Commander being removed?

[space]

Commander's assets were awful in 0.6, better in 0.7 and pretty damn good in 0.8. They'll keep getting improved in .85, 0.9, 1.0.

What are these "pretty damn good assets" - are you referring to the commander shed? As far as I can see he has no assets now apart from getting to authorise a pretty smoke cloud every 60 mins on some maps.

The unofficial rule in PR is that it takes at least three release cycles for any new addition to become a properly decent addition.

Why is that? Is the testing team full of yes men, who all say OMFG great change guys, to everything, or do the DEVs not listen to the feedback? I cant believe that alot of the testers didnt said "er....hey guys we cant hit people anymore" or "erm...bleeding out for 5 mins because someone walked into me isnt much fun - you might want to look at that"

I don't want to sound negative - the maps are awesome - some gameplay changes are great, but some of the other changes, I cant believe got through.

[Masaq]

What are these "pretty damn good assets" - are you referring to the commander shed? As far as I can see he has no assets now apart from getting to authorise a pretty smoke cloud every 60 mins on some maps.


Why is that? Is the testing team full of yes men, who all say OMFG great change guys, to everything, or do the DEVs not listen to the feedback? I cant believe that alot of the testers didnt said "er....hey guys we cant hit people anymore" or "erm...bleeding out for 5 mins because someone walked into me isnt much fun - you might want to look at that"

I don't want to sound negative - the maps are awesome - some gameplay changes are great, but some of the other changes, I cant believe got through.

Guess what? You do sound negative.


The term "Commander's assets" refers to FOPs, SAM emplacements and HMG positions, the JDAM/Artillery/Mortars.

The testing team is not full of yes-men. What it is full of is players who, on the whole, know how the game design relates to how the game should be played.

To be brutally honest, if you can't hit anybody with a standard assault rifle in 0.8, you're not doing it right.

Testing isn't primarily for gameplay feedback. We have maybe 10-15 testers on a map at once, you cannot gain a proper understanding of how things play out until you put them into the real-game context of having 64 people hammer out a battle time and time again.

Testing aims to eliminate game-breaking bugs and errors where things aren't working as intended.... Guess what? The guys behind the deviation intended it to be difficult to score a headshot at 250m, so the fact you can't do that any more isn't a bug.

So, I'm not going into what was and wasn't highlighted by testers as potential issues because that's not the point of this thread. Some changes were made in 0.8 that won't remain the same in future releases... but that is ALWAYS the case in ANY new release of PR. Things go in to see how they play out, if it doesn't work too well, they get changed.

Why the hell this is so bloody difficult to understand, I have no idea. You always seem to expect each release to be a finished, finalised version that requires no more work and only for new things to be added... mod development doesn't work like that.

You either release a full, finished product and no-one gets to play except the testers until then, or you do what PR does and release regular updates that continually work on the direction of the mod.

EACH new release is NOT supposed to be taken as a finalised, completed project. Each release is a step in the road, an ongoing Work In Progress. Yes some elements are complete and probably won't be changed again, but the majority of gameplay elements will always be tinkered with in each new release.


Now, back to commanders in 0.8.

[space]

My post wasn't about deviation, but as you make a point about it, I think Wolfe has said that the iron sights deviation is bugged and a few other things are - not the best in a FPS, and imo should have been tested?

Commanders assets :

JDAM/Artillery/Mortars - pretty much the same thing

FOPs, SAM emplacements - no change there ( except of course that you dont need a commander anymore to place these which is the subject of the thread )

HMG positions - awesome - I take back what I said ( except of course that you dont need a commander to place these which is the subject of the thread )

[Rafik_63]

Dont know how realistic this would be but wouldn't the zooming in down to street level so it is in actual 3d format be a nice addition for the commander? He cannot call in Artillery without a request from a squad i suppose that would stop sniper artillery.

He would also be in a much more active role, he would be able to tell squads where they are recieving fire from, the direction etc which routes to take in far greater detail. I don't know about realism terms, but surely a conflict on this scale in the near future with fully modernised armys would utilise sattelite technology to have a real-time view of the battle-field?

Just my two pence.

Regards

Salam

[Smegburt_funkledink]

Dont know how realistic this would be but wouldn't the zooming in down to street level so it is in actual 3d format be a nice addition for the commander? He cannot call in Artillery without a request from a squad i suppose that would stop sniper artillery.

He would also be in a much more active role, he would be able to tell squads where they are recieving fire from, the direction etc which routes to take in far greater detail. I don't know about realism terms, but surely a conflict on this scale in the near future with fully modernised armys would utilise sattelite technology to have a real-time view of the battle-field?

