Command/control system discussion

[abathur]

This is just a straight repost of some old content of mine on the subject of differentiating command to address CR5 glut. I still think the core information is relevant and could in some sense be useful in implementing a new system. That is to say, we should come up with a more effective way of doing things, but then still IMO go back and differentiate between types of leadership. The extent of the implementation would be determined by exactly where the game goes in the fps/RTS/RPG spectrum (the "hero" like qualities of high lvl commanders would be silly in a hardcore fps but more reasonable the more we drift towards RTS/RPG. Anyways:



CR5 conundrum: Addition and Division of abilities and responsibilities.
Ok, I think it's fairly well agreed that there are problems with the command structure and the number of commanders, so I won't tire your eyes with any discussion of that.

Instead of making CEP decay, arbitrarily allowing only certain leaders at a time, or enforcing an equally flawed voting system, how about we use our knowledge of human nature for good. I propose there be 20 battle ranks, and 5 'specialization' ranks, replacing the current CR system. Specialization ranks would provide increasing abilities in multiple areas allowing a person to further their character in the manner they seek. This allows people to max out their character in ways that benefit them, and provides incentive for diversifying the leading ranks of Planetside. Within this system, some of the traditional CR abilities would be replaced by others, and given to different specializations. Following is a possible specialization list, but I wont claim to have tought of everything, suggestions are welcome, I'll name these as general branches more than going into the details of all 5 ranks of advancement.

Additionally, advancement in each field is achieved through different methods, and any mix of 5 ranks spread about the choices is allowed. The ability to 'reduce' your rank in any field is also allowed.

Intelligence:
Those who choose to advance themselves in the intelligence field will gain access to the "Intelligence" channel. As a person gains rank he/she will gain more ability to gather, and pass along pertinent information. This form of advancement would not retain the ability to OS or EMP. However, this person would gain much more potent abilities for revealing enemy positions. By IR5 I envision this position being able to 'reveal enemies' on a continental scale, 'reveal vehicles' on a scale between 1/2 and a whole continent, and reveal AMS locations(but not their status) in a radius on par with current CR5 reveal enemies. Intelligence enabled individuals would also receive headsup notification of gen destructions, tubes down, and bases hacked, based on their range from said base (an IR3 might still see a notification for a cross-continent base, but he might not see it for a few minutes.) IR enabled will have access to a hybrid CUD which allows them their revealing skills, access to 12x zoom, and the ability to 'laze' a target for all IR's and CR's that the IR could normally communicate with over the intelligence channel to see. This lasts a moment or two, and must be updated if it expires before action is taken.

Spec Ops:
Training to SR5 would provide a character with the ability to EMP, OS, and 'reveal deployables' in a radius similar to current CR5 reveal enemies. Gaining SR ranks would also allow access to a SpecOps channel. The rate, or strength of these abilities might be increased as fewer would be active in the field. SpecOps proficient would also be notified via headsup display of friendly gens and tubes destroyed, or bases hacked, based on rank and proximity(this times to notification would be greater for spec ops personnel than for an IR of the same rank, however). SpecOps enabled may also communicate via a /sops channel that any SL may join. Spec Ops enabled will retain the traditional CUD.

Central Command:
Gaining CCR5 would ultimately provide a commander with the utmost in communication abilities. CCR5s would be able to access the global, continent, specops, intelligence, support, SL, armor, grunt, and 'outfits' channels (the outfits channel would allow the top 3 ranks of any outfit to communicate directly. CCR5s would be able to see all friendly AMS locations on the map, as well as either individual soldier indicators, or hotspot-like indicators merely of the amount of friendly presence in an area. These would not require revealing, however, they would be toggleable. AMS location indicators would indicate the deployed/undeployed status, double clicking them would provide the owners name (or unowned if it had none, this allows CR5s to request spawn points be taken down to help move armies). ANTs would also be visible on the map, as would their full/empty status (via click). Central commanders would no longer have a CUD. CCRs would be able to nominate 'lazed' targets for empire-wide visibility. The target would remain until it no longer had the number/majority of votes it required to become active, votes can be terminated by declaring the mission yes, or no for whether it was successfully completed.

Peripheral (battlefield) Command:
Those who reach PCR5 would have access to a Battlefield channel, as well as a one-way channel to all SLs. They would be able to see the location of all SLs/PLs on their map. Clicking on these persons would display the number of squadmates at their disposal. PCRs would have access to the primary command channel, as well as the battlefield channel. PCRs would be able to nominate locations voted to have empire-wide markers for an EXP incentive. If the goal is completed and the CCR5's nominate the goal as complete, all who were within a relatively small 'SOI' around the nominated target before it was completed would recieve a time-slice bonus. The longer the objective takes to complete, the less valuable each slice becomes. PCRs would also retain *limited* use of reveal enemies/friendlies functionality via a traditional CUD.

Support:
Gaining support rank would decrease the cost of support certifications (quite a bit by SR5). A SR5 enabled soldier would have access to the support channel, gain access to the transport channel(a channel available to all who posess transport certifications,) All persons on the transport channel would be able to see map indicators for transport requests. Support enabled commanders would also be able to /comcert to communicate with those holding the various support certs. The confidence gained by the presence of those sufficient in SR knowledge initiates a natural healing process that slowly effects health at a rate like that of adv regen (or 1/2 adv regen). Healing/repairing devices would also gain a bonus to points healed within this radius. The SR himself would gain the bonus to healing/repairing apparatus, but not the bonus of health regeneration. Higher level SRs might also gain multiple functionality tools if they pick up certification combinations, to further encourage the taking of extra support certs.

