Command/control TASKS and ISSUES

[abathur]

I think in ensuring a command/control system is the one for us we need to first make sure we have a strong handle on:

1. What some form of "leadership" could and should handle.

2. What the biggest problems with the current system are--don't worry about how to address them yet, just air all the various issues.

[Aftiel]

I personally would want the ability of people (SLs, PLs, Company leaders, House leaders) to signup under one CR5/warmaster/*whatever the title is* to form armies. Then you have the warmasters coordinating together and all that jazz (hopefully).

Obviously you need to be able to see a lot easier what resources you have available so when you're calling for tanks to base X you know that you have 10 tank crews in your army atm and can see where they are at.

As for the ability to form Houses out of multiple companies it could work out alright depending on how large you require companies to be. For instance if you could have a House start out as 3x10 companies I think that's alright. Forcing larger groups will be a downside. The more flexibility without sacrificing a solid game the more people you have playing etc etc.

Need IE to view this: Clicky (http://www.legendmud.org/raph/gaming/smallworlds_files/frame.htm#slide0089.htm), the whole things a good read but I pointed it to the section discussing groups.

[abathur]

1. What some form of "leadership" could and should handle.


- overarching strategy development
- developing strategy to achieve various objectives necessary to accomplish the overarching strategy
- communicating strategy through tools and words
- manipulation of forces through tools/words to accomplish overarching strategy
- ensuring loose ends are tied up (in planetside's case, ANT runs, gens up, getting that air tower we need back) through tools/words
- direct (front line) leadership of various branches of force (in a more tactical aspect) to accomplish strategic goals.
- receiving and routing intelligence from those who have it to those who need it.
- improving/grooming players for leadership and key combat roles
- resource management (knowing what friendly forces are where, directing friendly forces explicitly to where they are needed, might also be related to denying use of spawnpoints and such in line with overall objectives.)
- if user initiated construction exists... signing off on player initiated structure locations based on overarching strategy and smart base-building technique. (by individual or commitee, if structures turn up being reported and found to be placed as a tool for griefing, that comes back on these players.
- clearly communicating with other various commanding entities outside of broadcast channels
- electing a commander to be the voice of the group?
- ability to place incentives on important targets (admittedly, a smart exp system might be able to handle this without player intervention)



2. What the biggest problems with the current system are--don't worry about how to address them yet, just air all the various issues. I suppose general concerns with any system are reasonable (what should it NOT be, what do we NOT want to see?)

- players believing they know all there is to know (and that they know it all better than anyone else there) as soon as they reach the position--really gets nasty when their opinions leave command chat and are broadcasted to the empire.
- vast differences in opinion that are generally irreconcilable (most often in PS the age-old fight over taking ground or fighting, also spills over into those who will-not-stop-blowing-generators because it enables them to take territory, regardless of whether or not anyone else is having fun fighting for 2 minutes and driving for 5.
- multiple individuals voicing multiple contradictory opinions and commands to the faction as a whole. (i.e. those who ignore the concensus)
- spam
- intentional use of offensive command abilities on friendlies, especially for personal gain
- the largest player groups using all of their developed "commanders" as "cronies" to simply respout the idea of the highest ranking person at a given time whether or not it's a good thing to do. In a voting system, this would be more of an institutionally encouraged problem.
- being berated by everyone in your faction who disagrees with your call on /t
- having all information, relevant or not being passed through the vocal leadership rather than filtered by those who are less occupied
- Inability to clearly mark targets and their priority
- inability to place the incentives on the targets necessary to get them there
- preventing incentives on targets just being used to beef up the exp a commanders outfit/house/company will be earning.
- use of broadcasts to "get back" at a player by labelling them a TKer/spy/etc without any sufficient evidence that they're doing these things

All I can think of ATM, might update posted items under the first post once it's more than just mine.

[Cogburn]

Here's something that PlanetSide sucks for...

No strategy is necessary or required beyond a single continent, and the bases that link to that continent. There is no overall interplanetary strategy possible, because bases change hands too quickly in too many places to make such a thing feasible.