That'd be a swift return to vanilla styled commander spotting...

All he'd have to do is put a squad marker onto the enemy and bam!

The idea of the 0.8 commander is for squads to relay info to the commander so he can feed it back to the relevant squads.

I've heard talk about UAV's being looked at, I'm just wondering how they'd work in game...

[the other Steve]

when im commanding. i go into 3rd zoom and listen its pretty damn obiovs when the enemy have a jet starting, or helos are incomming, even gunfire can be identified whit some patience.

and to be bruatlly honest. the commander in .8 is just a jaysayer to the squads whishes and a parrot who speaks the same sentences for other squads. ..

Infantry 1:"enemy tank at h7"
<commander switch to A10 squad channel>
commander says to a10: "enemy tank at H7, CAS recievert"
A10: roger. "vehicle is on the way"

it would be soooo much faster and more effectiv if Infantry 1 could talk directly to the A10 pilot. even when its just via radio commands and a map marker.

some people call that coordinator. its just boring to not see the action, too sit in your shed.. its like a tabletop game.. just 10 times slower.

[vilhelm123]

Possible Solutions:

1. 3 min respawn timer on commander would stop a lot of Rambo while
enabling the CO to play the game how they determine to be best. Instead of
being forced to play in one way and one way only.
This is not really needed because the Co shouldn't be anywhere near the front, as in real life. Also playing commander is completely different to all the other roles in PR and being forced to play in 'one way only' is his job. However it is how he manages his resources and Troops that makes his game different each time.

2. A mobile CP would help greatly, being suck way back behind the lines
with no option of getting closer really does restrict the CO too much.
I don't see why it restricts him at all as a commander. In 0.75 commanders frequently stayed a base anyway because its safer and means that they can keep the map up at all times without being worried about their neck. The most they really did was bring trucks to the front and help squads without officer kits build stuff. A mobile CP is simply not needed because what would you actually do with it?? Squadleaders are in charge of the building now and shouldn't have to turn himself into a recon unit. He has squads to do that for him.

3. Map markers, hotkeys for voice to each individual squad (without map
screen up, if possible), more/different tactical support tools. I think the current features with some tweaking cover refocusing CO onto command well enough without the CP restriction.
The in game voice is hardcoded so it cannot be changed no matter how much we want it to. Also what is wrong with the current Map markers?

4. Making SQD leaders more effective with assets deployment seems to be
covered by the patch with SQD leaders being able to build without approval, however we do sometimes hit issues with FOPs being in the wrong spot and then being restricted by number of OPs that can be deployed in an area. Can a CO remove FOPs remotely or does he have to drive up to them?

If he has to drive up to them then how does this fit with the CP
restriction? Doesn't that mean he'll have to spend ages driving from the
very rear to the FOP and then back again?

When inside his command post and with his map up a Co can order a destroy order which will remove any friendly built assest under it. Making your worry about backwards and forwards something you need not worry about

-Ben

Thats my thoughts on that really

[fuzzhead]

Commander has a tactical map.

Steps to use CO Tactical map while NOT inside the Command Post:

1) Spawn in

2) Press Enter (or Return) on your keyboard.

3) Click on the "Squad" tab located below the team names

4) Observe map.

[job86]

Yes, there is much fewer rounds which has a commander these days. But I think that the main reasons why we had more ppl stepping up to be commanders in 0.75 were one which wasn't in line with the intended role of the slot, to accept a bunch of buildorders.

The commander still has an incredible strategical value to the battlefield in 0.8 and they make the game so much fun to play. I do however think that it is the notion of being idle for longer periods during a round that scares most ppl. I think the key is to make squads to have to rely much more on the commander. Make the commanders opinion matter.
Reduce the amount of intel that squadmembers/leaders can gather from the map (eg other squads), having them to rely on the commander for coordination.
Enable the commander to seize limited kits which he later can distribute where it's needed.
Enable him to kick squadleaders or atleast inflict some sort of punishment for disobeying orders.

[MrYellow]

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Masaq;804325']What it is full of is players who, on the whole, know how the game design relates to how the game should be played.[/quote]

Maybe this is the problem... Too much "do it this way or the highway"
instead of giving them some tools and allowing them to decide the best way
to use them as the situation dictates. Instead of only having one way to
play based on someones idea of what is realistic.

