Jump to content
40mmrain

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

Recommended Posts

I agree. I have heard couple of times when SL really loudly said .... oh jeasus we need commander we (SLs) cant handle it (chaos situation) 

But many SLs have problems with other SLs, imagine when thay should cooperate with Commander who is for tham just "an individual who does nothing" and give tham orders ? or suggestions ? or want them do something what thay dont wont and thay are SLs thay know best what they should do.

And thats a problem. 

 

People call for Commander in desperate situation. When team cant deal with enemies manuevres. And SLs want beat someone and complain and blame (after game is lost). Thats human problem irl af. Thay dont want accept responsibilities for themselfs. 

 

So lets give it proper name. That guy ... Commander is not Commander. Its impossible. Team which steamroll other side will not ask for commander. And if someone will take commander during winning noone will care. 

True name for ingame "Commander" is Support or Doormat or D*ck or Id*iot. And if that guy will not call airstrike/artilery in right time to support egoistish second squad than he is most dumb commander ever. Thats reality in 80% of situation. And after lose game everyone will blame him. So really enjoyable role isnt it ? 

 

So yes there are situation when leadership is needed. But its doubtful in game. SLs are damn higher than Commander itself. Thats the reality. With that we have to build this role (if at all)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thread and several others revolving around commander can be simply ended by renaming the commander to something else. A UAV operator, intelligence officer, long-range recon dude, whatever. When we remove the wrongly percieved "need" for the guy to actually give orders to or have power over anyone instead of simply advising on enemy movement, there isn't much else left to discuss.

 

/solved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the ability of a commander to punish SLs who don't cater to their every whim would be abused far too often in pub matches.

 

If implemented they should be able to offer incentives only for filling an objective given by the commander, not punishments.

 

I have to agree with MultiSquid though, I think naming the position intelligence officer or some such is a better route to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A dirty way of ensuring the primacy of the Commander-role would be to shut down Squad-to-Squad comms so all Squad to Squad cooperation would be via the Commander or not at all. The Chain of command would be sealed up pretty airtight right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UAV operator would not work for Squad because it would be almost a cheat that would prevent flanking and make any strategy and tactics worthless when you would be spotted. Luck at the map every 2 or at least 4 min and you will have a ruff idea where thous enemy squads are without completely ruining the game!  

 

 

Share this post


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

UAV operator would not work for Squad because it would be almost a cheat that would prevent flanking and make any strategy and tactics worthless when you would be spotted. Luck at the map every 2 or at least 4 min and you will have a ruff idea where thous enemy squads are without completely ruining the game!  

 

 

Then you send out a squad to destroy the UAV and or the operator or both.  Then you attack.  :)

 

When the UAV got shot down in BF2 and you were commander, you lost the blips on the screen and the commander was blind but he still had his scan he could do every once in a while that gave him a snapshot of map that was ever changing.  For every measure there is a counter measure, if you see a UAV in the sky, shoot it down, if your commander says this is where the guy is controlling the UAV you go take him out.  That is war.

Edited by XRobinson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When i play SL i really like when the other squad leaders tell me what i can do to help ( since i don't play squad leader alot ) , and most of the times i love to do the "missions" i am given by them . 

But in rare occasions i stumble upon very competitive hardcore players that when you do a small mistake they become very toxic and scream at you like they are losing a real war . 

These are the type of ****ers are the reason i am afriad of a commander feature . 

But in the end of the day , most friendly squad leaders are not toxic and i'll gladly follow them into battle :P .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Tacticus Maximus said:

A dirty way of ensuring the primacy of the Commander-role would be to shut down Squad-to-Squad comms so all Squad to Squad cooperation would be via the Commander or not at all. The Chain of command would be sealed up pretty airtight right there.

That would be great when the commander disconnects for some reason...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RipGroove said:

That would be great when the commander disconnects for some reason...

I believe it would become tense at that juncture, presupposing the thought of disconnects would never enter the mind of the developers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Commander please. I don't see any way to successfully implement this role in squad. It will create more problems than it would add benefits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, MeFirst said:

No Commander please. I don't see any way to successfully implement this role in squad. It will create more problems than it would add benefits. 

Sometimes when I played commander on BF2 I noticed that some SL's were angry that they did not get any orders after they completed an order, sometimes the commander was dead and couldn't command, because the other team had a squad whose sole purpose was to take out the enemy commander so that would cause their team to lose.  Now those upset SL's that had no orders had to look the map and figure out what to do on their own without the commander because he was either dead or there wasn't one.  So, what I'm trying to say is the game still works whether you got a commander or not. But your chances are improved if you have one that is helping your team win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Tacticus Maximus said:

I believe it would become tense at that juncture, presupposing the thought of disconnects would never enter the mind of the developers.

Exactly, having a commander disconnect leaving Squads unable to communicate would be disastrous for the game and its future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/09/2018 at 8:16 PM, Tacticus Maximus said:

A dirty way of ensuring the primacy of the Commander-role would be to shut down Squad-to-Squad comms so all Squad to Squad cooperation would be via the Commander or not at all. The Chain of command would be sealed up pretty airtight right there.

I think the chance of something like this happening in Squad is extremely slim, the same way enemies won't ever be able to hear your local comms. Not only would shutting down squad-squad comms go directly against the whole spirit of the game, it would drive people away from using the ingame comms and cause them to rely on 3rd party voice apps. Also, I think the commander absolutely has to be a bonus, a force multiplier, not a necessity in each and every game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UAV should never be a magical spotter. The operator of the UAV would have to manually identify and mark targets, perhaps giving them SL like marking powers. To see some areas they would have to fly low and be vulnerable and also give audio clues to the people on the ground who could hide. If they don't spot the enemy there is no mark on the map.

 

Nothing should be automated and to aid gameplay the UAV operator should need to be within a relatively low range of the UAV. This would force them to put the control vehicle at risk to penetrate deeply and the enemy spotting the UAV might initiate a search to find the command vehicle. Everything should be risk/reward based.

Share this post


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

UAV should never be a magical spotter. The operator of the UAV would have to manually identify and mark targets, perhaps giving them SL like marking powers. To see some areas they would have to fly low and be vulnerable and also give audio clues to the people on the ground who could hide. If they don't spot the enemy there is no mark on the map.

 

Nothing should be automated and to aid gameplay the UAV operator should need to be within a relatively low range of the UAV. This would force them to put the control vehicle at risk to penetrate deeply and the enemy spotting the UAV might initiate a search to find the command vehicle. Everything should be risk/reward based.

In this situation the Army has a two man crew inside a trailer for a Stryker brigade. 

 

 

Edited by XRobinson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ripgroove: I was implying that the developer would be able to have disconnects in mind and come up with some slick way of bumping a remaining SL up to commander in case of a disconnect.

 

@Multisquid: The suggestion was aimed at making sure that the commander-role could not simply be ignored by SL's. (Which has been presented as a major obstacle to the commander-role as such.) I never suggested stripping the commander of his goodie-bag, be it UAV, heavy offboard Arty or whatever.

 

I don't regard closing squad-to-squad comms in favor of strict line of command as being counter to the intentions of the game, quite the opposite. Making sure the player HAS to rely on the others in some form or other is what the game is all about imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This forum is about "Squad" not the fictional game called "Commander" :)

 

If I make a squad it is because I want to lead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2018 at 12:33 PM, XRobinson said:

In this situation the Army has a two man crew inside a trailer for a Stryker brigade. 

 

 

I could definitely see a build-able structure like a trailer and one that launches the UAV to be implemented. Seems like it would easy enough. The build cost would just need to be balanced but I really think it would simple to balance how effective the unmanned drone would be on the battlefield. Not sure if these normally have infrared vision capabilities but I assume they do so whether or not that is implemented would be a huge advantage. I see it being a crucial role of a logistics squad if something like this is added.

Share this post


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

This forum is about "Squad" not the fictional game called "Commander" :)

 

If I make a squad it is because I want to lead.

But this thread on this forum is about:" the future commander feature and how it can be properly implemented"  isn't it?  :)  Squad leaders can be team leaders too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to remind people yet again that experiences shape our opinions. Its clear that most of you never experienced a abusive Admin who misused his Admin cam to relay the exact locations of players to a enemy squad. Not sure when you can still see the Admin cam but for a long, long time you could see it flying around. I found myself more than three times on the receiving side and once on the side of the SL who was given those informations (I was just a LITTLE bit upset about the situation and made a break from the game for almost a month). Thats is exactly what you want, without the ability to see inside buildings. Its great when you are using it but not for the receiving side. And to the people who say that it can be balanced by being easy to destroy: first when you get spotted its over with any flanking and you will be attacked soon after and second when it is easy to destroy than it wont stay up for long so why have it in game anyway ?

 

10 years ago I would be for it not knowing what I would rally get. Now what would I get is a mini-game that would completely compromise tactics and strategy. Never asked yourself why there is a counter UAV ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to say how unbalanced such a thing would make the game. For realistic purposes, a UAV acting as reconnaissance for any high grade military in this game would definitely be okay, but definitely would be a pain in the ass for any insurgent type forces or low tech forces. The balancing they already do for low tech factions vs high tech factions is decent enough to where it doesn't feel unplayable, and something like this might just put it a little overboard. The simple way to make it fair would be to only allow it for factions that are equal tech for instance like US vs Russia. But to implement something that significant and only have it on a fraction of the layers would be dumb.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Bashinbagels said:

It's hard to say how unbalanced such a thing would make the game. For realistic purposes, a UAV acting as reconnaissance for any high grade military in this game would definitely be okay, but definitely would be a pain in the ass for any insurgent type forces or low tech forces. The balancing they already do for low tech factions vs high tech factions is decent enough to where it doesn't feel unplayable, and something like this might just put it a little overboard. The simple way to make it fair would be to only allow it for factions that are equal tech for instance like US vs Russia. But to implement something that significant and only have it on a fraction of the layers would be dumb.  

Another thing that is often being forgotten about UAV's is that they would take a huge portion of fun out of the game. It is not exactly interesting to know the exact location and the exact movement from the enemy. It would shift a lot of player engagement over to 1-2 players who control drones and would communicate what they see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Balancing irregular factions would not be so hard. I am not convinced any of this is needed but there are options.

 

Lots of options, any or all:

  • Surveillance cameras linked to a crappy mashup of screens in the HQ van/tent. These could be manually placed by scouts, could also give the scout a little screen.
  • Cameras with remote controls placed on towers and key points. These could be on a map layer as standard and controlled via the HQ with zoom, pan, tilt
  • Deployable cameras which can be set up near a radio.
  • Vehicles which look like the static objects laying around the map but with cameras.
  • Allow scouts to place markerw like squad leaders can.
  • Give scouts some fancy binoculars (even IR if it needs a big boost).
  • Some simulated audio chatter in the HQ which imitates a spotter kid with a phone calling in intel from his little village. (reality). eg "Lots of tanks coming through Village!". No magical marks but genuine information which needs to be placed onto the map by the operator.
  • Could require connection of cameras to a phone line, limiting range and increasing chance of finding these devices.

 

Balancing through:

  • High cost for loss of HQ, higher for regular factions.
  • Low quality video on UAV/deployed cameras, live transmission of video is terrible, allow review of higher quality after a time to simulate transmission delays.
  • Limited range of transmissions.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Another thing that is often being forgotten about UAV's is that they would take a huge portion of fun out of the game. It is not exactly interesting to know the exact location and the exact movement from the enemy. It would shift a lot of player engagement over to 1-2 players who control drones and would communicate what they see. 

I think UAVs would be cancer. Let the guys on the ground call in intel, that is the point of this game, players working together to outwit and outplay the enemy. 

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

×