Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 02:55:34 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Game Design/Development  |  Topic: Commander Class 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Commander Class  (Read 10228 times)
rk47
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6236

The Patron Saint of Radicalthons


on: July 22, 2008, 05:42:16 PM

I always notice those hollywood war movies particularly give highlights to their commanders giving battle orders that sometimes:
1. Given at the right time and followed correctly leads to a positive result
2. Given at the wrong time and followed blindly leads to a negative result
3. Given at the right time and was not followed leads to a mixed result

Now, what if this sort of mechanics goes into MMO, let's say a battle commander of 20 or 40 people gives orders that actually gives a combination of buffs and debuffs? Attack orders means less defense, Hold your ground lowers movement speed and Retreat actually adds movement speed while giving attack and defense debuffs?

Wouldn't this add a lot more to the PVE/PVP scene and gives better incentive to follow orders?

Colonel Sanders is back in my wallet
pxib
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4701


Reply #1 on: July 22, 2008, 09:41:51 PM

With great power comes great responsibility, and with great responsibility comes a lot of griping. Players under your command are going to be furious because at some specific moment you gave them the wrong buff or debuff and got them killed or stole a victory from them. They will be upset at you and either want a different commander or want to play without a commander entirely. Mediocre soldiers under the guidance of a superb commander might do well, but superb soldiers under the command of even an average commander will be tearing their hair out.

Surrendering control of a character's abilities, even in subtle ways like this, is risky territory.

if at last you do succeed, never try again
schild
Administrator
Posts: 60345


WWW
Reply #2 on: July 22, 2008, 09:47:46 PM

It's already in games. And has been for years. It's called a raid leader and teamspeak.

And the mixed result is Leroy Jen(nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn)kins.
pxib
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4701


Reply #3 on: July 22, 2008, 09:58:08 PM

OKAY LISTEN THE FUCK UP
YOU ARE GOING TO DPS VERY, VERY SLOWLY
NOW
AND WHEN I SAY 'SLOWLY' I MEAN FUCKING SLOW
IF YOU GET AGGRO
IT MEANS YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE 50 DKP
CAUSE YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK TO DO

if at last you do succeed, never try again
rk47
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6236

The Patron Saint of Radicalthons


Reply #4 on: July 22, 2008, 10:37:52 PM

Well there already is something like that...but it does not really provide much incentive in forms of 'buffs/debuffs'
I'm sure it sounds quite 'odd' to lose control of your character but let's have a switch on and off for accepting orders.

'Unquestioning Loyalty' > All orders are always accepted no matter what. Grants 10% Bonus to Buffs and Decrease 10% Debuffs.

If you forgo the bonus, you can accept or refuse orders as you see fit. Perhaps making it class specific is too much, it should be more of a 'Captain's armband' role. Those who feel they can step up, they take it up and gain access to Command ability. Bad commanders are scorned upon and won't even have a rep to take lead. That's the way it should be isn't it?

This would also balance out having a two high level beating the crap out of 10 people 10 levels below him ala WoWcraft. If the lower levels can get their act together and gain those buffs to accuracy by accepting commands, they might just stand a chance rather than going solo.

In an huge engagement like sieges and WoW's alterac valley, it always seem people are desperately giving instructions but there's not a clear marker in-game on what's supposed to be done other than 'zerg with the crowd' or 'heal the tank'.

I think it'd make battles play out more nicely if there incentives and punishments for not following lead. Getting wiped from a bad aggro is not going happen in PVP. But getting killed cause you refuse to withdraw and everyone else does is definitely a good 'indicator' of 'team play or die' I yearn for in such BGs. Take for example a guy who auto-declines orders and his battlegroup was given an order to 'Withdraw!' which 90% of the grp accepted. 50% spd boost and -66% Atk & -33% Defense (you run faster, but you can't really fight back) 

He stood his ground with the other 10% of the squad to grab a few kills and realize he's left behind. He started running back but realize he can't really 'get back in the crowd' anymore cause everyone's outrunning him by 50%. Doesn't that make him and the other 10% think 'I shd've followed that order.  ACK!'. And the enemies who are under the orders of Charge (+33% spd and 33% atk -50% def) are catching up to him. Game over.

