Eliminate the commander role.

DonKarnage · Post by **DonKarnage** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 5:10 pm

Would there be a way to close the skill gap between noobs and vets, both for pilots and commanders? Could this be done without ruining the fun and dumbing down the game?

I don't command, not because I don't know the game, not really even because of the complaints and whining, but because I can't keep track of and manage so much @#(! going on at once AND come up with a game plan for the team.

beeman · Post by **beeman** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 6:47 pm

DonKarnage wrote:QUOTE (DonKarnage @ Jun 12 2011, 12:10 PM) Would there be a way to close the skill gap between noobs and vets, both for pilots and commanders? Could this be done without ruining the fun and dumbing down the game?

I don't command, not because I don't know the game, not really even because of the complaints and whining, but because I can't keep track of and manage so much @#(! going on at once AND come up with a game plan for the team.

What about allowing 2 or 3 people to have commander status during a game? I mean we've all heard of "backseat" commanding. Let's make that an option in the game.

DonKarnage · Post by **DonKarnage** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:15 pm

fishbone wrote:QUOTE (fishbone @ Jun 12 2011, 11:47 AM) What about allowing 2 or 3 people to have commander status during a game? I mean we've all heard of "backseat" commanding. Let's make that an option in the game.

Hmm, maybe a way for a commander to promote a player to an 'officer' or 'squad leader', giving them highlighted text and maybe sharing of the team funds (without it being split between them)

The gold coins would all be investors, sharing the same bank. Silver coined pilots would be getting a personal cut and no bold/highlighted text.

badpazzword · Post by **badpazzword** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:23 am

DonKarnage wrote:QUOTE (DonKarnage @ Jun 12 2011, 06:10 PM) Would there be a way to close the skill gap between noobs and vets, both for pilots and commanders? Could this be done without ruining the fun and dumbing down the game?

Remove depth from the least interesting parts of the game. In my perspective, had I have to name the two top offenders, they they are shooting and fighting the AI every forty-something seconds.

As much as I'd love to see commander-less Allegiance, I don't think I like the idea of making tech only available through treasures, though, and money from kills sounds a bit too DOTA-y.

Perhaps a different plan: you start with half the map each and all basic tech unlocked already, plus 3+ neutral advanced bases to fight over. This means that people can use all "ship classes" from the start (which I see as an upgrade to the previous system even for "competitive", what was the last time you've seen stealth fighters in a SG?) and they must push for advanced tech. Realistically either side will get two bases (and you'll need to make Adv Tac just as yummy as Adv Exp or Adv Sup!), the other won't and that mainly decides the way the game goes.

The team who doesn't get "mid" now has to cut the other team's income by going for enemy outposts and teleporters before adv tech is online (getting two bases to adv should be a fairly long and expensive process since it's basically a win button) and/or possibly other neutral sectors with other resources such as money generators and whatnot; all of these should also be pretty fragile (think galv runs rather than bomber runs for these ones).

"Getting advanced tech" from a base unlocks all ships the tech path has to offer, which reduces the tech tree to "just" general advancements.

As for a sample map, think this something along the lines of this hastily made picture:

(durr, on the top right hand corner O'utpost should be S'upremacy)

You can't push all three so which will you not go for? (In today's Allegiance the correct answer is sadly rather obvious, as I said Tac needs quite the buff for this to work and I have no idea how honestly without nerfing Sup and Exp.)

DOTA-likes players will immediately recognize the three lanes structure, but it's an uniquely Allegiance lane structure with "forward minion spawns" instead of turrents™ and a "jungle" that's there for "ganking" more than "buffing" and the middle areas are actually something more than just an empty area for battles. Or something.

raumvogel · Post by **raumvogel** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:25 pm

Why not just have it develop the tech tree in a set order depending on the faction, like a human would.

TheAlaskan · Post by **TheAlaskan** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:03 pm

Please stop considering this idea of removing commanders. The game should require someone to have to consider how to accrue, manage and spend money on technology that will help their team win. Managing resources is one of biggest components of an RTS, which Allegiance should be in part.

Take away points of contention like miners? C'mon! Miner d/o is one of the most exciting parts of the game.

I just don't get this line of thought to remove commanders. It's like saying, "aiming is too hard, let's get rid of the shooting at other ships component of Allegiance."

Post by **BackTrak** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:35 pm

I'll disagree with you here. The main reason that games take so long to start is that most people don't want to command. I'm talking about removing a bit of the RTS experience for two players in a game which involves many more people than just two.

Pointing out that people could learn to be better at commanding will not make those people want to command.

If you don't have someone commanding, and you don't have a good miner AI, then move the point of contention to the bases. If you chain tech to the bases (hold a base for x minutes to get the tech upgrade; hold the base to maintain the tech upgrade) then you've most of the same game play. The team work elements to capture/bomb/defend bases are still there. So is aleph camping, proxing, stealthing, tp2, assault ships, etc. Those elements are unchanged. Add some maps with more connection points, and you can get some guile involved to raiding fixed targets to offset the chasing mobile ones.

I'll agree it's not the same game. It may however be a more successful game.

Again, it's another game mode that could be offered like DM. I'm not talking about removing commanders for ever more, just offering up the option to launch without commanders for a different experience.

TheAlaskan · Post by **TheAlaskan** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:10 pm

Nevermind. Do what you want.

You guys dedicate a lot of time and energy, which is appreciated, but I'd hate to see it put toward something like this. Improving AI? That would be good.

Phalanxe · Post by **Phalanxe** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:41 pm

TheAlaskan wrote:QUOTE (TheAlaskan @ Jun 4 2012, 11:10 AM) Nevermind. Do what you want.

You guys dedicate a lot of time and energy, which is appreciated, but I'd hate to see it put toward something like this. Improving AI? That would be good.

why, that would affect effective commanding vs voobs. didn't u wanna have good comms?

TheAlaskan · Post by **TheAlaskan** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:46 pm

Phalanxe wrote:QUOTE (Phalanxe @ Jun 4 2012, 01:41 PM) why, that would affect effective commanding vs voobs. didn't u wanna have good comms?

Fair enough -- good control of drone AI does separate the men from the boys in the commander's chair.