[quote="the other Steve""]when im commanding. i go into 3rd zoom and listen its pretty damn obiovs when the enemy have a jet starting, or helos are incomming, even gunfire can be identified whit some patience.
[/quote]

This is a major part of my play when playing commander. If I can't hear the
battlefield from a perspective that allows me to hear better what each
squad is engaging then my situational awareness is limited to what the SQD
leaders can tell me when they're not busy fighting. Being a commander on
foot, safely behind the lines within the protection of our flanks has great
benefits to a team above and beyond having one in a bunker back at the
spawn.

This is not really needed because the Co shouldn't be anywhere near the front, as in real life.

Once again more "play it this way or else".

Ok lets say this is real-life for a moment.....

You have 30 men in squads in an engagement ranging over 300m of ground....
Where is your Lt?
On the air-craft carrier? I hope not.

edit:

it would be soooo much faster and more effectiv if Infantry 1 could talk directly to the A10 pilot. even when its just via radio commands and a map marker.

This is how we use them most often, squad leader and a spec ops will spot for a plane in the same
squad as them. Direct coms, more time for giving info on approach vectors etc. Then any lasers you
pick up from other squads are a bonus and can be relayed via the commander if anyone can be
bothered playing it.

-Ben

[MrYellow]

I guess when you boil it down it seems the trend is to have the commander
as a General or Brigadier, while skipping the leader on the ground for the
squads.

So I'd say my real difference from what's been said by some of the locals
on this forum is that the commander should be an Lt or Sgt and not back at
the bunker if he's to be effective in leading his men.

When a squad wants arty they shouldn't have to phone up the air-craft
carrier or bunker but instead should just shout over to their Lt who will
get his radioman to call it in.

-Ben

[Phoenix.86]

The benefits of having a commander are there, they just aren't big enough to counter the, let's be honest - boring job of sitting around just staring at the map for a very long time. My proposal would be to let the co do his job in the field as well, just make the reload times for build orders arty etc. smaller when he's sitting in his cabin. Or maybe just let him use some of his co abilities in the field if that is possible to code at all.

[Masaq]

Maybe this is the problem... Too much "do it this way or the highway"
instead of giving them some tools and allowing them to decide the best way
to use them as the situation dictates. Instead of only having one way to
play based on someones idea of what is realistic.

You misconstrued my point. My point wasn't that testers have been told how they should play; it was that they're generally people who understand gameplay dynamics and game design and how the two link together. The Devs have a desired aim, the testers test the features implemented to bring about that aim to see it works in terms of functionality, they don't, by and large, test the effect the features have on gameplay. They can't - there's so few of them.

This is a major part of my play when playing commander. If I can't hear the
battlefield from a perspective that allows me to hear better what each
squad is engaging then my situational awareness is limited to what the SQD
leaders can tell me when they're not busy fighting. Being a commander on
foot, safely behind the lines within the protection of our flanks has great
benefits to a team above and beyond having one in a bunker back at the
spawn.

You're very, very limited as a single troop on the ground. You cannot hear everything going on around you, nor process all that information correctly.

Once again more "play it this way or else".

Mmrhmm. You're aware that militaries have very set proceedures for most things, yes? And that generally there's a right way and a wrong way of doing things? Like, waiting until your helicopter's rotor is spinning at the correct RPM before attempting a takeoff, for example. Or putting every crewman needed into the tank before leaving the main base.

We accept those kind of gameplay design choices, don't we? That tanks should be fully manned, that choppers shouldn't instantly be able to leap into the air?

The commander changes are the same kind of "forcing" players to play a certain way. Commanders should be focusing on directing their squads and relaying information, and by limiting their ability to do other things you focus their attention on these elements.

Ok lets say this is real-life for a moment.....

You have 30 men in squads in an engagement ranging over 300m of ground....
Where is your Lt?
On the air-craft carrier? I hope not.

But it's not 30 men, is it? It's 400 men, in 30-man batches. IRL a Lt will command 30 men, but he certainly won't be in command of 30 men ranging from line infantry, special forces, armoured units, transport helicopters, CAS aircraft and fighter CAP missions.

Your anology falls down rather badly here, I'm afraid

edit:

This is how we use them most often, squad leader and a spec ops will spot for a plane in the same
squad as them. Direct coms, more time for giving info on approach vectors etc. Then any lasers you
pick up from other squads are a bonus and can be relayed via the commander if anyone can be
bothered playing it.

-Ben

Which is great. But if all you're using the commander for is calling out targets to CAS, you're missing out on a decent resource.


The CO position isn't perfect, we know this. But it's in a pretty decent position for further work to build on. This is v0.8. There's 0.85, 0.9, and probably 0.95 before we hit the big 1.0, at which point you should be able to say "this is a rounded, balanced package across all elements of the game".