I know the issue here is putting too much responsibility under one guy. But honestly, if it's optional, what harm can it do? Perhaps there shd be a squad leader that can issue 'individual orders' to his 5 man squad as well. Like....'Go apeshit while the rest withdraw, trooper' so he'll get a massive Atk Speed + Hp buffs but can't move for half a minute. Slap an aoe weapon like a nade launcher that cause stuns or knockdowns on him and that'll surely make him a threat to the incoming enemy troops wouldn't it? Or how about ordering the sniper to 'Take the shot!' at the enemy medic in the heat of battle that gives him 30% accuracy and 25% increase crit chance if he accepted the order? It's like 'active' debuffs that doesn't really make it 'fire and forget' like WoW's warlock.

Is it still uncool ? I think this would improve BG tactic somewhat other than zergs or attrition.

Colonel Sanders is back in my wallet
schild
Administrator
Posts: 60345


WWW
Reply #5 on: July 22, 2008, 10:49:01 PM

Honestly, it seems boring to play your... idea. Yelling over teamspeak is much more fun.
rk47
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6236

The Patron Saint of Radicalthons


Reply #6 on: July 22, 2008, 10:53:26 PM

Yelling on teamspeak while giving out 'buffs & debuffs orders' then? I duno. Maybe you can make them say 'YES SIR!' by roleplaying 'Sargeant Slaughter' on the mic I know I would listen to that sort of commander than a squeaky nerd voice 'Ehmm squad one can you...uh...attack that cliff?'

Colonel Sanders is back in my wallet
pxib
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4701


Reply #7 on: July 22, 2008, 11:02:46 PM

But honestly, if it's optional, what harm can it do?
It's optional like having a tank is optional in some instances. You can choose to gimp yourself and play a much harder game, or you can choose to play the game as it's intended. If the orders are smart and well assigned you'd be stupid not to accept them, and if the orders are moronic it's time to string up the commander. At no point is the choice to ignore orders lead to a satisfying victory. There is no "optional" in multiplayer games. Either you're playing to win or you're not.

Quote
Is it still uncool ? I think this would improve BG tactic somewhat other than zergs or attrition.
Bad BG tactic is about bad players and poor battleground tutorials. Players need tactical training, not new (potentially confusing) game dynamics. Right now, only teamspeak and guild groups teach players how their various skills can be used to complete various PvP objectives. Theoretically that could be done with cleverly designed quests. Guild Wars did a bit of this in Factions. Players do a LOT more just by providing good examples.

if at last you do succeed, never try again
apocrypha
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6711

Planes? Shit, I'm terrified to get in my car now!


Reply #8 on: July 23, 2008, 01:05:14 AM

Have you ever been on any pvp ops in EVE? The difference between a good Fleet Commander and a bad one is worth ten times more than any buff any game designer would ever dare to code.

Edit: also, just remembered, didn't Tribes (or Tribes 2) have something like this? I seem to remember some kind of console in bases or towers that a player could use which gave them a tactical overview of the map and let them issue orders to teammates but meant that they couldn't fight themselves while they were using this command console? My memory of it is hazy mostly because I don't think it ever got used....
« Last Edit: July 23, 2008, 01:06:55 AM by apocrypha »

"Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1915.
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11838


Reply #9 on: July 23, 2008, 03:45:06 AM

Planetside had this right.

Command levels were independent of combat levels. Command tools were mostly about communication, draw on the map, set waypoints, chat to centre screen instead of the chat window etc etc.

It would make sense to tie this into the same systems.