As it stands, populations or quality of combat are the only incentives to form multiple continent offensives. Furthermore, declining populations (which is inevitable in the lifetime of any online game) make such things impossible because you don't have the manpower needed for one continental campaign, much less two. The only answer is to do what SOE has done, which is lower the maximum players permitted on a contient, but even then the overall quality of "big" fights changes as a result.

Its that "global" mentality that PlanetSide is really lacking. I'm an average PS player but I'm an above average commander with below average amounts of things to command.

Thoughts?

[Cl2v2r]

Basically, we just need an incentive for people to go places other than the main fight.

I have no idea what it would be based on, or what the reward would be though. Maybe use the idea I had in another thread, where daily/bidaily global winners get a bonus for the next day or two.

[Aftiel]

Basically, we just need an incentive for people to go places other than the main fight.

I have no idea what it would be based on, or what the reward would be though. Maybe use the idea I had in another thread, where daily/bidaily global winners get a bonus for the next day or two.



With the power grid and control system being established in the plot as essential to victory it gives a reason for a lattice and the need to control key points, hack computers, etc.


Maybe?

[Cl2v2r]

Aft and I had a discussion on MSN... and came up with these ideas:
(which should probably also go into a seperate topic, but are still relevant for this thread in a way)


The incentive for people to go somewhere other than the main fight:

These are all depending on the layout of conts, and the types of facilities we have.

Assuming we have a lattice or network between continents, have situations on nearby friendly continents affect your ability to perform on the contested continents.

Think of it as the supply lines between the front and the empire have been cut, not everything can be done/acquired as easily when locked conts have been sabotaged/partially taken.

We need to replace the current system of 'you can't have any bonuses on this cont until you have the facilities on this cont' of PS. Instead, we use a 'if you have a locked cont linked to a facility on this cont, you have everything'.

So you have no Tech plant on this cont, but the enemy goes and sabotages your tech plant on the linked cont/s, bye bye Tech benefits. If there is no link back to 'sanc' then no globals for the isolated continent. If a respawn center is down, there's penalty of 10s to respawn.

But to stop that circle tag of one attacked dropping gens all over a continent, the base will repair 5x faster using 1x resources if no enemy is within the SOI.


This way, it requires attackers to be dedicated and stay at their target to insure it's effect. It also requires defenders to come and clean up if they wish to be effective on their contested continents without other locked links.

To help with defenders coming easily (rather than the 4 loading screens required in PS to sanc, move, resecure and come back) everyone would be allowed two or so (depending on number of conts) permanent binds to continent capitols (or other special cont place). This way, there is a goodly portion of people with the ability to zip over to the sabotaged continent without too many hassles. Maybe a respawn timer 2xnormal or something.


There was also something else that I've forgotten, I think.

(Oh... and I like parantheses :-[ )

[Kyraal]

I like the idea of making saboteurs defending their objectives if they want any prolonged effects of their actions. If a generator only needs to be down for a few minutes, for whatever reason, then they can still do hit and runs (get in quick, destroy, get out quick, move on) if they enjoy it.

I like the game mechanism. But the thing that makes me wonder, though, is how we are going to explain why it takes x5 faster for the base to repair itself if the enemies aren't in the SOI, and why only x1 resources are used. I think it's a good mechanism, but I think we need to come up with an in-game explanation to as many of our gameplay mechanisms as possible.

Speaking from a personal standpoint, I know I would start thinking, "hmm, why the heck does it repair faster if they move out of the SOI, and why does it use only x1 resources? It's not like they're actually doing something to cause this special circumstance to happen.."

Why not make the auto-repair system in general so effective the saboteurs need to actively keep the repairs slowed (keep hitting that gen, crack the auto-repair-sequence), or have multiple objectives in a base that need to be sabotaged for the sabotage to be 100% effective, giving any possible response team time to respond before complete sabotage has been executed.

