HOME How awesome would this be? In multi-player we could team up and work different roles on the same carrier; fighting AI carrier(s) or other player teams.
How awesome would this be? In multi-player we could team up and work different roles on the same carrier; fighting AI carrier(s) or other player teams.
Intezar. Sinking enemy high-tech carriers since 1991.
In theory this would be a good idea in an arcadish battle for one island. But in the campaign it would be too boring for the pilots to wait while the Carrier Commander gives the go ahead after reaching the next island and so on.
It is said that the most lethal weapon or the most effective tool of all is man's brain.
Then the destructive or creative possibilities of many minds working together is staggering.
In real life, I much prefer the creative cooperation part of this fact.
In gaming, I can enjoy the combat cohesion without shame.
Not necesarily, players could form a seperate entity from bot pilots.
They could form their own squad, call it an 'elite squad'. They could keep continueing the fight apart from the commander, but the commander could give them the command over a fighter group maybe.
Could you elaborate a little, I am not sure I fully understood what you meant. I do think I like where this is going though.
Perhaps we could have a mode simliar to warfare in arma2? Basically, you vote for a team commander who would then oversea construction and command of the carrier, with resources shared equally amongst players which can then be used to buy vehicles and weapons, for them to use as they want.
What he is saying is pretty basic. Each team will have 1 commander. That commander can give orders to everyone on the team - AI or real players. The players can carry out these commands - or not - and it's basically a team vs team game mode.
But, unfortunately, CC will not have multiplayer upon release.
"The greatest way to avenge your enemy is by learning to forgive." - Takashi Tanemori
The thought is good but it needs some work.
The biggest problem with such a setup is the fact that, like other games with team vs team concepts, it will have the teamwork issue.
More specifically, the lack of it depending on what players join in the game. There are lone wolfs out there that like these kinds of games but have little teamplay sense. This will result in the commander giving an order but the player ignores it, says no or says yes but does something else despite that.
Then there are players who join in as a group and like to work as a team but only within their group and not with the rest of their side.
Some games, like Battlefield, have implemented score bonuses for completing objectives given and kills/heals/revives within a certain radius of the given order. Though players can still go 'rogue' and do their own thing and get points.
However, for this game BIS should take that concept even further. Since this game is heavily focused on the Commander, much more so than most other wargames, the game should cater more to have the players under his/her command actually want to do what he/she tells them to do.
Short version, much more incentives.
How to go about it? Well, kills made should still yield scores for the killing player and scores for players doing assisting/supporting actions and the like which we can find in Battlefield games. But, they will be drastically reduced if they are made outside the radius of a given attack order on an area/on a target.
Depending on the type of order the Commander should be allowed to adjust the parameters. For example, he could adjust how big the radius around the task center bonus points will be given and perhaps even be allowed to give a timed objective so the players don't dally too long or his strategy might be strained if players die due to trying to get lots of points, and the assets lost because of it hurts the Commanders efforts to take the island.
For example, the commander orders a squadron of Mantas to make an attack run on some anti-tank emplacements before sending in his Walruses to move inland. He places the time limit to 4 minutes and the radius to 300 meters (600 m in diameter) to make sure the players want to keep their operation inside this circle.
It takes the Mantas about 1 minute to get to the location, 1 minute to destroy the main target and thus have about 2 minute to destroy any secondary targets of opportunity before having to go back due to the bonus expiring.
The reason it was only 4 minutes was because the enemy fighters reaction time plus their travel time to the target from their launch point is expected to be 4 minutes.
The Mantas start their return, while at the same time Walruses equipped with various weapon modules (on of them being anti-air) start their advance to the next outpost.
These are my thoughts.
Last edited by BFCrusader; Aug 19 2011 at 16:11.
Actually that sounds like a very good idea, being able to give timed objectives to members of the side so that they at least have a path to follow and can know what the commanders intentions are better.
That sounds like a very effective means of controlling player's actions, but won't that make the position of Commander that of moderator for the game as much as tactical commander? It might make the role unpopular...
This game is Commander-centric and thus the game must focus more on that than other wargames that has multi-roles.
In order to make the game enjoyable and fun while still promoting teamwork, this is the solution that I came up with. You get scores while doing assignments and the Commander gets players who work with him rather than against him.
Now, I'm thinking about how many players per side (i.e. per carrier) there should be. I'm thinking that one or max two players should be in control of the Mantas and one or two for the Walruses while there is only the one Commander.
What determines which player gets the commander role or the other two? Well, here Battlefield has another good system. The player that has the highest rank gets the option to accept the position first. He or she can then accept or decline it and then the choice moves on to the next in rank.
If two players are of the same rank then the one with the higher total score get first. If by some rare chance them both are of the same score amount then the one that finished loading in first gets the choice.
What determines which player gets the Manta or Walrus role? Mutual agreement or a random choice by the game. If the Manta and Walrus players agree to it, there should be an option to switch roles in the middle of the game.
What do you guys think?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote