Vehicles as Commander designatable assets

[Taliban-IED]

Commanders are overrated... u should adde fieldartillery like in Forgotten Hope 2 ...but ofc only on big maps.

[Cheditor]

Think theres an engine limitation on usable artillery. Also man powered arty would be the worst idea ever, one it would take a while to get used to it and would most likeley have people just accidentaly tking their entire team and if you then added a you select where it goes type thing then it becomes an uber l337 no miss gun of over powerdness !!1!!1

[Alex6714]

Go play FH2. Use the artillery. Come back here and say that a similar system would suck.

Plus, you can TK you whole team with a jet, chopper tank or anything.

[Ace42]

Wicca what they are saying is if no ones in the CO spot and some random guy jumps into the commander spot, starts giving assets to all his friends, but what happens if they cant use assets properly and just get them killed within the first minute? Isnt it better if everyone can grab them apart from only a small group designated?

<sigh> It seems a lot of people are missing an important fact.

THE COMMANDER WOULD BE SPAWNING THE ASSETS. AFAIK there is no way to magically force people into the seats so no-one else can get it, nor would it be mandatory to code it that way.

So, people would still be able to hang around the spawn-location waiting for the commander to spawn it, then quickly try to jump in; and fight like silly petty children, JUST LIKE THEY DO NOW.

They only difference is the CO can hold off spawning major assets until the people they're meant for get back to base. If you don't like the way the CO assigns the assets, find another server or go CO yourself.

[Alex6714]

They only difference is the CO can hold off spawning major assets until the people they're meant for get back to base. If you don't like the way the CO assigns the assets, find another server or go CO yourself.

I think you are missing the point also.

Its bad enough now with the server hopping to find a good game.


So you are saying its cool that I could hop commander and reserve all the assets for 2 friends? Hey, you just died, don´t worry, I hold the next one for you, died again, never mind, I was holding this one too.

Who decides the best people to use assets? Who decides the best person to go commander?

It should be equal like now, I can honestly see no benefit from this system except, well, none. Only place it will work properly is tournament, and people don´steal assets there either. How you can steal assets in an online multiplayer game though...

[Ace42]

So you are saying its cool that I could hop commander and reserve all the assets for 2 friends? Hey, you just died, don´t worry, I hold the next one for you, died again, never mind, I was holding this one too.

That's not what the proposal was. It would be impractical and awkward to implement it so there is some sort of inbuilt queueing system. All that would happen is the commander would be able to choose what spawns and when. That would mean FASTER asset spawning in the case of mishaps. And what servers do you play on? On ALL the servers I've seen, the first person to make a squad with an asset named in the title has it "held" for them the whole round solely by etiquette (and occasionally zealous admins), which results in the same thing you described. The difference is that a commander could be mutinied against, and replaced with someone designating assets fairly; whereas now people whoring assets are irreproachable.

What this boils down to is that you want to be able to quickly jump in and steal assets from people who you decide shouldn't have them, and resent someone else having that power allocated to them. Well you'd STILL be able to fight over assets like a petty jackass anyway, so I fail to see your problem.

Who decides the best person to go commander?

You're right, let's remove the commander from the game altogether then, as unless the commander is totally redundant, it's unfair one person gets some power to, I dunno, have a say in how the people under his command act... Who decides who's the best person to get in an asset now? No-one? Sheer coincidence of who makes a squad first (usually before the timer's below the safe threshold for the squad-bug)? At least with a commander a team can mutiny, and thus make sure any commander is democratically maintained, even if not specifically elected.

[Alex6714]

No, I could easily get clan members to give me assets or abuse the system, but no, the reason I say is because assets are free for all in public play. Me, the guy who gets in first, the guy who crashes. Yeah its annoying, but he has right to play too.

We were all noobs once.

[Ace42]

Me, the guy who gets in first, the guy who crashes. Yeah its annoying, but he has right to play too.

That's not the system in place on most of the servers I play on. In most cases whichever squad has the asset name has the asset for the duration. Often people get kicked by admins for "stealing" vehicles that they aren't in the squad for. So, it's already there, sorry.

Also, as I said, the point is the CO would be spawning the assets. Whether the CO spawns them or the game engine spawns them, people still can "get in first", irrespective of who the CO wanted in them, etc.

[Alex6714]

So whats the point of the CO spawning them?

[Ace42]

So whats the point of the CO spawning them?

1. It gives the CO something to do, ATM they are useless.
2. It lets the CO, and thus the team, have flexible / versatile deployments of assets. Instead of being stuck with one APC, or one tank, or two humvees, they can have whatever combination suits both the team and the CO's strategy.
3. It speeds up the more frustrating aspects of gameplay - it allows assets that are in an unpleasant accident to be respawned quicker (possibly even instantly, depending on how the devs choose to implement the idea)
4. It means assets aren't wasted if no-one wants / needs them, no more dozens of empty armoured cars outside bases just so there's some "ready" for when the first wave die. If the enemy have mined the only entrance out of main, it doesn't mean a tank worth X tickets is just sitting there doing nothing waiting to get area-attacked; if the enemy have really strong AA defence, it means the CO can spawn a tank instead of a chopper to neutralise it - then spawn the chopper at a later period.
5. It institutes an economy where, because things are purchased, they have value. ATM any vehicle that auto-spawns is there, the tickets are ready to be lost, people view it as a waste NOT to use the vehicle. With the commander paying for the vehicles up-front, it means stuff like humvees, supply trucks, etc won't just get ditched because "well, another one will respawn" etc. People will have to drive them back if they want to CO to entrust them with treats at a later point.
6. With such an economy in place, it forms the basis of a framework for introducing other economy-based improvements - for example changing the way ticket bleed works so that it doesn't encourage people rushing headlong for flags without any thought to tactics or survival. Furthermore, you can charge tickets for Artillery strikes, different defensive fortifications for firebases, etc etc - meaning that you can almost completely move away from the vanilla "flag-tag" unrealistic style of gameplay.

Personally I think those reasons are good enough for implementing it, even if it means that a team have to learn to use the "mutiny" button appropriately, or read up on guides to command effectively.

[Wicca]

1. It gives the CO something to do, ATM they are useless.
2. It lets the CO, and thus the team, have flexible / versatile deployments of assets. Instead of being stuck with one APC, or one tank, or two humvees, they can have whatever combination suits both the team and the CO's strategy.
3. It speeds up the more frustrating aspects of gameplay - it allows assets that are in an unpleasant accident to be respawned quicker (possibly even instantly, depending on how the devs choose to implement the idea)
4. It means assets aren't wasted if no-one wants / needs them, no more dozens of empty armoured cars outside bases just so there's some "ready" for when the first wave die. If the enemy have mined the only entrance out of main, it doesn't mean a tank worth X tickets is just sitting there doing nothing waiting to get area-attacked; if the enemy have really strong AA defence, it means the CO can spawn a tank instead of a chopper to neutralise it - then spawn the chopper at a later period.
5. It institutes an economy where, because things are purchased, they have value. ATM any vehicle that auto-spawns is there, the tickets are ready to be lost, people view it as a waste NOT to use the vehicle. With the commander paying for the vehicles up-front, it means stuff like humvees, supply trucks, etc won't just get ditched because "well, another one will respawn" etc. People will have to drive them back if they want to CO to entrust them with treats at a later point.
6. With such an economy in place, it forms the basis of a framework for introducing other economy-based improvements - for example changing the way ticket bleed works so that it doesn't encourage people rushing headlong for flags without any thought to tactics or survival. Furthermore, you can charge tickets for Artillery strikes, different defensive fortifications for firebases, etc etc - meaning that you can almost completely move away from the vanilla "flag-tag" unrealistic style of gameplay.

Personally I think those reasons are good enough for implementing it, even if it means that a team have to learn to use the "mutiny" button appropriately, or read up on guides to command effectively.

All in favour of this say AI!


AI!

Couldnt have said it better

[DankE_SPB]

That's not the system in place on most of the servers I play on. In most cases whichever squad has the asset name has the asset for the duration

i wonder how you will use this system when you have 5 "cobra" squads for 1 cobra

[Psyrus]

Right there with ya stabby, I really like the idea although as always there's the player aspect to consider. Both sides of the argument bring up fair points and it's hard to really side with either unless it was actually trialled to gauge its effectiveness.

[Wicca]

Both sides to have true points, we all have times when we act nooby...

Its just in our nature...

The mature, and the noob... PR!

So yeah, i guess, PR will never ever truly loose the "New Guy" Or F***ing new guy... But thats a part of the excperience perhaps? Being able to go, aaah were loosing, its that squad, or that guy...

But the only way we find out wheter this will work or not, is if the tester try it for us... Since i think its a serious and good idea... With strong supporters on both sides of the argument.

[Ace42]

i wonder how you will use this system when you have 5 "cobra" squads for 1 cobra

It invariably gets awarded to either: The first squad made with that asset named; or the squad with people the admin likes the most in it.

When there's admins on, they kick the people trying to "jump in" and get assets that have already been requisitioned.

Eitherway, it's the system that's in place on the majority of servers I've seen. Try playing on some of the US ones (Tactical Gamer, Chicago ]H[, etc) and see. It works alright, on the whole. Squabbles tend to be ok.

[Aestabjoo]

There's alot of different ways that a system like this could be implemented and there's alot of different ways that the successfulness of the change could be interpreted. While I appreciate that some of you may be hesitant to implement a change of this scale, instead of just being a negative-nancy please attempt to at least work out some solutions. If you can't work out any solutions, then say your piece and move on.

One implementation that might reach a balance between all concerned parties could be:
* You have a set amount of "static" vehicles that always spawn, regardless of having a commander or not.
* You then have a pool of "extra" vehicles that the commander can optionally spawn.
* You can only have a certain amount of any given types of vehicle on a map at any given time. (For an over-exaggerated example to get the message across as clearly as possible, the static pool has 5 tanks, the commander pool has 5 tanks, however you can only ever have 8 on the field at any given time)
* Commander designated vehicle assets are on a time + half respawn timer (IE static tanks take 20 minutes, commander tanks take 30 minutes).

This would mean that without a commander, both sides are even.

The commander now has the choice of dropping all of his assets in one big push at the start of the round, or saving his designatable assets for when/if his tank brick loses an asset. If one side gets a commander, they are given the following advantages:
* 1 - # additional vehicles or quicker respawn times for assets
* a higher probability of forming cohesive communication channels with the commander, because the commander has something the SL's actually want
* a higher probability of successfully completing a maneuver as laid out by the commander, as he can focus the fire and throw some extra strength behind a push when he thinks it's needed.

I don't envisage air assets to be commander designatable.

[GrimSoldier]

Yea it would be abused wayyyyy too much.

You can just see it now.... *looks into the distance*

[dtacs]

It is possible, the Sandbox mod did it, press a button, spawn a vehicle.

[Ace42]

* You have a set amount of "static" vehicles that always spawn, regardless of having a commander or not.

In my mind, as these are "free" vehicles (no penalty, as the penalty is moved to the CO spawning them, not them dying), they should have a longer respawn (10 mins) and be the "cheapest". IE 1 supply truck so firebases can be made, one or two troop-transport trucks, maybe a troop-transport humvee. Basically, the most basic transports to get the inf out of base, but not "assets" per-sé. As static spawns like these are picked by the mapper, the exact layout would vary from map to map as the terrain and circumstances dictate.

Having "free" tanks, APCs, Choppers, Gunships, etc etc spawn would kinda undermine the economy, and having the most basic of vehicles spawn free simplifies the rules you need to associate with limiting what the commander can and can't spawn, timers, etc etc. It would prevent commanders metagaming to exploit the respawns of tanks or whatever.

* You can only have a certain amount of any given types of vehicle on a map at any given time. Commander designated vehicle assets are on a time + half respawn timer

There's a lot of ways that this could be implemented. I'd rather have the non-commander assets to be completely independent and slow recharge, rather than having a half-and-half hybrid system which to me is a false compromise. If the economy is strong enough, and the different vehicles given appropriate and finely-tuned costs, then a relatively simple set of rules could be implemented; All vehicles available have a set number of "charges" (maybe map-specific, allowing the devs to prevent air-assets being deployed on non-air maps?), so if (hypothetical, the numbers can be fined tuned for balance) there were 5 "tank" charges maximum set, every tank the CO spawns counts as an ACTIVE charge which is lost when the tank is destroyed. The charges take 10 (15? 20?) minutes to respawn back to the maximum of 5. So, if a CO spawns 5 tanks for a rush and they all die, it's 10 minutes before those charges replenish and he can respawn them. However, if he spawns 2 tanks for a rush, and they both die, he still can spawn 3 tanks instantly while the other two charges are returning in the background.

Because these vehicles have an inherent ticket cost, the fact that they can be deployed all at once, or one after the other, means that spamming these assets provides as much as a risk (of losing tons of tickets) as it does a reward (a blitzkrieg of armour). It maintains balance, even if that doesn't seem the case.

An alternative is to use a similar method to that which I described, but by assigning charges to "catergories", so transports all use the same "charge" pool (maybe even mix transport choppers in, as the ticket cost balances the extra versatility of having a whirly-bird thrown into the mix), giving the CO a choice between cheap and cheerful truck that's vulnerable, or armoured humvees, or a littlebird / huey / blackhawk, or an APC that offers the troops carried in it greater protection vs small-arms fire.

By using "charges" (that's a name for a concept, not a specific entity or way of implementing it) to determine the availability of assets, it also gives the option to remove "ticket-bleed" altogether from the equasion as an incentive to take objectives. You can make the recharge rate for "charges" massive, but the recharge rate for the charges increases if you hold more flags, or have more firebases (making finding and eliminating firebases a vital objective, rather than a distraction from capping the flags). This means that taking an objective is vital for STRATEGIC rather than meta-game reasons, and would prevent insane flag-rushing, whilst still keep the game objective-orientated.

But yeah, as you point out, this system is so flexible that there's literally dozens of different ways it could hypothetically be implemented, all with different perks, handicaps, flaws, and advantages. It's wide open to debate as to the best way of incorporating it.

[Sniperdog]

I agree with this idea for the sake of reality. In real life a commander would have control over how he wants his assets deployed into a battle or engagement.