Depending on how thorough the saboteurs are, they might even crack the alert system, delaying the warning that "Power at OUTPOST 722 has been lost".

Just a few thoughts :)

[Cl2v2r]

I like the idea of delaying the warning a lot.

As for the story side, we didn't even think of it at the time. I have no idea how to explain it. Hmm...

[abathur]

Dynamic Intelligent Power Grid.

I've had a similar idea posted for PS which was largely ignored. It would adapt rather well to any variable circumstance. Essentially, an intelligent power-grid takes steps to maintain power in all locations and makes modifications to power allocation based on various conditions.

An offshoot, if longer genblows are desired without continual reblowing, small structures can be placed along the power links that must be severed in order to keep the power grid from allocating power to the blown base for repairs. For PS, I imagined severing requiring an initial hack-time and then a constant maintenance of the hack (so it requires more than a single cloaker to keep it down, and guard that effort.) Interactive hacking efforts might make this even more interesting. This would also make fringe bases easier to isolate than important hub bases. (easier to blow and isolate a front-line base from the grid than the one behind it, assuming both bases are empty)

[Cl2v2r]

I like the idea of an independant structure weakening a link between bases. Would be very cool if the building construction thing could work.

As it is, using PS, holding a tower might have a little effect by default or something. As well as a respawn/supply point.

[Cogburn]

What if....

We made Command Abilities a Skill Tree.... but have it be the only skill tree that requires a minimum level to use.

That way: A) using Command Abilities will cost XP to remove and purchase
B) utilizing a Command Ability can have a cost in XP
C) Require Minimum Purchased Rank and Minimum Level so only players of dedication and experience persue the path... not just take it for the "toys".

Thoughts?

[abathur]

Could be interesting. Could even place some stipulations for different types of experience based on the type of commanding you're doing (or the skillset you want.)

If you're wanting command abilities to lead infantry into the base, on foot in the field you need a large amount of experience in this area... if you're wanting a skillset for leading the faction as a group on a planetary scale you'll need experience from multiple types of combat, from resecures, from captures, from resource runs and possibly even specops missions. Kindof FORCE comanders to get some detailed experience in all major game mechanics before allowing them to call the shots for all of the people making up those various divisions.

[GreatMazinkaiser]

Might be nice if high level commanders actually had the ability to move the fight, i.e. they can change spawn points for the forces on a world/continent. Basically, replace the old "gen-blowing" method of zerg-herding with a valid command tool. But, as all squads won't be on the same page, allow for a squad leader/high command rank override affecting that squad or commander. But loners that don't squad with people, they'll be stuck respawning wherever the commanders want.

[abathur]

It's open to abuse too though with rogue commanders (and will really exacerbate things when there's a 60/40 rift between the commanders on what to do or somesuch.) Not that I don't consider it myself. If it goes awry the people who can't spawn where they want may just pack up their shit and move to another fight. I've wondered if placing heavy incentives on the "finish" (securing the whole planet) might not help move people to listen to the better commanders and not sit at a mindless fight the whole time. It's a problem and a question, just not sure there are easy ways to solve it.

[Cl2v2r]

Basically, people are greedy. They want a reward for something that isn't fun.

By putting in an appropriate reward for each activity, it will ensure people will do them. The only problem then is the greedy idiots who will grief other players so they alone get the reward. The situations have to be such that they are 'unexploitable'.

[TangoWhiskey]

I think in ensuring a command/control system is the one for us we need to first make sure we have a strong handle on:

1. What some form of "leadership" could and should handle.

2. What the biggest problems with the current system are--don't worry about how to address them yet, just air all the various issues.



I think in ensuring a command/control system is the one for us we need to first make sure we have a strong handle on:

1. What some form of "leadership" could and should handle.

2. What the biggest problems with the current system are--don't worry about how to address them yet, just air all the various issues.


1. Organic OOB and sample missions. Teams/task forces can be assembled as required. i.e. - attach tank platoon to infanty platoon, attach Mosq section to tank troop. This listing here is a basic description of units and responsibilities.