Armor:
Armor enabled commanders would be able to speak to all persons holding a vehicle certification via a /comcert system. All persons piloting vehicles would also see on-map indicators for persons who had set a /gunner flag within an SOI range, however, persons with AR5 would be able to see this information continent wide (and dispatch vehicles to high concentrations of /gunner flagged persons. AR5 enabled would also be able to 'vote' to designate a base as an additional spawn point for anyone who died while in a vehicle (would require a majority of those on a given continent) With their prowess in vehicular combat, proximity to high AR characters provides a % armor bonus to vehicles within the AR's radius. ARs would have no tools.

Grunt:
Those with GR5 would have increased battle senses. With that keen-ness for battle they would be able to see enemy density indicators on the map. Cloaked players would not add to the density warning, and a certain amount of enemies would need to be within a relatively small space of each other to trigger a warning. GR5s would have the ability to perpetually 'broadcast' field information to grunts within a set range. His/her battle sense would allow them to detect waiting ambushes and hardpoints, and transfer this information to others in the area. GR enabled persons would also be a morale force on the battlefield, to represent this, soldiers with in a more literal 'sphere of influence' of a high GR commander would gain a boost to their fighting ability (probably via a non-visisble property change that provides 50 extra armor, and an increase of 2 to the absorption rate.) This bonus wouldn't stack if multiples were in range. GRs would also have access to the battlefield channel. Grunts would gain no extra tools.

All references to /comcert or similar communication would apply ONLY to the continent that person was on. True CCR5's would be the only ones retaining the ability to speak to an entire continent, or all of auraxis at once. The system would *ALLOW* for deeper use via target designations and bonuses. These features would have to, combined, check through quite a few people, reducing the ease of abuse. Again, the features are slightly complex, but not essential to operation. For instance, to create a bonus for blowing a gen: an IR5 would have to laze the gen, probably at least 2 or more CCR5s (or just one, if only one is available) would have to nominate the target as a 'viable' target, then, probably at least 2 or more PCR5s would have to nominate the target for an EXP bonus (unless again, only one were present.) All in all, on a standard continent with empire support, a bonus would find itself being passed through probably at least 5 hands. Other bonuses given to the various Rs provide tangible benefits to the person and the empire. These bonuses, however, would not be as effective right after a death (starting and 50% efficiency and charging up to full over possibly 1-5 minutes.)

As for attaining the multiple ranks, the first rank for all would be accomplished merely by squad leading. The first rank, no matter which path is chosen, would still include the ability to lay waypoints. After this point, unique methods could be used for gaining each:
-IRs could gain any bonus offered on targets they selected, generally, CCRs and PCRs would want to assit IRs in their advancement, as the knowledge they are able to gain gives the PCRs and CCRs great power through knowledge.
-SORs would gain exp through leading squads that complete missions elected for a bonus. SORs could also gain EXP at a reduced rate for standard squad leading. High SOR rank could be reached just by squad leading, however, it would be a rather long and tedious journey without accomplishing 'spec ops' missions along the way.
-CCRs would gain the first two ranks through squad leading, the 3rd and fourth ranks only through platoon leading, and the 5th, only through continental capture bonuses (these should exist) And dominance retention bonuses (possibly even EXP requirements from each, to ensure the commander has experienced leading assaults and defenses, the ratio portion of the calculations ensures that those who are consistently able to deal with larger forces offensively and defensively rise quickly to the top, while those who don't get to spend more time performing these activities, and hopefully improving in their understanding and execution of them). These bonuses would be based on the ratio of attackers to defenders, how much of that time the commander was there, and how many people were in his platoon. Domination retention bonuses would be defined as a bonus for holding domination of a continent while *outnumbered* These could possibly run in hourly increments? (I highly doubt you're going to see *too* many situations where a larger force is assaulting a smaller one and the smaller force will intentionally not kick out the larger force to keep getting a bonus, and regardless, they *ARE* stopping a force from gaining continental dominion.)
-PCRs would gain exp through squad and platoon leading.
-SRs would gain exp through leading squads-platoons based on the amount of support based activities those squads complete. Improved tracking to prevent abuse on these issues for the merit award system should be sufficient for saving this from abuse, plus, even if someone DOES abuse their way up to a high SR, they're still going to end up benefiting their empire by default (influence bonuses) and be enticed into picking up more support certs to better serve the empire.
-ARs would get a small amount of exp from standard squad leading, but would see greatly increased exp for captures the more time each of their members spend in a vehicle that is actively participating in the battle (gaining kills, or performing a function, be that transporting, an AMS deployed, etc.) ARs would *NOT* gain extra exp on hacks if all of their squad members remain in inactive vehicles that are not producing any exp. The amounts of exp generated by the vehicles would be largely unrelated (though slightly), the main emphasis would be that they not try to up their exp by sitting in vehicles instead of assisting the hack indoors once that time has come. A negative modifier for this behavior could also encourage 'cavalry' to patrol the area around the base, or possibly advance lines towards additional targets.
Note: to an extent, all of the GR, AR, SR, and SOR EXP awards would also be related to how well the SL himself had performed these activities. Being in a squad that performed them well would be worth something, but self-proficiency and knowledge in them would further up his EXP gain.

Any actions that fulfil multiple requirements would generate exp for multiple fields, so obviously you could gain ranks you did not wish to have. This is partially why the ability to lose a rank would exist.

In summary: The system would divide the functionality, make people choose what they want to do, and then enable them to do that better than they could before (to compensate for lost abilities.) The gained 'influence' benefits to some of the positions encourages grouping units that perform these tasks with a leader of that nature. Not only would this leader give a raw bonus to them, but they would gain the benefits of being naturally more potent in a group, and having a person who is in direct contact with those leading the continent. The system also makes a certain accomplishment 'easier' if its something you are obviously better at, this, hopefully, encourages people to gravitate to where they will be the most effective. Not only will they leave one job they would have done poorly to someone who can better handle it, but they'll also enhance the position where they are able and happy. The division of forces also allows some persons to focus on particular tasks, rather than having a single CR5 relating AMS info, tracking down ANT runs, arranging transportation, calling targets, passing along tactical info, arranging specops missions for genblowing, etc. Instead, he can merely pass the general task down the specific channel and let those who *know* how to do that, get it done. HOOAH! (fin.)

Thanks to anyone who stuck with me through all of that.

[Cl2v2r]

Some very interesting ideas. It would add a great deal more incentive to get that *R5, whatever it might be.

While I'm not sure on the limitations of the database on the other end of the game, it probably wouldn't break the technical side of things. It would produce a little more serverside work, with pinging all manner of information to all players (filtering clientside with the relevant *R).

Anything that gives people something to work for that they actually want, is a good thing. If you look at the amount of people that left PS after getting BR20/23, I think it'd be suprisingly high. However, giving people paint on merits doesn't really help unless they are egoists or really didn't know what they did more.

One of the drawbacks I can see is the 'I want to change my *R, but don't want to spend the time to earn all that CEP again.' This would lead to people who don't really know what they are doing being in areas where other people rely on them to do it. Maybe it could just be done like forgetting a cert, forgetting where you specialized, and for each day you spend in that role you get one more rank (up to your previous rank in the old ability) in the new ability.

/shrug

Good ideas though.

The other would be, perhaps you don't have enough of a certain type of *R4/5 on at the moment, and the whole side is at a disadvantage because of it. Although that could fall into general tactics I suppose.

[Cogburn]

I'm diggin it.

As always, a few comments. :)

I'm not a fan of 400 chat channels. Thats a LOT of bandwidth if they are all turned on, and let's face it, this is not IRC. What you are attempting to create are a set of command and control communications channels. Let's table that discussion for a moment while I switch gears.

I'm torn about the seperate XP systems. I've been toying with the idea of an XP Economy. This means that New Skills, Switching Skills, Purchasing Vehicles, and Purchasing Rank all have an appropriate cost in XP. This XP must be earned on that battlefield by either participating in combat or in a combat support activity. Taking a base should be its own reward, either in the satisfaction of winning or as some in-game benefit of ownership. Using this scheme, productive, active players are rewarded for their tasks accordingly. Decisions must also be made by the player as to how best to budget their XP Pool. "Do I want that new rank or that new skill?" Playtesting will be the only appropriate way to gauge the cost and rewards, so I can't begin to offer numbers here. Your character will "level", which will allow you to load more skills at once, but does not affect rank. All skills may be purchased by a character, but only a certain number may be used at one time, based on that character's level.

What this means is, you must either A) provide a constant supply of new skills so people want something other than rank or B) a method of inflation where the cost of the next rank to be purchased increases or decreases based on the number of current characters holding that rank. So if you have 100 "Generals", the cost for the 101st General to buy that rank will be significantly higher than it was for the 1st General. You can still buy your way in eventually, but once the game has been in operation for a while the costs should even out at certain levels and not change but a few points.

All that being said....

I've pictured the following C&C Structure:

Empire -> House -> Company

A House would be like an Outfit, a Company would be a new level of organization within a House. Companies can move from House to House and maintain thier members. Houses and Companies would have "officers" (a rank only valid within that group) that would be able to perform various administrative tasks as well as have private chat channels exclusive to House Officers and Company Officers. I have a system based on 20 purchased ranks, seperated into 4 groups of 5. Each group has its own private communications channel. Empire Officers (purchased ranks) will have different global or continental chat based on the PlanetSide model. Difference: you can /sitrep DOWNWARDS. That one addition solves a multitude of communications issues.

I am of the firm opinion that anything that gives additional battlefield capability should be a skill, not a privledge of rank, with one exception: the Orbital Strike or our equivalent. I think this is a FANTASTIC weapon and a worthy goal for achieving the highest rank possible. Granted, based on my system you may have virtually no Skills purchased or it took you a DAMN long time so it will feel oh-so-good to use.

I'd ask that you reformat you ideas into Skill Sets and represent them in that light. I think there's just a lot of good stuff in there that should be De-PlanetSide'd.

[Xae]

I will report my Idea from the orginial thread

Star Wars: Republic Commando’s command system was a thing of marvelous beauty. The commander (you) simply looked at objects, hit a key, and issued an order. Imagine that in Planetside. The Squad commander wants a turret manned, so he switches to his “Command View” (same point of view, but with the ability to give orders relative to the current target), targets the turret and hits ‘e’ (command/use key in this example) then a ‘5’. Squad Member 5 is given an order to man the turret. Then seeing a tank coming in, he targets it, hits ‘e’ then ‘1’ (his own squad number), the entire squad is then given an order to concentrate fire on that tank. You could also issued detailed orders by using ‘shift’ to select multiple squad members and using specific order keys, for example using ‘r’ for “ Repair Target”, ‘d’ for “Defend Target”, etc. This would change a squad commander from a “Set a WP at the AMS so someone can nuke it” to an actual commander on the field.


(I will be using Outfit and House Interchangeably)
I wish for outfits to be more involved than they where in Planetside. In Planetside an Outfit is simply a chat channel and a Tag under your name. Outfits/Houses should be central to play. To that effect I believe that Empire wide Command functions should only be available to certain people. Hard Limit the number of Officer’s in an Outfit/House to 10% of the members/accounts in the Outfit, and have a ranking system. Only those flagged as officers may access the Empire wide C&C functions. Complement this with requiring a cost in Cert or Skill points to access those functions and I believe that most of the Command Problems will fade away. The Issue in Planetside isn’t so much that Commander’s lack tools (Don’t get me wrong, they could use a hella lot more) but that there are too many “Commanders” to listen to. Look at the number of CR5s on. 5-10% of the people in game are the equivalent of High Ranking Generals. That makes absolutely no sense.

Ranking System Example:
Officer:
Colonel - Outfit Leader (Limit 1)
Major - High Ranking Officers (Limit 2%)
Capitan - Middling Officer (Limit 3%)
Lieutenant - Lowest Officer (Limit 5%)

Warrant Ranks: (Specialist/Support)
Chief Warrant Officer: Leads Support/Specialist Troops
Junior Warrant Officer: Subordinate Support/Specialist
Specialist*

Enlisted:
Master Sergeant
Sergeant
Corporal
PFC
Private

Why the Limits? The idea is to prevent people from stacking high ranks and making the system worthless.


This is just an idea a cooked up in a few minutes, feel free to tear it apart.

[Cl2v2r]

Xae:

I think that could cause problems with people not progressing through the ranks.

Using the current model PS and overlaying this system on it, people who joined the game now wouldn't be able to get past CR2 as the upper ranks would be filled already.


The reason I liked abathur's original ideas, is that it gvies you the option of going where you want to go. Of... specializing, for lack of a better term.

I think before head too far, we will need to know how skills are obtained, whether they are permanent or temporary, how XP gain/expenditure works, are levels in the game, that sort of thing.

At the moment, specifics are probably the worst thing we can do. It's like trying to make a sculpture by adding to a ball of chewing gum, rather than from the outside in.

[Cogburn]

Gonna side w/ Cl2v2r on this one.

You don't want to confuse in-game roles on the battlefield with any kind of outfit management.* Commanding troops is certainly a role played out on the battlefield, and that is fulfilled by more people than just those that are outfit leaders.

Furthermore, I'd assert that an outfit is what the MEMBERS make of it, not the Outfit Leader.* The OL is there to direct the team and to give it focus, but what an outfit does day-to-day is SOLEY the responsibility of each and every member.* If I have an outfit of 1,000 players (which, I do) I want at least 1 officer for every 20 active players.... Not total players, ACTIVE players.* That means I may require anything from 20 to 5 officers.* I promote people to officer in my outfit for more reasons than just battlefield leadership.* Some people are good w/ noobs, some people are good administrators, but all are leaders in their own right.* Enforcing anything different in-game is a recipe for disaster.

Now then...

For the rest of this post, when I say "Officer", I mean someone in OUR game that has some sort of CR ability.

I propose the following Officer ranks in descending order:

1* *Warmaster
-------------------
2* *General
3* *Major General
4* *Colonel
-------------------
5* *Major
6* *Captain
7* *Lieutenant
-------------------
8* *Master Sergeant
9* *Gunnery Sergeant
10 Sergeant
11 Corporal
12 Specialist
-------------------
13 Private

Officer proliferation is a big problem... More importantly, the tools that go with rank are usually pretty powerful and the more officers there are the more those tools are used.* What I propose is a rank structure outlined as above, seperated into 4 distinct groups, as denoted by the lines.* Everyone starts out as a Private.* You can always remain a Private if you wish.* If you desire command tools and rank, it must be purchased with XP (reference this post for an explanation of how that works (http://www.markovforums.com/SMF/index.php?topic=2281.msg45064#msg45064)).* Leveling your character is TOTALLY INDEPENDANT OF ANY RANKS and is automatic based on XP earned and gives that character more Skill Slots to use.*

As it stands in PlanetSide, if you simply lead squads long enough, you will attain CR5, period.* It takes no real desire and no real effort on behalf of the player.*

In OUR game, rank is purchased, one rank at a time...* Say one rank every 7 days (to prevent power leveling).* Each group of ranks carries its own benefits.* As players "buy" their way through the ranks, the cost of each rank changes based on the number of people currently at that rank.* That way if there is a glut of characters at one rank players will be encouraged to spend their XP on other things, or continue to save up until it is affordable.* There is also the possibility to add in-game benefits that reduce the cost of ranks based on ownership (or length of time of ownership).* An Empire may be moved to assault and hold a particular piece of in-game real estate simply because they want to progress in rank.* Wow!* A reason to fight!* ::snicker::

Each rank grouping has its own chat channel, with the exception of Private.* Each grouping also has its own privledges, some of which are unique to that group.

Group 1 - The Planetary Commanders
* * *Ranks: Warmaster
* * *Capabilities:*

Gamewide broadcasts to Empire.
Continental broadcasts to Empire.
Rank Chat channel is available on any continent.
Ability to call in Carpet Bombing on selected locations once every 5 hours.
Ability to show the locations of all enemies on the continent at that moment once every 20 minutes.
Ability to show the locations of all friendlies on the continent at that moment once every 20 minutes.
Ability to initate voting on and participation in voting on the designation of continents as primary, secondary and tertiary targets.
Ability to initate voting on and participation in voting on temporarily prohibiting a member of this rank from broadcasting to the Empire.
Ability to veto voting results of Group 2
Ability to send messages to all members of Group 2 on a particular continent
Ability to form a Company
Ability to form a House


Group 2 - The Field Marshalls
* * *Ranks: General, Major General, Colonel
* * *Capabilities:*

Continental broadcasts to Empire.
Rank Chat channel is available on any continent.
Ability to call in Strategic Bombing on selected locations once every 3 hours.
Ability to show the locations of all enemies within 500m at that moment once every 20 minutes.
Ability to show the locations of all friendlies within 500m at that moment once every 20 minutes.
Ability to initate voting on and participation in voting on the designation of outposts and bases as primary, secondary and tertiary targets.
Ability to initate voting on and participation in voting on temporarily prohibiting a member of this rank from broadcasting to the Empire.
Ability to send messages to Group 1 and Group 3 on the same continent
Ability to form a Company
Ability to form a House


Group 3 - The Commanders
* * *Ranks: Major, Captain, Lieutenant
* * *Capabilities:*

Rank Chat channel is available on this continent only.
Ability to call in Tactical Bombing on selected locations once every hour.
Ability to show the locations of all enemies within 200m at that moment once every 20 minutes.
Ability to show the locations of all friendlies within 200m at that moment once every 20 minutes.
Ability to send messages to Group 2 and Group 4 on the same continent
Ability to form a Company


Group 4 - The Grunts
* * *Ranks: Master Sergeant, Gunnery Sergeant, Sergeant, Corporal, Specialist
* * *Capabilities:*

Rank Chat channel is available on this continent only.
Ability to request Tactical, Strategic, or Carpet Bombing on selected locations once every 15 minutes.
Ability to send messages to Group 3 on the same continent
Ability to form a Company


Notice something I added in there...* You must have a certain rank to form a House.* A House is a collection of companies that is formed by a Company Commander inviting at least 2 other Company Commanders to join, similar to outfit invites for players in PlanetSide.* The reason is to stop proliferation of non-dedicated and "gag" outfits.* There is ONE other reason why there is to be a rank restriction on Houses and Companies.* Since it is planned that Houses will have the ability to purchase in-game real estate, that goal should be difficult to obtain.* The first hurdle is easy...* buy the rank to form a Company.* Next, actually forming a Company is in your future.* The next hurdle is to purchase ranks high enough to form a House OR just join an existing one at that point.* If your goals are a bit loftier, its convincing TWO OTHER Company Commanders that you are the man to form a House with.* AFTER THAT your House must build up the resources able to purchase AND DEFEND that real estate.* So what I'm trying to say is, there's a method to my madness in all this. :)

In the end, its all your choice.* You can choose NEVER to purchase rank and still have a 100% fulfilling game experience.* If you DO purchase rank, you are making a concious effort to persue a battlefield role that is beyond the normal point and shoot.

Now I've laid out a common set of standards for how our game will operate.* We can begin a worthwhile discussion here.

What I'm looking for now are A) opinions on this idea and B) what other abilities should be attributed to each group of ranks?

[abathur]

A few things, I'm feeling pretty tired atm so it's just going to come out in unorganized points instead of any order.

- I don't really favor excessive restriction on player groups. There are people out there who're pretty picky about who they'll play with (as well as those who prefer big groups, small groups, no groups, etc.) If there are fewer groups around (especially if things are overtly slanted in the favor of monolithic groups,) these types of people are just going to go on soloing. A small player group is better than a soloer for most tasks, and there are tasks for small player groups to handle that larger groups are rarely efficient enough to handle. There's reasonable use for a variety of group sizes, so I don't see a reason for tight restrictions.

- I think the combinatory structure ideas are best reserved as additional coordination ideas rather than a prerequisite to forming a fully recognized entity. Coming from a different PlanetSide background than you, a lot of what has made FC work is slow recruitment, and some of the most perilous times for our outfit in the past two years have been the weeks and months immediately following a big recruitment push. Adding a large group of guys into an existing group can seriously change the "spirit" of what exists. If there's no way to form a "house" other than to dump your guys in the tank with 2 other companies we'd probably just have to work on raising the commanders to form the 2 subgroups ourselves. Tools to encourage cooperation, not forcing a strict ideal of what a player group should be. It's fine in the military, but this is a game.

- I'm not really sure ranks should have anything beyond a descriptive title. (OMG I WANT TO B TEH WARMASTER!!11!!) Even if it is paid for. If there's prestige to be found with it, there are people who want the position more for title than for the job.

- In the past I've objected to making command rank harder to get as the game progressed to keep newer players "down" so to speak, more recently however I'm thinking more or more that it's better for additions to ranks to be slow like this, and might even suggest focusing on easing new commanders into the job and tools so that every hotshot who makes it can't instantly decide he knows something no one else has tried in the months or years preceeding him and immediately going on to go vocally against everything those before him have worked to standardize and establish. A lot of people hit the top and think "hey I'm fucking master general bitch bow down" or some shit instead of realizing that they're part of a leadership group and have no place making calls that don't seem relatively agreed upon.

- Perhaps the best way to create a good command and control system is to outline 1. all of the tasks we believe _some_ form of leader/leadership should be handling. 2. outline all of the problems that present themselves in PlanetSide's command/control system and ensure we address all of them carefully in creation of a new system (if indeed they're addressable. I think I'll go start a thread specifically along this line. I think we've got some good ideas for ways to take a command system but it feels like we may be inventing the equipment to play a new sport but we don't really know what the sport is, nor what the equipment is going to have to do yet. Sure, pogostick field-hockey might rock until we find out it's going to be played in a foot of mud. ;)

- Ups and downs to construction. If you can build too much you'll end up with house-owned cities that others in competition may be reluctant to defend. If it's too expensive to build you'll have a hard time finding anyone to take that first initiative. Ideally, I think, we need to encourage any large outpost to be a collaborative effort, both to reduce the necessary investment and increase the number of people tied to defending it. Things like making sure OP earnable from a structure is significant enough to pay for the structure, but is not generated by your own units. Likewise nor is providing power to your own structures beneficial, etc. in a way that it becomes much more sustainable when different poeple handle different tasks.

[Xae]

Cog's system sounds good, but the gist of my post was that any system where there is no opportunity cost to "Command Rank" will fail. I [agree that] leadership outside of the House/Company should be linked to leadership inside the House/Company. If your company or House doesn’t trust you to lead troops why would another House or Company?

Edited for [Clarity].

[Cogburn]

Given the state in which you said you wrote your thoughts, I waited until I was in the same frame of mind to answer so I should be just as cohesive. ;)


- I don't really favor excessive restriction on player groups. There are people out there who're pretty picky about who they'll play with (as well as those who prefer big groups, small groups, no groups, etc.) If there are fewer groups around (especially if things are overtly slanted in the favor of monolithic groups,) these types of people are just going to go on soloing. A small player group is better than a soloer for most tasks, and there are tasks for small player groups to handle that larger groups are rarely efficient enough to handle. There's reasonable use for a variety of group sizes, so I don't see a reason for tight restrictions.

- I think the combinatory structure ideas are best reserved as additional coordination ideas rather than a prerequisite to forming a fully recognized entity. Coming from a different PlanetSide background than you, a lot of what has made FC work is slow recruitment, and some of the most perilous times for our outfit in the past two years have been the weeks and months immediately following a big recruitment push. Adding a large group of guys into an existing group can seriously change the "spirit" of what exists. If there's no way to form a "house" other than to dump your guys in the tank with 2 other companies we'd probably just have to work on raising the commanders to form the 2 subgroups ourselves. Tools to encourage cooperation, not forcing a strict ideal of what a player group should be. It's fine in the military, but this is a game.


Ok... I reread what I had posted just to be sure I didn't say something I didn't mean. There are no restrictions OR minimum requirements to form a Company that I have planned. I think the SOE minimum of 10 to form an outfit is sufficent for our purposes of forming a Company.

Now I couldn't see the 666th and FC saying "Wow! We're a perfect match! Let's work together all the time under one banner!" BUT... I CAN see other like minded groups coming together for greater battlefield effect... This was the purpose of the abandoned "Alliance" structure in PlanetSide. What's different here is, a House is a LARGE entity. It has LARGE capabilities and LARGE responsibilities. If you want to build a base for yourself, you must guarentee that you have the wherewithall to not only maintain it, but to keep it. Otherwise its a lot of wasted effort.

I added the Rank requirement to forming a House only as a proliferation control. If that has an unintended consequence other than what I've discussed I think I might have missed your point.


- Ups and downs to construction. If you can build too much you'll end up with house-owned cities that others in competition may be reluctant to defend. If it's too expensive to build you'll have a hard time finding anyone to take that first initiative. Ideally, I think, we need to encourage any large outpost to be a collaborative effort, both to reduce the necessary investment and increase the number of people tied to defending it. Things like making sure OP earnable from a structure is significant enough to pay for the structure, but is not generated by your own units. Likewise nor is providing power to your own structures beneficial, etc. in a way that it becomes much more sustainable when different poeple handle different tasks.


There's no reason we just can't say "Hey, you get only one building at a time and it cannot be any bigger than X by X and that's the rules so STFU." We can place ANY limitations on things we want. Not to mention, an upkeep cost is essential. If you want to build a base w/ 20 Anti-Aircraft batteries thats gonna suck up HUGE daily resources. The goal between cost of building and cost of maintenance should be to aim for structures around the size of the average Outpost. Just a small parcel of land that a House can call their own. It can be raided... it can be blockaded... it can be rendered useless... But it could have some superior benefits too. I think that line of thinking requires its own thread. :)

[abathur]

Given the state in which you said you wrote your thoughts, I waited until I was in the same frame of mind to answer so I should be just as cohesive. ;)


- I don't really favor excessive restriction on player groups. There are people out there who're pretty picky about who they'll play with (as well as those who prefer big groups, small groups, no groups, etc.) If there are fewer groups around (especially if things are overtly slanted in the favor of monolithic groups,) these types of people are just going to go on soloing. A small player group is better than a soloer for most tasks, and there are tasks for small player groups to handle that larger groups are rarely efficient enough to handle. There's reasonable use for a variety of group sizes, so I don't see a reason for tight restrictions.

- I think the combinatory structure ideas are best reserved as additional coordination ideas rather than a prerequisite to forming a fully recognized entity. Coming from a different PlanetSide background than you, a lot of what has made FC work is slow recruitment, and some of the most perilous times for our outfit in the past two years have been the weeks and months immediately following a big recruitment push. Adding a large group of guys into an existing group can seriously change the "spirit" of what exists. If there's no way to form a "house" other than to dump your guys in the tank with 2 other companies we'd probably just have to work on raising the commanders to form the 2 subgroups ourselves. Tools to encourage cooperation, not forcing a strict ideal of what a player group should be. It's fine in the military, but this is a game.


