ET:QW -- how they handled some of our problems

apathos · Post by **apathos** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:31 pm

What about the comm being able to assign 'bonus' objectives? Some kind of easily definable objective that people could apply for or sign up for once the comm had designated the objective.

For example, the comm sends the entire team on con defense early game, but puts out an objective (selectable from a list?) 'Drop 1 probe within 800-900m of each aleph in ________ sector' that one person can sign up for. When completed, the player gets a bonus (+ 10% HELO points on win, or -10% loss of points on loss; KB boost, I dunno)

If a player sign-up and comm is displeased with performance/needs someone else to do it, the comm has the option to remove the person from the objective.

The reason I see some sort of system like this working is that it can provide feedback. The comm can supply objectives, someone can take it, and (whether through code that can recognize completion or the comm designating a task complete (potentially abusable)) the person can receive some kind of credit for completion.

Right now a comm has to verify himself that objectives he requests are being completed. How often does a comm scream, "I SAID 10 MINUTES A GO WE NEEDED ______________ PROBED! NOW WE ARE BEING BOMBED FROM THERE! WAY TO LOSE!"

Now, maybe the comm just needs to suck it up and admit he didn't follow up, I don't know. I like the idea of some kind of feedback in a system like mentioned above. But, there are many things I might like that aren't feasible, realistic, or helpful. And whatever is decided, I know the dev team is better suited to determine the future of Allegiance than I am.

badpazzword · Post by **badpazzword** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 5:56 pm

Dogbones wrote:QUOTE (Dogbones @ Oct 4 2007, 05:02 PM) Grim was being sarcastic. And yes you misread my post completely.

Yeah, but not everybody goes sarcastic and I didn't to risk a derail. /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

QUOTE I also said "if there is going to be a metric as to how often pilots complete tasks assigned to them by the comm". I then stretched this argument a bit down the extreme side of things where points would be heavily based on whether or not a player followed a comms 'assignment' or not. No they would not be 'forced' too but part of the "fun" and "headache" of Allegiance is the human pilots.[/quote]

Seconded.

QUOTE There is a way to do almost everything you mentioned minus the points/rewards (but if the below is followed/effective, the reward comms form the points your team gets for winning).

I've seen this attempted and fail miserably (in pickup games).Alpha wing = attack minersBeta wing = scoutCharlie wing = constructor defenseDelta wing = miner defenseetcProblem is it never seems to work. Now we couldRename the wings to "Con defense" "Miner defense" "Miner offense" "Probing team"Edit: there are already wings named 'attack' 'defend' 'scout', etc...Give the com the ability to assign any player to a given wing (in addition to letting them choose one)Filter F6 (or provide another summary screen) so it is easier to see who is on what wingI'd be just a tad hesitant to try and implement such a system only to have it not used.[/quote]

This is not an implementation I would like. Indeed I was thinking of a system parallel to wings. I'll be more specific with some examples.

Let's say you are middle game, your comm is bomb rushing; a (useless) sector has not been spotted and Player1@SS (SomeSquad) has launched in a bomber. RandomNoob has launched too for decoy. Omicron is the home sector, two miners are in Titty Baby. I'm in a scout. Here's my objective list:

* Escort Player1@SS in Pothiola (6)
* Escort Randomnoob in Jellyvision (0)
* Defend 2 miners in Titty Baby (2)
* Defend .miner248 in Omicron (0)
* Find alephs (0)
* Scout map (1)

Now, here I immediately see Player1@SS has enough escorting while Randomnoob has none. I might choose to escort the second because nobody else is doing (Is this harmful? Yes and no. I might not realise, but I'm making Randomnoob's run more dangerous-looking. Still, I'm not doing what I'm supposed to do) or I might join the bandwagon of the Player1 escort. I also might think that Titty Baby hasn't got enough defense and join that. A random noob will maybe go and defend a nearly docked miner or a useless aleph, but hey! This is Allegiance, we can't fix Human Idiocy.

You see? The effect is far from having me following the commander. I'd almost say the effect is, on the whole, the opposite.