Infantry. (I'll do the other unit types, armor and air later. This is kind of long.)

Fireteam leader/CR1

The fireteam is responsible for a single small unit objective or activity. Examples: Provide a base of fire for cover or suppression. Bound to an objective. Perform a door breach. Patrol within the immediate vicinity of a squad. Establish and observation post. The fireteam leader would be primarily responsible for ensuring the fireteam knows it's objective, initiates its actions and reporting back to the squad leader on status.

Capabilities:

Fireteam radio. Squad radio (on designated channel) Objective pointer.

Squad leader/CR2

The squad is responsible for coordinated small unit tactics or homogeneous small unit operations. Examples: Coordinate fireteams to perform bounding overwatches, breach and assault, fix and flank assault. Engage entire squad in single small unit actions such as establish base of fire, reconaissance in force or deliberate attack. The squad leader would be responsible for issuing objective orders to fireteams, coordinating squad special weapons (if any) and reporting to platoon leader on status.

Capabilities:

Squad radio (one channel for each fireteam) Platoon radio (on designated channel.) Objective pointer. map waypoints for fireteams. map mission indicators for fireteams.

Platoon leader/CR3

The platoon is reponsible for taking and holding tactical objectives. Examples: Sieze and hold courtyard facilities. Sieze and hold tower. Breach and assault critical base control points. Sieze and hold ground objectives as required. Establish fixed defense. Conduct deliberate attack or movement to contact. The platoon should be able to take the initiative to maintain the tactical situation or change it as required. The platoon leader is resonsible for assessing the tactical situation and coordinating squads as required to achieve tactical objectives. The platoon leader reports to company commander on status and support requirements. (i.e. - tank support)

Capabilities:

Platoon radio (one channel for each squad) Company radio (on designated channel) Objective pointer. Map mission indicators for squads. Map markers for support. (i.e. - to mark location of requested air support or reniforcement rally point.) Platoon CP/Rally point.

Company commander/CR4

The company is responsible for initating and completing large-scale tactical operations. Examples: Secure base. Interdict Warpgate. Interdict supply routes. The company commander is responsible for assigning tactical objectives to platoons, coordinating their actions and providing for their support and relief. The Company Commander reports to the Batallion Commander on status, current objectives and support requirements.

Capabilities: Platoon radio (one channel for each platoon). Batallion radio (on designated channel.) Objective pointer. Tactical mission map indicators. Support map indicators. Company CP/Rally point. Request tactical fire/air mission. (This is different from a support mission and is a prerogative tactical tool using assigned batteries and on call CAS.)

Battallion Commander/CR5

The batallion is responsible for all operations on a given continent and achieving strategic objectives. Examples - secure and hold continent. The batallion commander is responsible for formulating plans and assigning tactical objectives to companies. The batallion commander is resopnsible for allocating resources among the companies to ensure each is properly equipped for its specific mission. The Batallion Commander is also designated to call in orbital strikes or request support from other strategic continents.

Capabilities:

Company radio (one channel for each company.) HQ radio (on designated channel.) Objective pointer. Strategic mission markers. Bn CP/Rally marker. Strategic fire/air mission calls. Unit location/status markers.

Empire Commander in Chief/CR5 (CR6?)

Empire Commander is responsible for determining strategic focus and allocating resources accordingly.

Capabilities:

Batallion radio (one channel for each batallion). Objective pointer. Force allocation markers. Team assembly tool. Full discretion to detach/reassign units between batallions. i.e. - you may find yourself being reassigned to a different company on a different continent because HQ told your BN commander to assign a platoon for reinforcment.

[Aftiel]

I love the above post. You're either military or a dork like me.

[Cogburn]

*sensing ideas to bastardize*

I'm going to save any commentary on these awesome ideas for when we start to solidify the C&C structure, which looks like it shoud be rather soon.

There's just so much good stuff there, that I don't think we could do it justice without having layed out how the whole system would work.