Ok... I reread what I had posted just to be sure I didn't say something I didn't mean. There are no restrictions OR minimum requirements to form a Company that I have planned. I think the SOE minimum of 10 to form an outfit is sufficent for our purposes of forming a Company.

Now I couldn't see the 666th and FC saying "Wow! We're a perfect match! Let's work together all the time under one banner!" BUT... I CAN see other like minded groups coming together for greater battlefield effect... This was the purpose of the abandoned "Alliance" structure in PlanetSide. What's different here is, a House is a LARGE entity. It has LARGE capabilities and LARGE responsibilities. If you want to build a base for yourself, you must guarentee that you have the wherewithall to not only maintain it, but to keep it. Otherwise its a lot of wasted effort.

I added the Rank requirement to forming a House only as a proliferation control. If that has an unintended consequence other than what I've discussed I think I might have missed your point.


- Ups and downs to construction. If you can build too much you'll end up with house-owned cities that others in competition may be reluctant to defend. If it's too expensive to build you'll have a hard time finding anyone to take that first initiative. Ideally, I think, we need to encourage any large outpost to be a collaborative effort, both to reduce the necessary investment and increase the number of people tied to defending it. Things like making sure OP earnable from a structure is significant enough to pay for the structure, but is not generated by your own units. Likewise nor is providing power to your own structures beneficial, etc. in a way that it becomes much more sustainable when different poeple handle different tasks.


There's no reason we just can't say "Hey, you get only one building at a time and it cannot be any bigger than X by X and that's the rules so STFU." We can place ANY limitations on things we want. Not to mention, an upkeep cost is essential. If you want to build a base w/ 20 Anti-Aircraft batteries thats gonna suck up HUGE daily resources. The goal between cost of building and cost of maintenance should be to aim for structures around the size of the average Outpost. Just a small parcel of land that a House can call their own. It can be raided... it can be blockaded... it can be rendered useless... But it could have some superior benefits too. I think that line of thinking requires its own thread. :)


In the sense that presumably there are benefits a house will have that a company will not, in the sense that a certain "rank" is required for anyone to first form a company (meaning no or rather few companies in the beginning and further beyond that before houses are being formed (unless people are being really hasty about forming houses just because there aren't an ample number of groups to pick from yet. In the sense that presumably a smaller group that doesn't want to combine with 2 existing groups they're required to raise two extra commanders--without the resources of larger groups in the first place--before they can form up. (additionally there are inevitably going to be ego issues with combining 3 companies under one house in many instances. ) If we really want to do it that way, that's fine--however, I'm still of the mind that all critical functionality should be free and all standard functionality should be available at the low level of organization. People won't be happy being forced into molds (there's always complaining when its one way to do things and you're essentially penalized for not doing it this way.) Place some much larger structures or somesuch in an alliance/house only category--stuff that has nice features but is not really necessary and its absence doesn't guarantee defeat, work on making the incentive to form alliances. Perhaps I'm misreading but it feels more like "you'll do it this way if you want to be effective" rather than letting the players come up with what is and isn't effective.

Ultimately, a house can be a LARGE entity, but when you get a LARGE entity whos responsbility it is to hold THEIR base, if the rest of the empire isn't in love with said house, they're going to forget about defending their shit if there's something more fun to go do. Self-sufficiency is fine, and it's something the 666th is used to but in reality a house is a part of a whole and as such should be more commited to the goals of the whole. It feels like this is being designed with monolithic player organizations like the 666th running around, yet note there are only a handful of those in operation across all servers throughout the history of PS. I don't think it's prudent to design a game of an as yet unknown scale, especially where the playerbase is concerned and assume that you'll be able to find 1000 players in a faction that want to play together, much less repeat that for multiple houses. I've played on a MUD for something like 4 years now, and in the past couple they've been through multiple PK systems, all of one really are good systems, and could work great--the problem however, which is nearly killing the game, those systems only work at a certain scale, a scale the game was not maintaining when they were put in. Without the scale to make them work, good system after good system have been a plague upon the game driving populations further down. I can't say I KNOW this is what you're going to do, but if I think you're doing it, I'm going to grab you and shake violently (you, not me) until I feel like this is not the path being travelled. I've watched mistakes like this practically kill a game I love, so yes, I react if I think I might be seeing it.

Upkeep costs are of course essential, but there's also a good amount of room for other outfits to get really great return on their smaller investments when they don't have the points to drive a large base by providing power broadcasting and power reserve facilities to drive the occasional monolithic base when it arises. Perhaps some sort of trained chief engineer would be required for a group to build structures, they could build anything, but having a chief enginner trained in a type of structure would make that construction faster, cheaper and easier to get positive returns on. I'm not really a fan of hard limitations. I'd rather let people do something, but have exponential penalties or complications in maintenance (ex. requiring energy runs ala ANT, you can build what you want with points but if you build too large of an outpost all on your lonesome and don't have the members to support constant energy runs to it, you'll lose it to energy upkeep.) Other than the rules of mother nature, nothing like that exists IRL, so I don't like it in a realistic environment. Sure, there's a punishment for walking up to the corner store, shooting 5 people, taking a shit on the counter and walking out with a loaf of bread, but when you go to the door with a gun in your pocket an error message doesn't pop up saying you can't enter with a gun in your pocket. It's a parental way to treat people, and I don't know many people who enjoy being treated like that. The grief system in PS (as bitched about as it may be) is a good example of punishing unwanted activity, but not saying "you can't do this (what do you MEAN I can't put a slug in the back of a friendly if he pisses me off?!)