[PRC_Heavy_Z]

Maybe this is the problem... Too much "do it this way or the highway"
instead of giving them some tools and allowing them to decide the best way
to use them as the situation dictates. Instead of only having one way to
play based on someones idea of what is realistic.

The commander DO have many ways to play, its just some people only focuses on one aspect of "commanding". In fact, a lot of people, instead of being assertive and voicing out their commands and tactics to the squad, sit back and allow themselves to be the "parrot"/telephone operator because they are shy or indecisive. In this aspect, they are being commanded rather than giving out commands.

This is a major part of my play when playing commander. If I can't hear the
battlefield from a perspective that allows me to hear better what each
squad is engaging then my situational awareness is limited to what the SQD
leaders can tell me when they're not busy fighting. Being a commander on
foot, safely behind the lines within the protection of our flanks has great
benefits to a team above and beyond having one in a bunker back at the
spawn.

If you zoom in with the commander map, you could hear what's going on in that area of the map... Also, the commander needs to be aware of the overall progress of the battle instead of the specific area he is in close proximity of. Thus putting the commander close to the heat will hinder the rest of the team as he will be focused on what is closest to him.

Once again more "play it this way or else".

Ok lets say this is real-life for a moment.....

You have 30 men in squads in an engagement ranging over 300m of ground....
Where is your Lt?
On the air-craft carrier? I hope not.

Because PR/bf2 has only 32 max player on each team, we can't compare it exactly like it's real life counter-part. A squad would be a representation close to say a platoon and the squad-leader is the Lt. Thus the commander would be more of a general.

You have 32 men in squads on both offense and defense in an engagement over 1km x 1km of ground... where is your commander who is overseeing the entire operation? Fighting along with only one squad? I hope not.


In my opinion (note: this is only my opinion) I wouldn't mind the commander have more direct observational capabilities or some more assets even if it's only temporary or hindered. However, the commander should not be distracted by the ability, thus having the commander on site is too much. His sole purpose is to direct and command, he isn't suppose to fight on the front line. His weapon is his tactics and organization, his ammunition are squads and people.

edit: beaten by post again

[Masaq]

Sorry chap! Your points are still very valid though, probably more so than some of mine

[MrYellow]

You're very, very limited as a single troop on the ground. You cannot hear everything going on around you, nor process all that information correctly.

If you zoom in with the commander map, you could hear what's going on in that area of the map... Also, the commander needs to be aware of the overall progress of the battle instead of the specific area he is in close proximity of. Thus putting the commander close to the heat will hinder the rest of the team as he will be focused on what is closest to him.

As I said it is just one of the ways in which the commander can be played
if allowed to by the restrictions of the slot. The information gained by
being on the field at a certain location adds to your situational
awareness, you get a lot more information about the battle in this was, the
map doesn't cut it as you can't turn your head to gauge sounds properly. It
doesn't mean you stop looking at the map also, or that you make sure you're
on the very front of the line. It's just one more tool that can be
exploited by the commander, his ears.

Or putting every crewman needed into the tank before leaving the main base.

I hope that doesn't come in as a change. Due simply to the difference of
playing a game compared to working your job in RL army there are sometimes
needs for tanks to be moved single crewed to pickup their gunners or
whatever.

The commander changes are the same kind of "forcing" players to play a certain way. Commanders should be focusing on directing their squads and relaying information, and by limiting their ability to do other things you focus their attention on these elements.

I'm seeing this as being your major motivation in this area, surely we can
achieve similar results without restricting the commanders options so
severely.

But it's not 30 men, is it? It's 400 men, in 30-man batches. IRL a Lt will command 30 men, but he certainly won't be in command of 30 men ranging from line infantry, special forces, armoured units, transport helicopters, CAS aircraft and fighter CAP missions.

Good point on the air units etc..... However this is where my argument for
diversity in his role comes in. Some maps don't have those assets for a
start, so there can't we play as a platoon level force? Can't we have
choice in how we use the slot depending on the situation? While the maps
that do have CAS, many times the commander could be better used from a
hilltop then a bunker (as they would in RL on occasion even at General
rank).

You have 32 men in squads on both offense and defense in an engagement over 1km x 1km of ground... where is your commander who is overseeing the entire operation? Fighting along with only one squad? I hope not.

Wherever he decides he needs to be.
It's his choice and his job to make that choice.

I wouldn't mind the commander have more direct observational capabilities or some more assets even if it's only temporary or hindered. However, the commander should not be distracted by the ability, thus having the commander on site is too much.

