Commander Changes in v0.6

{GD}StevenGarcia · Post by **{GD}StevenGarcia** » 2007-03-30 19:44

It sounds like it's going to be interesting. I can't wait to see how it turns out.

indigo|blade · Post by **indigo|blade** » 2007-03-30 19:56

I may have been long winded earlier, but the point was to get at the core of the new features. How much will it cost me to use the new toys? IMO, the most important resource in that equation is how many soldiers it takes to efficiently make use of the new content. Maistro answered my question.

I love the idea of forcing team play through game mechanics, that's why I'm here and can't wait for the release.

SethLive! · Post by **SethLive!** » 2007-03-30 20:59

What i want to know about is the command vehicle. If you dont need it to build bunkers(you can use support vehicle) then what is the purpose?

eddie · Post by **eddie** » 2007-03-30 21:05

Well the support vehicle really should be out in the field re-supplying troops and their armour support. The commander should be near to the main base and away from the fighting.

Raniak · Post by **Raniak** » 2007-03-30 21:17

'[R-DEV wrote:eggman']Up to them... have no intent of designing a team work and realism oriented mod around players who dont want to play as a team. We'll just shed those players from the player base and hopefully end up with a core of players that DO want to play as a team.

And that, is one of the many things that make you guys the greatest developers team ever !

casualtyUR · Post by **casualtyUR** » 2007-03-30 21:24

Bring on the complexities, it will keep the faithful active and provide a richer game. No gun and run.

eddie · Post by **eddie** » 2007-03-30 21:28

I can't wait for 0.6

SethLive! · Post by **SethLive!** » 2007-03-30 21:32

'[R-MOD wrote:eddie']Well the support vehicle really should be out in the field re-supplying troops and their armour support. The commander should be near to the main base and away from the fighting.

but what does it do away from the fighting?

eddie · Post by **eddie** » 2007-03-30 21:35

Let the commander co-ordinate attacks, defence strategies and use his abilities in safety. Plus more stuff the DEVs don't tell me.

Sealights · Post by **Sealights** » 2007-03-30 21:58

Eggman!! Give the comander the ability to set mine marks so the engineers can set it up. It will stop friendly kills more often since the comander is driving the battlefield.

SethLive! · Post by **SethLive!** » 2007-03-30 21:59

'[R-MOD wrote:eddie']Let the commander co-ordinate attacks, defence strategies and use his abilities in safety. Plus more stuff the DEVs don't tell me.

isnt that what the command post does? I dont get the difference between the command post and the vehicle. Is there a benifit to the vehicle being movable?

Post by **eggman** » 2007-03-30 22:04

the benefit to the vehicle being movable is that it allows the commander to move it forward and work with engineers to construct and/or deploy new assets.

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-03-30 22:06

the word "camp" come to my mind ..

personaly , i find useless a firebase (easily campable )and unrealistic a constructible bunker (solid concrete builded in minuts).

i would prefer deployable TOWs/AA cannons/ etc for the team ,because now they are always in the same place , making easy his destruction .

Post by **eggman** » 2007-03-30 22:13

LOL .. ffs .. some of you people are twats. Thank God I don't do this professionally and have to adhere to some sort of customer interaction code of conduct.

A spawn point that is set by players and you somehow think that is more "campable" than ones statically set by mappers?

And maybe we have ESL issues, but er.. the Commander can deploy AAA.

And I completely agree that a forward spawn point for your entire team in a game without fixed spawn points is TOTALLY useless. And yeah we're FO SHO going to spend weeks implementing a major game play element that you can bumblefuck destroy with a nascent grenade lob.

I also find the ability to "kill" someone over the internets unrealistic, but it sure is good for game play.

Post by **Katarn** » 2007-03-30 22:19

lol, eggman said twat. <3

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-03-30 22:19

im thinking that the firebase use the bunker geometry , right? well i find easier to find a bunker than a rally point , a sniper only need to point at the bunker interior and wait .

good to hear about the AAA ,what about the TOWs?

Post by **fuzzhead** » 2007-03-30 22:23

Godamnit, you made the eggman angry, in the words of Katarn aka Jack Nicolson "You all need to Chillllllout."

Yea, were adding new elements, yea it may or may not work. The point is, were trying new shit, and as a tester I gonna make sure its not all fucked up and actually playable.

So dont piss off eggman or else that will delay v0.6 more than necesary!!!!

$kelet0r · Post by **$kelet0r** » 2007-03-30 22:26

I was sceptical (and still am to an extent - the RTS style I imagine building bunkers will have could be very gamey) but I am certainly swayed by the idea of having the commander command a defensive squad that has the capacity to actually defend captured control points.

Something that is vital in my mind is that all bunkers ingame need camoflage netting across the view points of said bunker - the defender can see out and engage targets but attackers cannot see in and simpy headshot the currently easily spotted soldier to bypass that structure safely

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-03-30 22:27

im only saying issues that i find based on what I read :/

Maistros · Post by **Maistros** » 2007-03-30 22:56

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!!