[Cogburn]

I'm starting to think that we are arguing to agree.

Assuming we use the PlanetSide model for forming a Company... That's 10 people. You form 3 Companies with 30 people (not unheard of for the smallest of outfits) who then get together and form a House. You need not EVER form a House if you dont want to, but you don't get the benefits, either.

I've played a few games recently that followed this kind of structure, MxO being one of them. Using MxO as an example... you have a "Ship"... On your "Ship" was a crew. Get 2 or more Ships together and you could form a "Faction". Faction Leaders had whole worlds of things that were open to them that Ship Captains did not. In MxO, my Faction consisted of 4 Ships and only 50 people. The largest faction had over 40 Ships and 1,000 members. Ship Captains ALL had the same weight within the overall organization, with the exception of the Captain that is named Faction Commander.

It all boils down to how much you can control. Can you handle working some in-game real estate with only 50 people, 10 or so online at a time? Maybe... but you need some friends too probably to back you up if you get in the shit.

As far as ranks go... Note that I had mentioned that only ONE purchased rank was required to form a Company. Just one. There are games like EVE Online where it is an enourmous expenditure of time and resources to form your own Corporation. I'm looking for a middle ground. Some system that prohibits people from easily attaining some of the coolest benefits in the game but at the same time not making it manditory that everyone has one. Not everyone's goal will be to form a House. 90% of players will simply join an existing Company or a Company will join an existing House.

For those 10% that DO want to take on that responsibility... It should be something difficult enough to weed out the ones who aren't truly serious. And that includes individuals hobnobbing and politicing with Company Commanders to get them to join up, and then to stay.

Do you have an alternative?

[Cl2v2r]

Copy MxO to a point.

Say we have the smallest permanent organization equivalent to a platoon (IRL), the Company. Most small groups will be fine with that, have the Company leader, and an offsider or two. The CL gets a couple of abilities of some type, and his offsiders get lesser ones. The effectiveness of their abilities depend on the number of men underneath them. Capped out at a certain point of course.

Multiple platoons can join together to become part of a House, each of the CL's in the House have their effectiveness increased (or another ability). The House leader gets some more abilities, their effectiveness based off the number of Companies in the House, again with a cap.

The catch is, we have an upkeep. Not just for buildings, but for the number of members in the Company, and the number of Companies in the House. This way, if someone just wants the top job for the abilities, he has to make people want to be in his group. He also has to ensure that everyone else is pulling their weight or else the upkeep cripples him.

The PS equivalent is probably making CR4/5's acheiving a certain number (through the number of members in the squad they are leading x base caps) for each OS.


Tear it apart if you like, but I think it will force people to be good leaders, or choose good leaders.

[abathur]

As long as you're confident in making the system that "small outfit" will not die, and will still remain as viable an entity as "large outfit."

If you'r really seeking to replicate PS gameplay and environment, competent, able, non-gimped small outfits have been a big part of that history, on all empires, on all servers.

[Cl2v2r]

The way I'm picturing it, Company would be capped at maybe 30-40 people, while House would be capped at 30-40 Companies.

It'd depend on scale a great deal, but I think it would still allow 'small outfits' to have an identity, while allowing them to join/leave Houses to work in larger scale operations.

Think Company as WNx or Rebels etc, and House as the VAM.

It gives them a bonus if they work well, and penalizes them if it was only done so the big boys at the top could have an extra toy.

[Cogburn]

ok... a few things so that everyone is on the same page.

The game is FOCUSED around small Companies.

There are benefits for forming Houses because of the added headaches working with all those people can create.

All benefits have an ongoing cost for as long as the benefit is utilized.

Nonsubscribing players are automatically removed from Companies after 6 months of non-subscription. Non-active players that still subscribe (ie: pay) will remain in the organization at thier leader's discression.

I wouldn't limit Houses to 30-40 companies.... I'd limit them to 10. That's 300 people potentially at your command. That's about the PlanetSide average anyway, AND it prevents people from just breaking off of one company and starting their own because they don't like X. If you can only have 10 the House Leader is gonna be damn sure its not a waste if he wants to maintain all his toys.

[abathur]

I still might note some reservation about the type of people you'll end up with under one roof if you're combining up to 10 people who have taken the initiative to form their own company with the presumable intent of leading it, and then having one of these people above the rest. I suppose it's merely a social problem, but I think it may be just asking for extra stress and friction at the house level when you combine 10 people who are all there to be in charge, but placing one on top. Perhaps some sort of council/synod system at the top that requires a majority of ACTIVE(2-3days?)-leader votes to take actions and allows them to mutually vote on and approve the very set of abilities they're all allowed to take with and without votes.

EX: 8 companies of 20 form, enterring with 8 leaders, a council of 8 is formed. All council members may propose a rule-set (via checkboxes or somesuch) that (simplified) says that all council members may initiate building with the houses resources on their own, but that a vote is required to bring in a new company. They may allow a council member to appoint his replacement without a vote, but require a majority vote to add a new member to ANY of the companies.

If the group WANTS a single head, allow companies to withdraw from the council but not the house or somesuch.

[Cl2v2r]

Ab's solution to who's in charge of the House is probably a good idea. With a group of people with strong personalities (the leaders) there will be clashes when it comes to the House leader.

Hopefully that'll fix it.