Jump to content
40mmrain

On: The future Commander feature and how it can be properly implemented

Recommended Posts

It is said by the developers (such as from this Q&A video) that in Squad's future there will be a commander role, a single player whose job it is to lead the team and dictate their over-arching strategy.

 

This is unsurprising, Squad's predecessor Project Reality had a commander position as well. However there is a problem; Project Reality's commander was a failure as a design feature. It was rarely occupied, and when it was, it was usually not as a team leader that was obeyed, but rather as a UAV operator, or someone temporarily holding the position to approve an artillery strike or remotely destroy an FOB.

 

The reason for this is something I have pondered about without any real answers for some time. Why is it that the players will voluntarily obey their squad leaders, but not the commander? Why is it that it is seen as correct and justified to order around your squad members, and kick them if they disobey, but the prospect of a commander that can order squad leaders around punish/replace them if they disobey is generally met with skepticism or disdain such as in posts like this?

 

I think I have come to an answer to the first question posed. The reason that people do follow the orders of the SLs is in part, because they control the spawns. Spawns in Squad are everything. They are in essence, a simulation of a constant supply of reinforcements, more spawn-points mean you have superior numbers to the enemy. Not only that, but spawn points also maneuvering. They dictate what direction you will attack or defend an objective from. In Squad a team with far superior spawn point placement and volume wins, every time, no exceptions. Squad leaders worth the oxygen and bandwidth they consume know this, and will work to always be constructing superior spawn points. Squad members may not be fully aware of this principle, but they are slaves to the spawn system. Squad leaders will create spawns that serve the objectives they intend to fulfill, and by doing this create a path of least resistance for their squad members to follow their orders. Combined with other mechanics that reward being grouped together such as the medic system, there is all the incentive to listen to a squad leader's general orders. Why would a player choose not to obey the squad leader, which would involve spawning at a location much farther away from a relevant objective, and therefore the action? Why would the player choose to not group up, when doing so is rewarded with success, and playing by yourself is punished?

 

This is the key to Squad's success as a game that encourages teamwork. There is a mutually beneficial relationship between squad members and squad leaders. Listening to a squad leader's orders gives you the best spawns and reduces tedium, and playing as a unit gives you the highest chance of success which is obviously more fun than failure. In fact, it is even more subtle than this. Players may not even be consciously deciding to follow an SL's orders, but because the SL creates their spawns, they will act as if they were following his orders. Pretty good game design, ain't it?

 

No such relationship existed between the commander and squad leaders in PR. Where squad members depend on and can be controlled by squad leaders, there is no dependence on the commander for the SLs, and the CO has little way to control them. As we might expect there was little respect for the commander's "authority" in PR.

 

The solution to this problem I think is obvious. Try and design the game such that there exists a relationship between the CO and SL that is comparable to the SL and squad member. This solution I believe lies in the spawn system. Again, it is my belief that the spawn system is the most fundamental part of Squad, any way to control the players will likely come from it.

 

What I propose is that the FOB placement go from the Squad Leader's to the Commanders. Currently Squad Leaders have the power to FOBs wherever they choose. By simply taking this power away from them, the commander can dictate the SL's actions in a a subtle way, in the same way that the SLs currently dictate squad member's actions with FOB and rally point construction.

 

What this would look like, is the Commander will be able to mark the map with "FOB build locations", and only within a radius of it will SLs be able to put FOBs. Obviously this system can be refined in many ways, but the general idea is there. This would let the commander generally dictate the general strategy of his  team and give him real power, without needlessly micromanaging.