Waypoints give buffs to players nearby.
Debuffs deployed by drawing map regions, (really just a more complex version of orbital strike)
Ability to broadcast map co-ordinates for indirect fire classes.

Quote
1. Given at the right time and followed correctly leads to a positive result
2. Given at the wrong time and followed blindly leads to a negative result
3. Given at the right time and was not followed leads to a mixed result

1 and 2 handle themselves, you just need a way to recognise and reward the fact that it happened.

Quote
Players under your command are going to be furious because at some specific moment you gave them the wrong buff or debuff and got them killed or stole a victory from them.

Only if the active commander is chosen by the system - in practice you nominate a group leader, and away you go.

Quote
Now, what if this sort of mechanics goes into MMO, let's say a battle commander of 20 or 40 people gives orders that actually gives a combination of buffs and debuffs? Attack orders means less defense, Hold your ground lowers movement speed and Retreat actually adds movement speed while giving attack and defense debuffs?

EvE already does this through gang assist modules. In practice the best 'stance' for the overall op team will get chosen and rarely changed.

I think the trick to making it a more active process in combat would be to make bonuses location based or hard to sustain for long periods, then link the system into the waypoint/map UIs.

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ­assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
Koyasha
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1363


Reply #10 on: July 23, 2008, 01:46:40 PM

One sort of command tool I would kill for is allowing the commander to control other players' targeting.  If you 'sign up' under the commander, he can directly select your targets FOR you.  No more 'assist X', you just have the right target selected and highlighted with a big honking arrow leading you to where it is so you can approach and kill it, get a clear line of sight, or whatever.  The same for healing, debuffing, curing, etc.

The trick to doing that effectively would be providing the commander with a sufficiently robust interface to be able to select targets for multiple people doing multiple roles quickly enough to do so effectively in the heat of combat.  Just as noted above, players could uncheck their 'allow commander targeting' or whatever and hit whoever they want if they feel the commander is doing a shitty job of picking targets and assigning forces.

-Do you honestly think that we believe ourselves evil? My friend, we seek only good. It's just that our definitions don't quite match.-
Ailanreanter, Arcanaloth
bhodi
Moderator
Posts: 6817

No lie.


Reply #11 on: July 23, 2008, 01:52:27 PM

You have to be careful of that, as it can quickly devolve until the commander is the only one playing.

Instead, something closer to a compromise, I think, would be the ability to mark targets and locations different colors, give them halos or arrows or whatever. It must be quick and easy, no more than mousing over and hitting a button, or some sort of aiming mechanism. Give commanders the tools and flexibility and the community will quickly work out 'standard' ways of doing things (red = attack, blue = defend, green = get to here).
Mrbloodworth
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15148


Reply #12 on: July 24, 2008, 06:52:04 AM


Today's How-To: Scrambling a Thread to the Point of Incoherence in Only One Post with MrBloodworth . - schild
www.mrbloodworthproductions.com  www.amuletsbymerlin.com
Murgos
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7474


Reply #13 on: July 24, 2008, 06:57:13 AM

Battlefield 2142 has a fairly robust commander system.

Squad leaders can give attack or defend orders to their squad that show up on the overhead map, and can designate where to put resupply items like med-kits and ammo boxes.  Obeying the orders provide points to your score and having your orders obeyed adds points to your score.  If the commander has spent points on 'command abilities' then squads can get various features such as the ability to respawn at a beacon set by the squad leader, improved recon options for the overhead map and others.

The sqaud leaders are still playing the standard game but the tools allow them to coordinate and provide buffs.

The field commander is at a level above the squad leaders and sets objectives and also provides things like artillery barrages, drone recon flights, large supply crates that heal and restore ammo and more.  The points spent to order those buffs are accrued by having squads follow his orders.  Also, the commander can, temporarily, provide bonuses to individual squads which can allow for better weapons, armor or other items.  This allows the commander to focus on squads that are following his orders and make them more effective.  the commander is usually too busy playing the meta-game to run around and shoot people.