I agree completely that the commander shouldn't be distracted by the FPS
elements of the game.... I'm saying he should have the choice through his
actions to be distracted or not. That is part of being the commander, you
need to manage your attention and situational awareness to stay on-top of
the big picture. Along with this you manage your activity level to put
higher concentration on what is needed. It's a major part of the attraction
of the slot and removing it by force makes it less fun/challenge/real/game.

-Ben

[Masaq]

But many players will take Commander and be distracted by those FPS elements, given the choice. Hell, I love commanding and in 0.6 when assets first came out and I had to drive to the front line to place a Firebase or whatever, you bet I got distracted when my trucks started taking fire. I used to get the hell out of dodge, but how many players simply drove on and fought it out hand-to-hand? Plenty.

The current set-up stops people being disracted. Those who would be distracted by the FPS elements, don't touch CO because they can't use the RTS elements whilst they're doing FPS stuff.

Which for me as a mostly-SL-player, is great - it means when a CO comes along, I know he's not someone who's going to run off and do FPS stuff because he can't - firstly, his kills won't show up and people who don't care about their kills generally know that the CO shouldn't be trying to rack them up, and secondly, he can't do the RTS stuff away from his command post.

Okay, so it's Nanny State-ish and removes the options from those players who can get shot at and lead effectively... but it also stops the people who don't bother to command at all whilst they're running and gunning from using up an important slot.

[MrYellow]

The problem is although that has been the intention the result differs.

Yes what you've said is true.

However the result has been that no one plays the commander anymore (on GSA
server at least) so all it's done is made the commander a non-entity,
seriously it never gets played. This is down from having a commander on a
very high proportion of our games.

I'd rather a commander slot that has enough options to entice commander
types to play it. Currently it disuades anyone from playing it whether they
have experience as a commander or not.

This is a real problem.

So.... If the functional requirement is to find protective measures
against "noob commander syndrome" then I believe this feature change fails
to fulfill that requirement and instead another way to reach the same
objective is needed.

-Ben

[MrYellow]

Australians play differently.

The game is much faster paced, less time is spent on things that aren't vital, the whole thing is more aggressive and streamlined.

Got some experience in this last night, it is true I believe.

Some yanks came on the server I guess after seeing this thread.....

One of them spent 5 minutes telling me my razor wire was ineffective while
all we needed to do was get on the move. I come back to that spawn point 10
mins later and there is wire piled high all over the place..... Completely
unneeded and a impediment to our own movement more then anything.

We were just running interference and searching for troop buildups around
unspotted weapons caches, while the other squads were hitting objectives,
no real coordinated attacks but from the map everyone was always in a
supporting position without a commander to tell them to be. I'm sure to
them it looked crazy

edit: oh well not always supporting positions, a tank had to withdraw after
we weren't in position to protect it from inf after spending time explaining
the use of wire

-Ben

[PRC_Heavy_Z]

So what your really trying to say after all this is:

1. you don't think commander is needed.

2. commander should have more "directive/active" role on the front-line to make his job less boring.

Regarding whether or not the commander is needed. To me, if a team could cooperate and function as united force and have communication throughout, with everyone knowing what the objective/desired result is, than no a commander would not be needed.
This situation can occur usually in close knit community gamers or 3~4 SLs coordination on TS, I've seen this done with Fuzz, DB and Spriggan last friday on TG.If this is the case with the server you play on than that's very good.

However, this is not always the case... in fact from what I've seen in UK/US/PRC servers, it's rarely the case. Without the commander in these situations, the match simply becomes a gagggle-rat-screw with every squad going every other direction.

Thus in these situations it's very beneficial to have a commander, even if not a lot of people like to command, when there is one commander that give order and coordination, it's very fun and organized.

Regarding the commander's role on the battlefield and things to add to attract more commanders, think of it this way. In my opinion (note: my opinion) the commander's role right now is like the pill curing uncoordinated and broken teams, except it has no sugar coating so it's hard to swallow and some people don't like it, but it's potent. however, in the end medicine will never taste good, otherwise they'll be candy. so if you add too much sugar coating or roles that diverge or "distract" the commander from his purpose than it doesn't cure the sickness.

In other words, if we add more side-tasks to commander's role and more people start playing commander, chances are they didn't become commander to actually command. Thus having these commanders are no better than having no commander at all.

Now, going with the analogy, if we could add some sugar coating so the medicine still serves its purpose but tastes a bit better I'm all for it. But bringing the commander closer to the front-line doesn't work as we've seen with Vbf2, the commander doesn't really do any commanding when he is ramboing it out or worrying about knives and teabags. I don't think bringing back satellite feed like the way it was used in vBF2 would be the answer either as it'd lead to obvious exploits. But keep the discussion going in this aspect and we might find something that fit.