 

Currently SLs want to win the game by attacking or defending objectives successfully and to do this they need to construct good spawn points, so that they can direct their squad members and the rest of the team. With the commander dictating FOB placement, they will have the choice to either operate outside of his orders and suffer from failure and lack of coordination, or they will obey his general orders and enjoy success and coordination. This is the exact same paradigm that the squad members in Squad currently face over whether or not to obey their SLs. It is a proven and effective way of fostering a mutually beneficial relationship between commanding and subordinate players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's so subtle as you think. A better way to control FOB placement could be to give the commander the sole ability to assign vehicles to squads, including Supply trucks.
It's a very simple relationship of "I gave you this truck, no need to thank me, now I'll tell you what to do with it" or in a better case scenario "I trust this squadleader with knowing how to place FOBs, here have a truck".
Without the commander SLs could only claim vehicles already on the battlefield and only, if the SL that the vehicle belongs to currently approves it.
My reasoning is, that it's always better to have a more relaxed all covering system than a specific micromanagement system.
In other words, it'll be easier for people(playing as the commander) to learn to manage vehicles throughout the game, rather than responding to the urgent needs of placing a FOB order for multiple squads a lot of the time all the while time consumingly communicating with the SL, which spot on the map to mark exactly to get the best out of the situation, as they aren't themselves in the field or atleast perhaps in the vicinity.

Squad is about teamwork, but it's not an RTS game. The game should never start dealing with teamwork in absolutes, only in overlapping degrees of hierarchy.
The commander shouldn't take away from the coordination between squadleaders. Squadleaders shouldn't take away from the coordination between pawns and pawns shouldn't ask for rallies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peerun said:


Squad is about teamwork, but it's not an RTS game. The game should never start dealing with teamwork in absolutes, only in overlapping degrees of hierarchy.
The commander shouldn't take away from the coordination between squadleaders. Squadleaders shouldn't take away from the coordination between pawns and pawns shouldn't ask for rallies.

 

Im really not sure what you mean by this. Playing as an SL is vaguely like playing an RTS already I would argue. And what exactly does it mean to deal with teamwork in absolutes? Teamwork is already forced onto you. You can't make spawnpoints without having one or two squad members crawl up your ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

very interesting points... 

And i pretty much agree with your assessment that if the CO is going to exist, it must have this mutually beneficial relationship that is actually visible in actual game, because the other reason CO isn't placed high on the priority list, is because it wouldn't have a presence IN GAME (or much that is visible), that people actually see the difference, where as if your SL doesn't set good spawn points, you either have to play running simulator, or you just get torn to shreds. This is something the actual SOLDIER feels.

 

here's another idea to add more of this symbiotic relationship,

 

Another way of giving commander this sort of relationship you talk about with SL, would be to change the vehicle spawning system, so instead of just the same vehicles spawning sometime after they have despawned, the CO system would be alot like the FOB system & building reinforcements & upgrades to fobs... Give CO the ability to spawn certain vehicles that they need, but have the same sort of FOB/supply system of a set amount of points that can be spent and the bigger and more things you want, the higher cost... this would add another element to CO, resource management and tactics...

 

so you could make transport vehicles the least cost,

Supply trucks cost a bit more than the last

then technicals

then tanks

eventually helicopters costing the most

or some variant like this... (balancing is something that obviously would take alot of thought)

 

this would give CO a pretty important role to play down the line of the game of managing those vehicle resources making sure you can get supply trucks where you need, while at the same time providing enough firepower with tanks to support the troops on the ground... 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2017 at 11:26 AM, 40mmrain said:

 

Im really not sure what you mean by this. Playing as an SL is vaguely like playing an RTS already I would argue. And what exactly does it mean to deal with teamwork in absolutes? Teamwork is already forced onto you. You can't make spawnpoints without having one or two squad members crawl up your ass.


What I mean is to leave room for error. A wide spectrum of error not just 1 and 0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont want a commander

 

i want some intel and perhaps a special vehicle which can provide extra assets such as UAV deployment for modern military and "local intel" like a coms base for militia etc

 

keep focus on squads not on COC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, suds said:

i dont want a commander

 

i want some intel and perhaps a special vehicle which can provide extra assets such as UAV deployment for modern military and "local intel" like a coms base for militia etc

 

keep focus on squads not on COC

 

what exactly is does "keep focus on squads not on coc" mean

 

can you explain how you think a commander as described in my post would negatively affect the game?

Edited by 40mmrain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2017 at 1:32 PM, 40mmrain said:

What this would look like, is the Commander will be able to mark the map with "FOB build locations", and only within a radius of it will SLs be able to put FOBs. Obviously this system can be refined in many ways, but the general idea is there. This would let the commander generally dictate the general strategy of his  team and give him real power, without needlessly micromanaging.