The commander can be voted out during a match by an active vote from everyone on the side.  For a long time this was abused by dipshits who would just try and get the commander voted out no matter how well he was doing by spamming vote requests.  Now, I think, there are repercussions, like if you call for a vote and it loses then you can no longer request a vote.

Anyway, it mostly works pretty well and a couple of good squad leaders and a decent commander can make all the difference in the world.

"You have all recieved youre last warning. I am in the process of currently tracking all of youre ips and pinging your home adressess. you should not have commencemed a war with me" - Aaron Rayburn
Fordel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8306


Reply #14 on: July 25, 2008, 03:55:12 PM

Edit: also, just remembered, didn't Tribes (or Tribes 2) have something like this? I seem to remember some kind of console in bases or towers that a player could use which gave them a tactical overview of the map and let them issue orders to teammates but meant that they couldn't fight themselves while they were using this command console? My memory of it is hazy mostly because I don't think it ever got used....


Tribes 1 had a console in base no one used, T2 had it built into every players map and could be queued up with in game quick commands. For the most part, the games moved WAY to fast for the command functions to ever be truly useful. The most common thing I saw done with the system was the quick marking of targets with the shortcuts. Some times people would put waypoints to show where they stashed a hover cycle or mobile refill station.

Probably one of my favorite things about T2, you could converse entirely through the shortcut commands AND have those commands reflected on the map/hud.

and the gate is like I TOO AM CAPABLE OF SPEECH
Tale
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8558

sıɥʇ ǝʞıן sʞןɐʇ


Reply #15 on: July 25, 2008, 04:14:19 PM

Original flavour SWG had a Squad Leader class - one of its powers was to make special Squad Leader announcements to the group.




Slyfeind
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2037


Reply #16 on: August 06, 2008, 02:24:11 PM

Original flavour SWG had a Squad Leader class - one of its powers was to make special Squad Leader announcements to the group.






Commanders (or was it Squad Leaders?) also had those buffs and debuffs with orders. I remember having a commander in my group, and all of a sudden he said "STAY ON TARGET!" and everybody got a bonus to hit. Then "FALL BACK! FALL BACK!" and we all got a run buff. It was lots of fun.

Edit: I deleted the post below this one because some guy decided to bump a 3 month old thread as his first post. Please, don't be stupid. Look at timestamps.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2008, 03:43:07 PM by schild »

"Role playing in an MMO is more like an open orchestra with no conductor, anyone of any skill level can walk in at any time, and everyone brings their own instrument and plays whatever song they want.  Then toss PvP into the mix and things REALLY get ugly!" -Count Nerfedalot
Warskull
Terracotta Army
Posts: 53


Reply #17 on: October 26, 2008, 12:29:12 PM

As mentioned Savage does this and I don't think it works very well.  The problem with this concept is that it has two points where failure is extremely likely.  You can either have a bad commander or bad players on the which ignore/do not execute the commanders orders.  If you have a bad commander and that role is significant at all your team is usually crippled.  If you have players that ignore the commander or are just weak in general the commander gets crippled and doesn't have any fun.  Think of how fun it would be to play an RTS where the troops ignored your orders and did random stuff instead.

In Savage 2 I have had my team crippled by a terrible commander or felt helpless as a commander as I watch my team ignore all orders and run around like idiots countless times.  Things seem to work when you put a semi-competent player in the commander chair and his only jobs are building the buildings, casting buffs, and pinging when an enemy sneaks in.  Then let the players on the field run all strategy.

This style only works in highly organized player where you can guarantee the competence of all players and remove those who don't perform.  You just can't have the commander's only job watching over the game and organizing players.