QUOTE Now if points are added, and the com tells me to go scout but I see a miner under attack (and the assigned miner defense team is no where in sight) and I defend it, I am going to get penalized for that. Now the com could 'reassign' me to that task noticing the same situation, but that would require a micromanaging com and I really don't see that much more benefit to 'assigning me the task' as opposed to 'Dog get your @#$#@ over to the miners now'. I can also see players that prefer offense even dropping if 'assigned' miner defense all game or comms booting players assigned to 'probing' if they launch in an int.[/quote]

Negative. In ET:QW you are never taken off points, and in the list I started to make, you only did when you failed making yourself useful somehow. If you defend a miner you will still get your points and (if your mission is selected) your bonus points.

The commander getting to choose important objectives would be an interesting proposal though, that might appear marked somehow in the listings.

Apathos: I'll get to you in a minute.

badpazzword · Post by **badpazzword** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 6:41 pm

apathos wrote:QUOTE (apathos @ Oct 4 2007, 05:31 PM) What about the comm being able to assign 'bonus' objectives? Some kind of easily definable objective that people could apply for or sign up for once the comm had designated the objective.

See above thread. He would pick from the already pre-generated list of objectives.

apathos wrote:QUOTE (apathos @ Oct 4 2007, 05:31 PM) For example, the comm sends the entire team on con defense early game, but puts out an objective (selectable from a list?) 'Drop 1 probe within 800-900m of each aleph in ________ sector' that one person can sign up for. When completed, the player gets a bonus (+ 10% HELO points on win, or -10% loss of points on loss; KB boost, I dunno)

WHOA WHOA WHOA Not so fast /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

The list needs to be

* short
* generic
* easy to understand

You don't want to have very specific tasks in that list, unless you want a three page screenful long list.

QUOTE If a player sign-up and comm is displeased with performance/needs someone else to do it, the comm has the option to remove the person from the objective.[/quote]

Nope. It's not like you can keep idiots being idiots. Even if you change a player's mission from "Find aleph" to "Escort Player1@SS", even if you have his ship autopilot to the bomber, you can't and you shouldn't be able to keep a voob from cancelling the action and having him doing what he wants to. Otherwise we fall into Dogbone's nightmares and you'll make a dog nervous and a kitty scared. /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />

QUOTE The reason I see some sort of system like this working is that it can provide feedback. The comm can supply objectives, someone can take it, and (whether through code that can recognize completion or the comm designating a task complete (potentially abusable)) the person can receive some kind of credit for completion.[/quote]

Well, that's the point. We could give a special "bonus" for the highlighted task, but again they need to be somewhat generic.

QUOTE Right now a comm has to verify himself that objectives he requests are being completed. How often does a comm scream, "I SAID 10 MINUTES A GO WE NEEDED ______________ PROBED! NOW WE ARE BEING BOMBED FROM THERE! WAY TO LOSE!"[/quote]

Well, the comm can always PM a person he trusts (lots of dedicated probers around /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />) and have it done. I'm afraid this proposal is not going to help much that.

QUOTE Now, maybe the comm just needs to suck it up and admit he didn't follow up, I don't know. I like the idea of some kind of feedback in a system like mentioned above. But, there are many things I might like that aren't feasible, realistic, or helpful. And whatever is decided, I know the dev team is better suited to determine the future of Allegiance than I am.[/quote]

Seconded. The comm will anyway know, approximately, how many people declare doing each task. The only risk here is not making the objective switch done... if you are defending miners and rip to defend base, the player is unlikely to update his objective if he's not rewarded somehow imo.

apathos · Post by **apathos** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:08 pm

Badp,

I like your idea as stated in your reply to Dogbones. I guess one question is how specific should objectives be? If objectives are too generic, the only way to know if they've been fulfilled is for a person to say so (commander, the player, etc.) and both of those are subject to abuse.

If the objectives can be coded in somehow, than they have to be specific enough for the game to be able to determine when it was completed.

I understand now that I was taking this in a different direction than you intended, so I'll just sit and listen for now. But in general, I like the idea of someone being able to look at a list/window/something and either see where everyone is and more precisely what they are doing than the current F6, OR, be able to look at a list of things that need accomplished and pick one up.

The end goal (in my mind) being a way for a commander to give direction without constantly repeating himself, and for a player to clearly understand how he can best fit in to the current strategy. And maybe also for the player/commander to have a real-time (or very close) view of what precisely everyone is doing/needs to be doing, more than just what sector and ship everyone is in.

EDIT: spelling

badpazzword · Post by **badpazzword** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:19 pm

apathos wrote:QUOTE (apathos @ Oct 4 2007, 09:08 PM) Badp,

I like your idea as stated in your reply to Dogbones. I guess one question is how specific should objectives be? If objectives are too generic, the only way to know if they've been fulfilled is for a person to say so (commander, the player, etc.) and both of those are subject to abuse.

If the objectives can be coded in somehow, than they have to be specific enough for the game to be able to determine when it was completed.

But in general, I like the idea of someone being able to look at a list/window/something and either see where everyone is and more precisely what they are doing than the current F6, OR, be able to look at a list of things that need accomplished and pick one up.

The end goal (in my mind) being a way for a commander to give direction without constantly repeating himself, and for a player to clearly understand how he can best fit in to the current strategy. And maybe also for the player/commander to have a real-time (or very close) view of what precisely everyone is doing/needs to be doing, more than just what sector and ship everyone is in.

EDIT: spelling

Seconded generally. Still, if you are going to nit pick lists on a per-person basis, it's just going to be more trouble than it's worth. What if I drop at 801 meters away? Do I get penalised? What if the comm mistypes? We want it to be as simple as possible.

Now the checks can be rather simple (at least theoretically) and I'm going to quote myself:

badpazzword wrote:QUOTE (badpazzword @ Oct 4 2007, 11:45 AM) Destroy target: target dies.
Defend target: sector is clear of enemy ships that can damage target. OR Target is still alive after x minutes.
Escort target: target's objective is fullfilled.

The list goes on, we need to precisely specify objectives before proceeding.

QUOTE I understand now that I was taking this in a different direction than you intended, so I'll just sit and listen for now.[/quote]

No, please do state your view. It's not like I own this thread or something, I just vaguely proposed a huge but cool-sounding change. /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />

apathos · Post by **apathos** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:56 pm

badpazzword wrote:QUOTE (badpazzword @ Oct 4 2007, 03:19 PM) Seconded generally. Still, if you are going to nit pick lists on a per-person basis, it's just going to be more trouble than it's worth. What if I drop at 801 meters away? Do I get penalised? What if the comm mistypes? We want it to be as simple as possible.

In the instances you cite, my opinion is that people need to be careful. Drop outside the zone? Pay attention. But that's just me.

But I guess we would need to start with the concept needed and defining down from there.

My 'vision(?)' is a system that would allow a commander to easily set definable objectives for one or multiple members, but not necessarily specific people. Maybe the comm can select a mission with the objective 'bomb Tactical in Oblivion' and he could set the max number of people allowed to fulfill this mission. He then sets the mission objective of 'escort/defend' said bomb run, with max number of nans/ints. People then select a check box or something to state they are intending to take on said role--maybe they have to be in the appropriate ship before they can select the mission.

If all of this is somehow preloaded, it would not take long at all to set/select these objectives.

If this is nothing like what you're talking about, then I'm obviously misunderstanding or 'reading into' what you meant.

The objectives you stated above would be great also; maybe I'm being too picky. I'm not a dev, so maybe I'm being very unrealistic here.

An objective communicated to the player; feedback to the commander about who is doing the objective; but ideally faster and easier to follow than just chat. How does that sound?

badpazzword · Post by **badpazzword** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 8:27 pm

apathos wrote:QUOTE (apathos @ Oct 4 2007, 09:56 PM) Ok, but just remember that you asked!

I'm bracing!

apathos wrote:QUOTE (apathos @ Oct 4 2007, 09:56 PM) In the instances you cite, my opinion is that people need to be careful. Drop outside the zone? Pay attention. But that's just me.

Seconded. Still we want to make lives easier IMO. Commanding is stressful enough. But that's just me.

apathos wrote:QUOTE (apathos @ Oct 4 2007, 09:56 PM) But I guess we would need to start with the concept needed and defining down from there.

Seconded.

apathos wrote:QUOTE (apathos @ Oct 4 2007, 09:56 PM) My 'vision(?)' is a system that would allow a commander to easily set definable objectives for one or multiple members, but not necessarily specific people. Maybe the comm can select a mission with the objective 'bomb Tactical in Oblivion'

Seconded. For example, when a bomber launches, it could have the following list:

* Destroy Garrison in Oblivion (0)
* Destroy Adv. Tactical Base in Tenaris (0)
* Destroy Refinery in Tenaris (0)

The comm would have a full list of all the possible objectives any ship you have researched can have (no Capture without bombers, e.g.). When he clicks one, it would get marked. So the list would look like:

* Destroy Adv. Tactical Base in Tenaris (0)
---------------
* Destroy Garrison in Oblivion (0)
* Destroy Refinery in Tenaris (1)

"WHAT? Randomnoob picked the Refinery?" Luckily this can help finding out before it's too late. /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

What about nans? We could say that escorting ships that are pursuing marked objectives should get marked too. So a scout with a nan would get:

* Escort Player1@SS (6)
---------------
* Escort RandomNoob (0)
* Defend 2 miners in Titty Baby (2)
* Defend .miner248 in Omicron (0)
* Find alephs (0)
* Scout map (1)

apathos wrote:QUOTE (apathos @ Oct 4 2007, 09:56 PM) and he could set the max number of people allowed to fulfill this mission.

Yeah, but how to force that? How do you force a 8th player to do something else exactly? You can force the objective to be different but pity that doesn't actualyl prevent him from de-facto joining the bomb run. What can deny you from nanning a bomber? /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

That IMO would only damage such a system. Because, you know, we want it to be used if we're ever going to implement it. Think of the kitten /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />

apathos wrote:QUOTE (apathos @ Oct 4 2007, 09:56 PM) He then sets the mission objective of 'escort/defend' said bomb run

Unnecessary IMO. Please note the list is automatically generated /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

apathos wrote:QUOTE (apathos @ Oct 4 2007, 09:56 PM) People then select a check box

I was rather thinking of a menu interface rather, since you cannot defend a bomber and the docking miner in another sector at the same time... ittle sense to pick multiple objectives IMO. Alleg has some good menu handling /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

apathos wrote:QUOTE (apathos @ Oct 4 2007, 09:56 PM) maybe they have to be in the appropriate ship before they can select the mission.

Yup. Notice that in my examples I didn't place "Capture base", "Destroy base"; a fighter wouldn't get "probe" and an int wouldn't get "find aleph".

apathos wrote:QUOTE (apathos @ Oct 4 2007, 09:56 PM) If all of this is somehow preloaded, it would not take long at all to set/select these objectives.

Yup. Ideally they are dynamically automagically created.

apathos · Post by **apathos** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 8:47 pm

badpazzword wrote:QUOTE (badpazzword @ Oct 4 2007, 04:27 PM) Yeah, but how to force that? How do you force a 8th player to do something else exactly? You can force the objective to be different but pity that doesn't actualyl prevent him from de-facto joining the bomb run. What can deny you from nanning a bomber? /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

I guess my thinking was that he could certainly join, but if there are other objectives he would be able to see those, and ideally would be wise enough to choose one of those. If there are no other objectives, nan away! If there are objectives, but he continues to nan, it's just an extra. If there were some kind of reward/benefit in this system, he would not get the reward/benefit. He shoulda gotten there faster!

Otherwise, I like the system you describe. It's easy-to-use and accomplishes the goal.

badpazzword · Post by **badpazzword** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 8:56 pm

apathos wrote:QUOTE (apathos @ Oct 4 2007, 10:47 PM) I guess my thinking was that he could certainly join, but if there are other objectives he would be able to see those, and ideally would be wise enough to choose one of those. If there are no other objectives, nan away! If there are objectives, but he continues to nan, it's just an extra. If there were some kind of reward/benefit in this system, he would not get the reward/benefit. He shoulda gotten there faster!

It's not really about speed, IMO, but about skill. If two (0)'s are quick enough to get into the real bomber turrets they can effectively keep out the guys with 38+ KB. Is that desiderable? Not really. And what if somebody drops?

Then again, you could hide the objective and/or make it non-selectable or mark it as full somehow. Like:

* Escort RandomNoob (0)
* Defend 2 miners in Titty Baby (2)
* Defend .miner248 in Omicron (0)
* Find alephs (0)
* Scout map (1)
---------------
* Escort Player1@SS (6)

I personally wouldn't use it but then again I'm no comm /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />

Mikhail · Post by **Mikhail** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:20 pm

This idea is great. I played ET:QW and I like the system.
But a commander just should suggest and a player should get rewardedregardless if he is the 8th men or not.
Maybe reward a player for lets say finding alephs and give him some extra reward if the commander highlighted the task

But to determine ranks with this we need a way to lose XP