You're basically describing the PR commander system from 0.6 to 0.7

 

It was by far my favorite iteration of the system in PR, although realistically allowing SLs to build by themselves was the best decision at the end of the day. In present-day PR, the commander still has the ability to remote-delete any FOBs that are detrimental to the team (someone fobbing up a flag 3 behind the ones in play) which I think is a decent compromise. 

 

http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f380-project-reality-news/24314-project-reality-v0-6-released.html

http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f380-project-reality-news/28325-project-reality-v0-61-patch-released.html

http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f380-project-reality-news/32919-project-reality-v0-7-released.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Psyrus said:

You're basically describing the PR commander system from 0.6 to 0.7

 

It was by far my favorite iteration of the system in PR, although realistically allowing SLs to build by themselves was the best decision at the end of the day. In present-day PR, the commander still has the ability to remote-delete any FOBs that are detrimental to the team (someone fobbing up a flag 3 behind the ones in play) which I think is a decent compromise. 

 

http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f380-project-reality-news/24314-project-reality-v0-6-released.html

http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f380-project-reality-news/28325-project-reality-v0-61-patch-released.html

http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f380-project-reality-news/32919-project-reality-v0-7-released.html

 

interesting, I only startedplaying during the 0.9x days, so I was unaware. It seems though by the wording that the commander was the only one capable of even placing the FOB though? I would wager some of the reasoning for squad leaders gaining the ability to place FOBs was that if the commander was responsible for actually placing them, that's literally all he would do, and the game would be like a commander-ferrying simulator.

 

with my proposal we could still have a top-down strategic coordination, but the squad leaders would still be responsible for actually constructing the FOBs, which wouldn't disrupt the current flow of the game.

Edited by 40mmrain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 40mmrain said:

interesting, I only startedplaying during the 0.9x days, so I was unaware. It seems though by the wording that the commander was the only one capable of even placing the FOB though? I would wager some of the reasoning for squad leaders gaining the ability to place FOBs was that if the commander was responsible for actually placing them, that's literally all he would do, and the game would be like a commander-ferrying simulator though?

The very first iteration had the commander as the only one, but in the later versions (0.7 onwards I believe) the commander could receive "build requests" from squad leaders, which would show up as a yellow circle which the commander could approve/reject... if I'm recalling correctly. At the very least the commander could manually place "build orders" on the map which would allow the squad leaders to place a fob within a 200m(?) radius of the build order. It was not 1:1 what you suggested above, but very similar. 

 

It played out great, and the rally points were super powerful back in those days, so it was the team that had the commander that could build fobs freely, which gave a great advantage in terms of being able to deploy static defenses etc. In any case, I definitely agree that I would like to see the Squad commander have some properly useful functions to his kit, whatever they may be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@40mmrain Here is one scenario, public server:

 

you play as SL on a server all night, having a great time. Working with other SL to resolve the conflict in your teams favour or having a good time trying.

Commander role gets filled.

He demands a FOB on a certain location. Demands you move to a certain area. Refuses to provide logistics or some other resource. 

You disagree but do what he asks to take on the challenge. You have no choice really because he controls the assets.

The game is boring, you are not playing it in a way that is enjoyable because you are stuck in a place you did not choose or are not able to make immediate decisions which can change the battle because someone has some power over you. Communication with other squad leaders becomes pointless because there is some "middle management" fu(|(ing it all up. 

 

The next round the same commander comes on with the same demands.

 

Do you?

  1. Continue to waste your time without the fulfilment of "fun".
  2. Ignore the commander and take the abuse which WILL come from this decision.
  3. Change teams.
  4. Leave the server.
  5. Go and play a different game.

I'd happily consider other options for above. I do not think there is a satisfactory one. Option 5 should never exist, I am confident that OWI will keep me and the greater player base interested through good decisions on this.

 

Squad is about squad leaders and communication/cooperation between squads. Please don't make it a COC game (Chain of command fyi).

Providing tools to aid squad leaders is what a good intel service can do, keep it at that, it is the same as commander without the agro which WILL come from public play.

 

there are many more scenarios. I play for the team, always to win, secondarily to win a minor objective if a win is not possible. I do not need someone to tell me how, when or to restrict access to the assets available which make Squad unique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think commander should absolutely have to be a SL and be voted in by the majority of other SLs. Atleast a majority(51%), maybe even something like 70%.
And if noone gets voted in then you just play without a commander, it shouldn't be absolutely mandatory to have one.
edit: maybe allow for a commander poll(1 person per poll) every time you cap or lose an objective to prevent spam and a full poll before the game starts when everyone can apply

Edited by Peerun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An intel vehicle/mobile coms base could be:

  1. a technical asset which if destroyed removes the advantage for that team with certain realistic elements.
  2. a player controlled asset which could be accessed by any squad for the benefit of all squads. more players within the asset could provide greater abilities. ie multiple UAV pilots, tactical map guidance via markers and overlays with intel from those UAVs, driver, high powered optics.
  3. an interesting gameplay development which could have risk vs reward. ie Move it closer for better intel.
  4. equiped with UAV which have limited flight time and require a full time pilot. no magical dots appearing on maps, just manual markers placed by the pilot. refuel at base but needs to land near intel vehicle to be recovered. if crashed/shot down have longer rearm time or max limit. Irregular forces could have crappy drones + "local informants" which provide similar intel.
  5. capable of direct communication with vehicle assets without the need for squad leader comms.

Aside from the implied COC, how is a commander different to a player who provides intel via an improved overview/UI and speeds up communications? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Peerun said:

I think commander should absolutely have to be a SL and be voted in by the majority of other SLs. Atleast a majority(51%), maybe even something like 70%.
And if noone gets voted in then you just play without a commander, it shouldn't be absolutely mandatory to have one.
edit: maybe allow for a commander poll(1 person per poll) every time you cap or lose an objective to prevent spam and a full poll before the game starts when everyone can apply

Honestly I don't think you'd even need any kind of voting system, just a big empty slot that appeared at the top of the roster. From what I've seen the shame factor based on ones potential failure as a squad leader is enough to ensure that only experienced folks with grande cajones will click on that slot.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contrary to what @40mmrain believes, I don't think PR's commander was a design failure in any way. You simply can't expect pub players to all obey one guy who they probably don't even know (hell, half of the time you can't even rely on pub players to obey their squad leader). That's never going to happen, not unless you give the commander abilities to punish disobedience (and that would be the real design failure here). In organized/clan matches it's a different story, but they're not even comparable to public games, as I think anyone who has tried them would agree.

 

PR got the commander right. He wasn't too powerful (even though the UAV could use some nerfing imho), he couldn't really grief his own team if played by a bad apple (with the exception of removing their FOBs, a power I've never seen anyone abuse in my 5+ years of playing), and if played well he was a huge asset. He was viable for playing both in organized and public games, even if he fulfilled significantly different roles in each. While I'm open to some inovation, I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel just yet, instead Squad should first build on things that have already been tried, tested and have worked for years now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, suds said:

@40mmrain Here is one scenario, public server:

 

you play as SL on a server all night, having a great time. Working with other SL to resolve the conflict in your teams favour or having a good time trying.

Commander role gets filled.

He demands a FOB on a certain location. Demands you move to a certain area. Refuses to provide logistics or some other resource. 

You disagree but do what he asks to take on the challenge. You have no choice really because he controls the assets.

The game is boring, you are not playing it in a way that is enjoyable because you are stuck in a place you did not choose or are not able to make immediate decisions which can change the battle because someone has some power over you. Communication with other squad leaders becomes pointless because there is some "middle management" fu(|(ing it all up. 

 

The next round the same commander comes on with the same demands.

 

Do you?

  1. Continue to waste your time without the fulfilment of "fun".
  2. Ignore the commander and take the abuse which WILL come from this decision.
  3. Change teams.
  4. Leave the server.
  5. Go and play a different game.

I'd happily consider other options for above. I do not think there is a satisfactory one. Option 5 should never exist, I am confident that OWI will keep me and the greater player base interested through good decisions on this.

 

Squad is about squad leaders and communication/cooperation between squads. Please don't make it a COC game (Chain of command fyi).

Providing tools to aid squad leaders is what a good intel service can do, keep it at that, it is the same as commander without the agro which WILL come from public play.

 

there are many more scenarios. I play for the team, always to win, secondarily to win a minor objective if a win is not possible. I do not need someone to tell me how, when or to restrict access to the assets available which make Squad unique.

 

It seems you completely misunderstood, or did not read, the post I made. The Commander would not have the power to restrict resources, control assets, or punish you for not moving to a certain area. Where in my post did I suggest a Commander would be able to do all of these things?

The only power the Commander would have if I had my way is that he can dictate where FOBs can be built in the map. You as a squad leader are not forced to build FOBs, and If you do choose to you get to choose which of the markers that the commander has made you want to build at.

 

In what way would this make immediate decisions impossible? FOBs can not be made "immediately", you need to actually gather logistics and then go to the location. In what way would this make communication between squad leaders pointless? How could the commander have the power to prevent two squad leaders from collaborating?

 

You are constructing a straw man to beat on, and that's it.

 

What bothers me the most is that you seem to think it is okay that the Squad Leader role already has power over his squad members, but somehow not the commander. Explain to me how the game becomes "unenjoyable" because you are in a "place you did not choose" when this is exactly what SLs impose on their subordinates? It is the same paradigm. What also baffles me about your thinking is that you claim that "Squad is about squad leaders and communication/cooperation between squads" but a commander's entire purpose is to INCREASE cooperation between squads. Squad members work together in a squad, in part because their squad leader is ordering them achieve a common goal. SLs in squad currently completely do their own thing. With a commander coordinating them, the level of teamwork and cooperation will increase, not decrease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, MultiSquid said:

Contrary to what @40mmrain believes, I don't think PR's commander was a design failure in any way. You simply can't expect pub players to all obey one guy who they probably don't even know (hell, half of the time you can't even rely on pub players to obey their squad leader). That's never going to happen, not unless you give the commander abilities to punish disobedience (and that would be the real design failure here). In organized/clan matches it's a different story, but they're not even comparable to public games, as I think anyone who has tried them would agree.

 

PR got the commander right. He wasn't too powerful (even though the UAV could use some nerfing imho), he couldn't really grief his own team if played by a bad apple (with the exception of removing their FOBs, a power I've never seen anyone abuse in my 5+ years of playing), and if played well he was a huge asset. He was viable for playing both in organized and public games, even if he fulfilled significantly different roles in each. While I'm open to some inovation, I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel just yet, instead Squad should first build on things that have already been tried, tested and have worked for years now.

not a failure? I guess it's a matter of opinion, but are you really being genuine here? The role was completely unoccupied for the large majority of the time. I went into youtube and selected the first 10 videos of PR that appeared to public matches and only 2/10 even had the commander role occupied. Isnt 2/10 a pretty bad rate for anyone to even use the feature, let alone use it right? Imagine a game where only Squad Leaders were used 1/5th of the time?

 

the videos in question

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0q2iCCFmsg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW1iEGAfpco

https://youtu.be/yvZlDtS2M_4

https://youtu.be/-EV0X__oPcc

https://youtu.be/WOkgUU9W5MU

https://youtu.be/8Tm0xA9Fbpk

https://youtu.be/uCZhocpyzPw

https://youtu.be/bT-rdoCxmRk - 2 rounds, 1 had a commander, 1 didn't

https://youtu.be/JagffbUsNPM

 

Edited by 40mmrain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Some things I mentioned in a more persistent game thread about involving the commander abilities, maybe able to give out reinforcements to squads that have limited spawns may work...for the commander role to reward good squads and limit or dissolve bad ones based on performance...squads that are wasting too many men and assets can be nipped by the commander because he can decide to limit how many reinforcements the squad gets iver time or cut them off entirely if they dont reform.  Maybe some see that as too much power, but SL's should like it because they dont like other bad squads wasting assets either.  And if commander abuses reinforcements ability he can be voted out and replaced by majority of all players or just SL's assuming there are enough SL's, thereby insuring balance of powers.

Edited by XRobinson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 40mmrain said:

not a failure? I guess it's a matter of opinion, but are you really being genuine here? The role was completely unoccupied for the large majority of the time. I went into youtube and selected the first 10 videos of PR that appeared to public matches and only 2/10 even had the commander role occupied. Isnt 2/10 a pretty bad rate for anyone to even use the feature, let alone use it right? Imagine a game where only Squad Leaders were used 1/5th of the time?

Don't be daft - squad leaders are essential to the gameplay, something you must have every round by default, a commander is not. That's why this isn't a feature that should be high priority for the devs, a rather complicated gameplay mechanic to balance, and one that would only cater to no more than 2 players each game. Commander is a bonus, something that can significantly tip the scales in your favor, but in the end you can make do without him. However, if there's nobody in your team willing to take up the position and the enemy team has at least a somewhat decent commander, you are more than likely to lose. The amount of useful  information and situational awareness a PR commander can bestow on his team is incredible - he helps win armor battles, discovers hidden FOBs, sets precise targets for his own mortars, marks buildings where enemies are hiding and more, even without actually ordering anyone around. Especially (but not exclusively) on maps that are dominated by armor and jets - vast, open spaces with little cover, where whoever can spot the enemy first wins the fight. As anyone can imagine, a commander with UAV is incredibly useful there. In dense cities where the insurgents have advantage of close combat a commander helps by finding weak spots in enemy defenses and pinpointing the exact location of weapon caches.

 

As to why people don't play commander - this role requires a completely different approach to the game, an approach that a vast majority of online gamers - obsessed with self gratification - just doesn't understand. It's one of the most selfless positions you can occupy, and one which bears a great deal of responsibility at the same time. Not unlike squad leader (also one of the least sought after roles), but you don't even get to shoot at stuff that much.  Most people don't launch PR with an intention to play commander, they launch the game to kill stuff, to show off their exceptional flying in helicopters, to dominate the enemy by a show skill and tactical thinking, or to grab that sweet (but often useless) sniper kit. A commander doesn't do anything  spectacular, at least not on his own. He doesn't offer instant gratification of a sweet kill streak. Instead he enables the others to do well, unlocks the possibilities for great plays by his teammates. Commanders don't end up at the top of the point table in PR, nor do they earn kills, but they often own a lion's share of every victory, even if they have to listen to people yelling "best squaaaaaaaad" at the end of each round.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, MultiSquid said:

Don't be daft - squad leaders are essential to the gameplay, something you must have every round by default, a commander is not. That's why this isn't a feature that should be high priority for the devs, a rather complicated gameplay mechanic to balance, and one that would only cater to no more than 2 players each game. Commander is a bonus, something that can significantly tip the scales in your favor, but in the end you can make do without him. However, if there's nobody in your team willing to take up the position and the enemy team has at least a somewhat decent commander, you are more than likely to lose. The amount of useful  information and situational awareness a PR commander can bestow on his team is incredible - he helps win armor battles, discovers hidden FOBs, sets precise targets for his own mortars, marks buildings where enemies are hiding and more, even without actually ordering anyone around. Especially (but not exclusively) on maps that are dominated by armor and jets - vast, open spaces with little cover, where whoever can spot the enemy first wins the fight. As anyone can imagine, a commander with UAV is incredibly useful there. In dense cities where the insurgents have advantage of close combat a commander helps by finding weak spots in enemy defenses and pinpointing the exact location of weapon caches.

 

As to why people don't play commander - this role requires a completely different approach to the game, an approach that a vast majority of online gamers - obsessed with self gratification - just doesn't understand. It's one of the most selfless positions you can occupy, and one which bears a great deal of responsibility at the same time. Not unlike squad leader (also one of the least sought after roles), but you don't even get to shoot at stuff that much.  Most people don't launch PR with an intention to play commander, they launch the game to kill stuff, to show off their exceptional flying in helicopters, to dominate the enemy by a show skill and tactical thinking, or to grab that sweet (but often useless) sniper kit. A commander doesn't do anything  spectacular, at least not on his own. He doesn't offer instant gratification of a sweet kill streak. Instead he enables the others to do well, unlocks the possibilities for great plays by his teammates. Commanders don't end up at the top of the point table in PR, nor do they earn kills, but they often own a lion's share of every victory, even if they have to listen to people yelling "best squaaaaaaaad" at the end of each round.

 

 

 

it sounds like you've just described all of the reasons how the commander role was a failure as a design feature. Unessential, imbalanced, not rewarding.

Edited by 40mmrain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 40mmrain said:

What bothers me the most is that you seem to think it is okay that the Squad Leader role already has power over his squad members, but somehow not the commander. Explain to me how the game becomes "unenjoyable" because you are in a "place you did not choose" when this is exactly what SLs impose on their subordinates? It is the same paradigm.

 

While reading through the thread, I have noticed the same thing. Turning most of the arguments made against the commander role from SLs into arguments against the SL role from squad members would mean we think that the manner in which SLs can dictate where the spawn points are, what kits their SMs use, where the squad goes etc will make the game boring and unplayable for SMs. 

 

It's obviously a different story because there is only a single commander for a fifty man team, but if you consider that in a full server, there will be 6-10 squads, it falls in line almost 1:1 to the squad members to SL ratio. 

 

I played hundreds of hours of the commander role in PR from 0.6 to 1.3 when I stopped playing, and it really was a huge boon for the team because:

  • SL all-chat could be cut down massively, as there was one person getting info from the various squads and creating a "coordination plan"
  • People could trust that their requests/information would be prioritized appropriately
  • The obvious intel/spawn advantage from the UAV and commander rally points
  • There didn't have to be as much inter-squad bitching about stuff, because if one squad was being extremely stubborn and refusing to help the team, it was fine, but they weren't going to be wasting team logistical assets :) 

The biggest issue is that for the commander role, it's a potentially huge responsibility, and requires a level head and decent planning and people skills. Just like there are dickhead squad leaders, there can be dickhead commanders which can really sour a round if too much power is given to the commander role, which is why I would rather see more "carrots" given, than allowing the commander to have too many "sticks". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40mmrain i am against any command position as I do not think it is a benefit to the game. I have made my reasoning for this clear.

 

the best teams right now have squads asking for help or offering it. sharing intel and filling gaps as required if someone - a commander - gets in the way of that it will detract from squad communication and increase frustration. 

 

change the name of the position from commander to intelligence and so many problems go away. provide for the team, dont order them around.

a tool for the team rather than an obstacle to Squad gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see only problems, not solutions with a commander role. On pubs anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The commander position is very helpful and in my opinion benefiting to teamwork, communication and coordination, which finally leads to winning the game.

 

As Psyrus i remember the Commander how he was played in PR. As a squadleader it cleared a lot of unnecessary communication, specially the all squad communication, but also some of the direct squadcommunication.

As an example, you as a squadleader need transport or a supply crate, which you would request from the transport squad.

Lets say in this scenario, the transport squad would get 2 requests at the same time, while also talking to another squad as he coordinates the LZ from his current transportation.

With the commander in the other hand, he would get all requests for transportation, has the time to order those requests in importance from all his other Intel and observing the map, and the transportsquad only gets his tasks from the commander, which less channels he needs to talk to.

 

There are a lot of examples, as Psyrus also gave, where the commander is important to reduce the stress from the communication channels, which doesnt mean less communication, but way more effective communication, which also means more time for squadleaders to lead there squad.

 

The problem with the commander role is, that in PR it was mostly looking at the map and talking to the squadleaders all the time, not moving, just watching the map and sometime the UAV. There are people out there, who love to fulfill that role, and they are amazing commanders, if they can handle that stressful role, its just not filled with action. Thats why i think the implementation in PR was the best way, it wasnt ultimately necessary to have this role, but those who recognized the advantage in using that role just got rewarded with a win.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I would like to see the commander have a "squad" in the game. 

Layout would be:

Headquarters. (SL being the commander")
Alpha 
Bravo
Charlie 
ETC.

Headquarters would be the only squads who could request pilot or crewman kits. Thus the commander is in charge of the heavy assets, and everyone inside of his "squad" would conduct supporting roles.

Edited by soraflair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×