I think taking an existing class and building some tools into them is a better method.  That way the tools are there to help, but not so powerful they are required.  On top of this if your team is stupid and ignores the orders, ect. You can fall back to being the basic part of your class.
wuzzman
Guest


Email
Reply #18 on: October 26, 2008, 08:14:01 PM

1 player can't control or even give useful orders to 20 individual players, common sense really. If you want an effective command system have a game with in game voice chat, and introduce command levels (like in the army...). Squad leader = 4-7 players under his command, he can give orders on the micro without having a birds eye view of the action. Basically he can give real time instructions while being actively engaged in the fight, making his decision making reflect the outcome of the battle in real time. Guild Wars pvp worked very well because it was friendly (though not intentional)  squad leader type command over players (helps to have a balance game...) instead of "herding the zerg", which is basically the OP's idea and most peoples idea of "organizing pvp".

 Then above Squad Leader you have a Commander, who basically orders the Squad leaders (built in voice chat). The Commander needs a birds eye view of the battle of course. Whats significant about the Commander vs the Squad Leader is that the Commander can effectively control the actions of 49 people by only having to tell 7 people what to do. Improving his efficiency and allowing him to view the battle in the macro and be less concerned about the micro. This structure is ideal but as the number of players scale so do your need for higher commander numbers. My personal logic says how many Squad Leaders a Commander should be equal to how many players a Squad Leader controls.

Being able to draw scribbles on a map should never be the Squad leaders job, he should at best be able to Ping locations on the map, and point out targets. He should use his VOICE TO CONTROL THE OTHER 4-7 PLAYERS ACTIONS. A Squad Leader who can't do that is NOT A GOOD SQUAD LEADER. So designing a game to accommodates bad Squad Leaders is extremely counter intuitive. Buffing players for following orders is lazy game design. If a player won't look at his map or listen to a audible voice, then he defiantly won't care about a +1 extra damage buff you may have if he goes to the way point. Unless following orders makes stupid players invulnerable to all damage, then more than likely the players your trying so desperately to listen to you don't care what you have to say.  Eventually games with reasonable amount of common sense in their design may just have ask players (yes casual players) to play as a team or lose in a very horrible manner. Besides lets say you get a buff for following a movement direction. That's very easy to abuse, cause there is really no intuitive way to stop Commanders from pinging points on the map only 3 feet from each other.
bhodi
Moderator
Posts: 6817

No lie.


Reply #19 on: October 27, 2008, 06:04:15 AM

1 player can't control or even give useful orders to 20 individual players, common sense really. If you want an effective command system have a game with in game voice chat, and introduce command levels (like in the army...).
I disagree.

Natural Selection, for one, does just that. You COULD create squads, but they were more ideas than anything else.
wuzzman
Guest


Email
Reply #20 on: October 27, 2008, 07:44:01 AM

1 player can't control or even give useful orders to 20 individual players, common sense really. If you want an effective command system have a game with in game voice chat, and introduce command levels (like in the army...).
I disagree.

Natural Selection, for one, does just that. You COULD create squads, but they were more ideas than anything else.


I call BS mostly because you probably don't even know what you even just said. Please explain it in none zerg language for the rest of us.
bhodi
Moderator
Posts: 6817

No lie.


Reply #21 on: October 27, 2008, 09:36:32 AM

In natural selection, the commander of the team does in fact command (up to) 20 individual players via voice chat and text. It works fine.

You don't NEED 'command levels' where you have layers of middle management in-between the guy at the top and the guy at the bottom. Maybe YOU would like them, which is fine, but you're talking like things are destined to fail without them. I am correcting your assumption. There are plenty of other examples, if you want to be specific to MMOs, many raiding guilds only have one raid leader and up to 40 people and it works just fine.

In NS, commanding individual units is so successful that they have squad assignments like you are suggesting, with squad commanders, which are largely ignored because they are simply unnecessary.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2008, 10:29:30 AM by bhodi »
Stephen Zepp
Developers
Posts: 1635

InstantAction


WWW
Reply #22 on: October 27, 2008, 12:49:50 PM

In natural selection, the commander of the team does in fact command (up to) 20 individual players via voice chat and text. It works fine.

You don't NEED 'command levels' where you have layers of middle management in-between the guy at the top and the guy at the bottom. Maybe YOU would like them, which is fine, but you're talking like things are destined to fail without them. I am correcting your assumption. There are plenty of other examples, if you want to be specific to MMOs, many raiding guilds only have one raid leader and up to 40 people and it works just fine.

In NS, commanding individual units is so successful that they have squad assignments like you are suggesting, with squad commanders, which are largely ignored because they are simply unnecessary.

To counter your example of a single raid leader running 40 people (or up to 72 back in the old EQ Planes of Power days), even if here isn't a real game implemented hierarchy of command, it evolves simply because it is impossible for 1 person to actively and directly manage that many people.

From healer chains, to debuff squads, to off tank coordination, a raid leader doesn't say, "StephenZ, BrianM and MikeTwo attack now" to all 40 raid members individually, he says things like "someone pick up the adds", "clerics start chain", and "more dots!!!". Just about every guild I've worked with in a raid (or in PlanetSide, an outfit) scenario has to form command hierarchies on their own for real success.

Rumors of War
Warskull
Terracotta Army
Posts: 53


Reply #23 on: October 27, 2008, 01:28:41 PM

Being able to draw scribbles on a map should never be the Squad leaders job, he should at best be able to Ping locations on the map, and point out targets. He should use his VOICE TO CONTROL THE OTHER 4-7 PLAYERS ACTIONS. A Squad Leader who can't do that is NOT A GOOD SQUAD LEADER. So designing a game to accommodates bad Squad Leaders is extremely counter intuitive.

Do not underestimate the squiggles.  Pings just say look here.  Being able to draw an arrow can communicate "we are going here, using this path" very, very quickly.  I used drawing on the map a ton in guild wars.  Which is easier to communicate "Take these archers out" and then circle them, or "I need you to take out the two archers on the east side of the base.  The two furthest to the east."

Voice communication is a huge part of organization, but the other things aren't tools for bad squad leaders.  They are tools to enhance communication.  If you have a tiered command system you just give each tier a different color.

If you want to see a game with excellent tools for player communication go look at guild wars.  If you CTRL while performing an action it calls the action in chat.  It you hold CTRL and then hit space, you call a target.  In the party window a target icon appears next to your name, a ping sound occurs, and anyone can now click the icon or hit T to immediately target whoever you called.  That is huge in a game like guild wars because your Mesmer (think a caster class that functions like Blue decks from Magic the Gathering)  is probably already juggling 2-4 targets himself trying to interrupt and shut down everything they do.  You can ping the map in a single click.  You can draw on the map and it lingers for a few seconds before disappearing.  Everyone can draw on the map.  There is no official commander class, but you always have people performing the role.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2008, 01:33:54 PM by Warskull »
wuzzman
Guest


Email
Reply #24 on: October 27, 2008, 05:06:59 PM

Being able to draw scribbles on a map should never be the Squad leaders job, he should at best be able to Ping locations on the map, and point out targets. He should use his VOICE TO CONTROL THE OTHER 4-7 PLAYERS ACTIONS. A Squad Leader who can't do that is NOT A GOOD SQUAD LEADER. So designing a game to accommodates bad Squad Leaders is extremely counter intuitive.

Do not underestimate the squiggles.  Pings just say look here.  Being able to draw an arrow can communicate "we are going here, using this path" very, very quickly.  I used drawing on the map a ton in guild wars.  Which is easier to communicate "Take these archers out" and then circle them, or "I need you to take out the two archers on the east side of the base.  The two furthest to the east."

Voice communication is a huge part of organization, but the other things aren't tools for bad squad leaders.  They are tools to enhance communication.  If you have a tiered command system you just give each tier a different color.

