrating. Calling it wallhax isn't going to help your case as it will never be removed. Ever. Just like the Commander will never be removed(to the dismay of Chris). There will always be a form of targeting in Empires because that is part of the RTS element. It's not war in the trenches during the night. It's a commander moving his units to the opposition with a top-down view.

As for the GUI, the problem with it, is that it's hard to tell distance and get a clear view of targets. Sure you can see them, but when you have 10-20 enemy around you, it's hard to distinguish and feel convoluted because of all of the action going on around you.

If the GUI was "Softer" and gave better indication of distance, then it wouldn't annoy the fuck out of people. It's just too damn cluttered.

 

Wait, so you want to make it even easier to use the wallhax? They tell you how FAR it is to the target? Wow.
Is it just me, or do you really expect people to play as RTS soldiers, with no will of their own, in Empires? I get that impression.

2.26 might just as well have Commander Aimbot next to wallhax, so the players REALLY FUCKING ATTACK the thing they are supposed to attack.

 

This is just small minded. It's not a critical part of game. I refer you to my earlier post:

There is no RTS element in giving wallhacks. There is no RTS element in giving wallhacks. There is no RTS element in giving wallhacks. There is no RTS element in giving wallhacks. There is no RTS element in giving wallhacks. There is no RTS element in giving wallhacks.

As has been said, if you as a commander need to specify a target, if you are in one of those situations where you need to say "attack him", that avenue is still open. I do not see how fallible players with wall hacks or fallible players without wall hacks changes the way you play commander.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I'm in the mood I think I'll respond to this dialogue:

I'll be trying to describe the points you are making and add any input for each one.

Now I don't understand the first comment, about players becoming more adept. Moving on.

Second point: "it's not much fun to chase a jeep across the map while your main force is raping the enemy. Or how many times have you heard "where did their comm go?"

I originally had a reply for each of these but they're really specific examples of "Enemy broken through your lines, you need to kill them before they do damage"

Currently, not fun. Currently, this means you follow a red target and then kill the person at the other end of it. There's no risk, no player input, you may as well turn your brain off. When an enemy is targeted, you will always inevitably find them and so you can deal with them when you catch up. This is one example where it's certainly more fun without targets. Without targets, the guy can get away from you, there's that risk. You have to think about what you're going to do but it's not impossible. Ultimately it doesn't change the fact that you are going to have to chase the guy down. How often does this occur? I don't think it's a frequent enough for it to be a serious reason compared to the frequent effects mentioned before. Now consider the enemy perspective. Clearly it's more interesting if it's possible to evade enemies than know that they will always find you no matter what you do. Adds a lot more choice into what you can do. This is clearly another example of the different phases of combat (hunt / run) that have their own dynamic in most games that is shat all over by wallhacks.

Targets mean you turn off your brain, remove risk/player input. Even in the generalisation:Not a frequent event -> not significant con.

 

No, it doesn't. It just changes the calculus for risk/reward. It changes the tactical landscape. It doesn't get rid of anything.

Anyway, why do you care? Do you even play anymore?

 

I like the minimap idea. In unisen with L4D glowing com targets when the target is in line of sight.

 

I made clear I wasn't talking about targets in general, but the rare use of targets as a method of chasing someone down. In this situation, clearly, there is no hunt and no hide / evade. Thus there's no risk/reward in this section with targets because you always will be able to catch up. It makes your task extremely menial -> not fun. My argument was that in the one con that dizzy mentioned, the situation is actually more fun if there is not targets. Then there is risk that you may lose your target.

yes.

 

*Puts on the Boxing Gloves*

*Dodges a left hook*

Not if he can't see them. Giving an attack location is the same as a move location. If you say "Attack this location" and "Move to this location", do you seriously think that in one instance a soldier will not shoot at targets?

Yes, but how is this significant? Empires players have brains, and RTS units are run by a few lines of code. Empires players can asses their targets, and be able to perceive threats based on targets alone, without the commander giving specifics. I'm really not sure what you're trying to imply with this sentence.

There is no harm in awareness(for those other than the targetted), especially if both teams are capable of it. If both teams have access to the abilities, then both teams are equal in that regard. Commander targets aren't meant to be a win-all beat-all solution to every problem. It's about giving the commander the ability to have his troops informed of the battlefield. It makes commanding more efficient, and less frustrating.

Dropping targets requires a few key clicks. If that's consider busy work, then you're not going to make it in the real world.

Targets are just data for the troops, and what they do with that data is up to them. Being informed changes the way they move on the battlefield. They won't run into enemy, and they can asses risk verse reward on target location.

The point of arguing is to use reasoning and meet a common ground that someone can get behind. Because you keep calling comm targets "wallhax", it makes me care even less about what you say, let alone care about you even less as a sentient being.

Then you have not commanded enough to understand. Knowing where targets are allows the commander to move troops to certain locations, and assess threats. Giving your team the knowledge of the enemy reduces the stress on the commander. Being a commander is like being a coach. You tell people what to do, but it's still up to them to do it right. Having targets removes the stress of targets from the commander, and gives it to the troops, reducing the load of information the commander MUST relay to his team.

Removing Commander targets would make commanding extremely frustrating. But you're not a commander so this entire argument is heard by deaf ears. You already have taken your stance, so arguing with you is like arguing with a piece of furniture. You'll probably have a counter argument about how "wallhax targets are just legal exploits", or that "They don't add anything blah blah" but in the end it means nothing because you're a fucking grunt. Take your damn targets and shut the fuck up.

I have never had a game where someone said "please don't give me targets". It's always "give me targets", "I need targets", "I have no targets, where the fuck are they?".

I'll tell you what. We'll keep commander targets, but when you command, you just don't use them. See long you go before your team notices.

*Delivers an uppercut, connecting with sandbag's chin*
KO!

 

targets cause me more grief then gain as comm, it makes me feel like a cheat and i hate how people "demand" them

id say we need to brainstorm for a way for the commander ot give orders without giving some sort of wallhack at the same way, and without players "requiring" it to preform basic functions just as well as the other guys

 

No, they don't cause the commander grief, unless you think clicking a few buttons leaves you in despair. In that case, go ahead and kill yourself.

You don't need to brainstorm anything. There will always be a form of commander targets, either directly or indirectly.

*Delivers uppercut connecting with Blizzerd's Chin*
KO!

 

*shoots HSM in the head with a .357*

Hey look I can add useless red text too!
I demand a medal.

 

Well, my red text was accompanied by my rebuttle, not just red text because I'm not a fucking retard like some people.


Anyways, there will always be comm targets, period.

 

Unless they are removed.
Then there will not be comm targets.

 

They never will

 

needs more smoke grenades negating attack orders.

 

needs more NPCs negating players.

 

Need more banning ounin.

 

Before I even approach your argument HSM that wallhacks are neccessary on the grounds that they make commanding less frustrating, I'm going to just dispel a couple of the outrageous claims you made.

Firstly, the worst: that I'm stuck in my argument and that I won't budge. That I have one stance and I'm digging myself in and am not listening to anyone else.

This is silly and you can see why earlier in the thread. I start by outlining the problems that wallhacks produce and stating that the game would be better without them. this in in this post.

I then take on board some other input, some of the good things that wallhacks produce. I now say that instead of wallhacks, we need a system that is provided to everyone and gives the same "awareness of the enemy" benefit of wallhacks, but without the negative effects of wallhacks that I have outlined earlier. See this post.

Usually when a forum argument has gone on this long, the person that has jumped to a 'solution' for empires is just defending what would not be a good dynamic. This is different. I'm not just jumping to a solution, I'm describing the problems and advantages of wallhacks as I go along. If I had a white board I'd be writing them in two columns. The solution then adapts to be the best of both columns. I'm taking this issue seriously and not letting it drop because it's genuinely one of the biggest flaws in empires. Every time I take a break from empires, play other games and come back, it sticks out.

So this time, we're not going to forum this. We're not going to chat about it and ultimately let the situation dissolve as usual. We're going to look at it like a professional would and come to a solution. In commercial games worldwide, big changes get made to gameplay all the time, halo started out as an RTS and was then an RPG for example, and there are people that hang onto the old mechanic because it's familiar and comfortable. If you're going to get personal, that's why I believe you're doing.

Secondly, you claim that I don't command. That's wrong. I do command.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

You have not understood.

Assessing enemies is possible with or without wallhacks. This is the point that I made, and you've repeated it. There is no difference in the decision making process of a commander who has given targets to his troops or who hasn't. You have not understood the point. I can only suggest that you reread the passage that you quoted, it's here.

Okay. There is harm in awareness, I've already made that clear here.

I've also outlined how the fact that one commander will use targets more than another imbalances every game. Every game, one team has more information than the other. As I have already said, who wins should be decided by who had the best strategy, not who understood the interface the most. That it's available to each side doesn't change this. All that is in the third paragraph here . As I said before, there is no change at all to the decision making process, the strategy that he chooses, if his units have wallhacks or not. You're only changing "the awareness statistic of the players".

As was said before, if you want infallible units that never make errors, then why stop at wallhacks, why not give them aimbots too? The highlights that players in empires do make mistakes and accepting this and working around it is part of commanding.







I'm going to stop here. I've spent an hour trying to respond, but I keep simply resaying things I've already said before.

Frequently it seems like you havn't read what is already said or your reply isn't a counter at all ("Dropping targets requires a few key clicks. If that's consider busy work, then you're not going to make it in the real world. ")

I want you to really sum up, in prose, your point. I want to add it to the whiteboard and to adapt with it. I want you on my team HSM.

 

I think that clearly ends this argument. Someone implement ASAP!

 

If you do in fact command, I hope I never end up on your team :[