If you want to see a game with excellent tools for player communication go look at guild wars.  If you CTRL while performing an action it calls the action in chat.  It you hold CTRL and then hit space, you call a target.  In the party window a target icon appears next to your name, a ping sound occurs, and anyone can now click the icon or hit T to immediately target whoever you called.  That is huge in a game like guild wars because your Mesmer (think a caster class that functions like Blue decks from Magic the Gathering)  is probably already juggling 2-4 targets himself trying to interrupt and shut down everything they do.  You can ping the map in a single click.  You can draw on the map and it lingers for a few seconds before disappearing.  Everyone can draw on the map.  There is no official commander class, but you always have people performing the role.

Damn it! I can't disagree with someone who actually played guild wars. good post.
lamaros
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8021


Reply #25 on: October 27, 2008, 06:04:49 PM

To counter your example of a single raid leader running 40 people (or up to 72 back in the old EQ Planes of Power days), even if here isn't a real game implemented hierarchy of command, it evolves simply because it is impossible for 1 person to actively and directly manage that many people.

From healer chains, to debuff squads, to off tank coordination, a raid leader doesn't say, "StephenZ, BrianM and MikeTwo attack now" to all 40 raid members individually, he says things like "someone pick up the adds", "clerics start chain", and "more dots!!!". Just about every guild I've worked with in a raid (or in PlanetSide, an outfit) scenario has to form command hierarchies on their own for real success.

That's not really true. I agree with your general point, but the fact is that in certain MMOs you can have one person who manages 20+ others.

However that is mostly doable when the managment primarily takes place before and after events, not during them. I don't think one person can manage 20 others properly on the fly, but given a mostly predictable situation like you find in things such as WoW's PvE then one person can easily manage things.  I expect that they will do a worse job than a really well organised group that manages things differently, but it can be done and in many cases in my experience is a much better way of doing things (because many people struggle to organise effective systems on their own and often end up complicating and confusing things).

PvP games things doesn't work to as great an extent, but my experience in things such as CS guild matches and the like tended to show me that even there a lot of what you get is organised in training, with good commanders and groups knowing each other and the situations they'll face so well that one person can manage a big group with only a few simple commands.
wuzzman
Guest


Email
Reply #26 on: October 27, 2008, 08:07:21 PM

To counter your example of a single raid leader running 40 people (or up to 72 back in the old EQ Planes of Power days), even if here isn't a real game implemented hierarchy of command, it evolves simply because it is impossible for 1 person to actively and directly manage that many people.

From healer chains, to debuff squads, to off tank coordination, a raid leader doesn't say, "StephenZ, BrianM and MikeTwo attack now" to all 40 raid members individually, he says things like "someone pick up the adds", "clerics start chain", and "more dots!!!". Just about every guild I've worked with in a raid (or in PlanetSide, an outfit) scenario has to form command hierarchies on their own for real success.

That's not really true. I agree with your general point, but the fact is that in certain MMOs you can have one person who manages 20+ others.

However that is mostly doable when the managment primarily takes place before and after events, not during them. I don't think one person can manage 20 others properly on the fly, but given a mostly predictable situation like you find in things such as WoW's PvE then one person can easily manage things.  I expect that they will do a worse job than a really well organised group that manages things differently, but it can be done and in many cases in my experience is a much better way of doing things (because many people struggle to organise effective systems on their own and often end up complicating and confusing things).

PvP games things doesn't work to as great an extent, but my experience in things such as CS guild matches and the like tended to show me that even there a lot of what you get is organised in training, with good commanders and groups knowing each other and the situations they'll face so well that one person can manage a big group with only a few simple commands.

leading a group of players through predictable pve content is not the same thing as leading a group of players through actually combat.
Warskull
Terracotta Army
Posts: 53


Reply #27 on: October 27, 2008, 11:45:19 PM

Remember, leading the players is highly dependent on the quality and experience of the player.  If they are bad and you have to micro them heavily, you have a limited attention that can only be split so many ways.  If they are good and for the most part know what to do, you can simply tell a few of them a simple task.  You may not even need to name the players because they know who should do it already.
lamaros
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8021


Reply #28 on: October 28, 2008, 02:53:17 AM

To counter your example of a single raid leader running 40 people (or up to 72 back in the old EQ Planes of Power days), even if here isn't a real game implemented hierarchy of command, it evolves simply because it is impossible for 1 person to actively and directly manage that many people.

From healer chains, to debuff squads, to off tank coordination, a raid leader doesn't say, "StephenZ, BrianM and MikeTwo attack now" to all 40 raid members individually, he says things like "someone pick up the adds", "clerics start chain", and "more dots!!!". Just about every guild I've worked with in a raid (or in PlanetSide, an outfit) scenario has to form command hierarchies on their own for real success.

That's not really true. I agree with your general point, but the fact is that in certain MMOs you can have one person who manages 20+ others.

However that is mostly doable when the managment primarily takes place before and after events, not during them. I don't think one person can manage 20 others properly on the fly, but given a mostly predictable situation like you find in things such as WoW's PvE then one person can easily manage things.  I expect that they will do a worse job than a really well organised group that manages things differently, but it can be done and in many cases in my experience is a much better way of doing things (because many people struggle to organise effective systems on their own and often end up complicating and confusing things).

PvP games things doesn't work to as great an extent, but my experience in things such as CS guild matches and the like tended to show me that even there a lot of what you get is organised in training, with good commanders and groups knowing each other and the situations they'll face so well that one person can manage a big group with only a few simple commands.

leading a group of players through predictable pve content is not the same thing as leading a group of players through actually combat.

Learn to read, idiot fuckwit.
wuzzman
Guest


Email
Reply #29 on: October 28, 2008, 08:08:11 AM

To counter your example of a single raid leader running 40 people (or up to 72 back in the old EQ Planes of Power days), even if here isn't a real game implemented hierarchy of command, it evolves simply because it is impossible for 1 person to actively and directly manage that many people.

From healer chains, to debuff squads, to off tank coordination, a raid leader doesn't say, "StephenZ, BrianM and MikeTwo attack now" to all 40 raid members individually, he says things like "someone pick up the adds", "clerics start chain", and "more dots!!!". Just about every guild I've worked with in a raid (or in PlanetSide, an outfit) scenario has to form command hierarchies on their own for real success.

That's not really true. I agree with your general point, but the fact is that in certain MMOs you can have one person who manages 20+ others.

However that is mostly doable when the managment primarily takes place before and after events, not during them. I don't think one person can manage 20 others properly on the fly, but given a mostly predictable situation like you find in things such as WoW's PvE then one person can easily manage things.  I expect that they will do a worse job than a really well organised group that manages things differently, but it can be done and in many cases in my experience is a much better way of doing things (because many people struggle to organise effective systems on their own and often end up complicating and confusing things).

PvP games things doesn't work to as great an extent, but my experience in things such as CS guild matches and the like tended to show me that even there a lot of what you get is organised in training, with good commanders and groups knowing each other and the situations they'll face so well that one person can manage a big group with only a few simple commands.

leading a group of players through predictable pve content is not the same thing as leading a group of players through actually combat.

Learn to read, idiot fuckwit.

spend first wall of text explaining wow pve. check
spend second paragraph pretty much saying nothing. this thread is talking about a pug group...not a premade, and even then CS guilds don't field 20+ players at one time in a match...
lamaros
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8021


Reply #30 on: October 28, 2008, 09:14:36 PM

spend second paragraph pretty much saying nothing. this thread is talking about a pug group...not a premade, and even then CS guilds don't field 20+ players at one time in a match...

Ah really. Please quote the bit from the OP that says this is about PUG groups. And this bit in the post I was quoting and responding to.  awesome, for real

Again: Learn to read, idiot fuckwit.

Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Game Design/Development  |  Topic: Commander Class  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC