Race/Caste/Career Gameplay Balancing...

[Supreme Cmdr]

In another thread, Gallion said:

quote:

---

Though to play the Trader caste or Explorer caste with only unarmed transports would be a bum rap IMO. For those that are interested in the economic side of the game - aka weapons running or smugglin - they would be best with the commercial caste IMO.

---

Correct. But, the armed transports do not have large cargo space. Gameplay balancing is the most critical, not only in single-player, but also in multiplayer. I have also been thinking of allowing the COMMANDER career, access to armed transports. This way, you can have a military ship in your team that just hauls weapons of mass destruction.

Multiplayer especially, will depend on teamplay. So, if one side decides that they're all going to play as Terran Military Commanders with Heavy Cruisers, I don't think they'd get very far into their careers. There is absolutely no trading for any caste, other than Explorer, Trader or Commercial. So, if you want supplies etc, you have to return to a friendly base and get repaired for free. And your weaponry will only be stocked with the default loadouts, based on whats available at the base. So, if you want Vagrants and GHQ has none, I hope you have a commercial or someone in your team who has a stash. They can then just put them in a pod, drop it, you pick it up etc. Imagine taking the fight to Rattler and his cronies over at Nevuela and then have to run home for repairs/supplies. Sure you can dock at any other friendly base, but they may not even be online or have the materials you need.

[Joseph Bosch]

Finely...i've been waiting to hear this cuz i love the trade part of the game thats why i'm the logistics officer for the orion fleet ,Remember you have to supply a fleet with weapons if you want to beable to keep fighting and i bet some bunnies plan to steal those cargo pods right under our Heavy BC's so its going to be fun trying to fend off Drop points from raiders and bunnies

------------------

COMMANDER BOSCH

ORION FLEET

TSUNAMI BATTLE GROUP

GCV - OBENBONE

ICQ:24625094

"For Orion Home and Soul we guard you"

[Gallion]

I hadn't thought of that aspect of the Trader castes in the way ye described it SC and I agree with what ye stated. Miltary operations require mega logistics support, so now there is more incentive to protect those fat transport vessels. Failure to do so may result in the pre-termination of a military campaign.

Then again miss the supply rendevous with that cargo pod and one would really be up the preverbial creek without any beans or bullets.

With a player selecting the Trader Caste (Trader, Explorer, Commercial), what would their incentive be as the player climb the rank ladder?

Bigger and better transports? - Yes IMO

Access to more lucerative commercial markets or goods? - Yes IMO

Higher profit margins? - Yes IMO

Get out of Jail Free cards (for those that get seduced by the dark-side of Galactic economic expansion)? - Hmmm...dont know about this one, depends how the coin lands IMO

Just some thoughts I had on the econmic side of house. Let's hear what the rest of the forum has to say. This should prove to be most interesting I think.

TTFN

[Rattler]

IF this is the thought side on this proposal, I know that Chavik will be flying one of those transports if I know him!

I need some real thinking time to seriously consider the possible outcomes of not protecting your transports but I do know one thing for sure! SC's right! You better not come out to Insurgent Held Space without one or more! "Hotel California" awaits those that venture out without proper support. You won't be checking out!

------------------

Rattler, Insurgent One

Commander-In-Chief,

Insurgency

Official BC3K Tester

[email protected]

ICQ 12894104

"Life consists not in holding good cards but in playing those you hold well! - Josh Billings

[Gallion]

Adjusted accordingly.

[This message has been edited by Gallion (edited 05-14-2000).]

[Supreme Cmdr]

Gallion, the next time you go off-topic and post a suggestion that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I'm deleting the post. Now people understand why I just don't bother anymore. Enthusiasm is OK, but for crying out loud, what does it take to me some of you understand that I know exactly whats going in this game and what isn't. As such, I don't need new feature suggestions, wish lists, thought processes or any of that stuff. I've got it covered. I designed it in the beginning and I know exactly how this next title is going to turn out. I hate to be harsh all the time, but sometimes I have no choice.

I created this thread in order hear concerns and feedback about the race/caste/career choices to see if there are potential loopholes that I had not thought of. But, true to form, here I am, reading about a wish list and feature change item.

Please, lets not have this discussion again. If you can't understand the very rules as I've laid them out, don't post. Period.

[This message has been edited by Supreme Cmdr (edited 05-14-2000).]

[Supreme Cmdr]

Now to on-topic issues....

1. There is no rank structure for non-military castes. Never has been. Never will be. In fact, I may not even put in rank structure for EarthCom or Insurgents. And I still haven't.

2. If you can't think of any incentive for being a trader/explorer/commercial caste, don't play them. Simple enough I think. The premise for a trader is simple: ..here's your ship, here's your crew, here's some money. Go forth and multiply.

3. You can't switch sides, change ships, capture+takeover ships, or any of that crap in BCM. These features, in addition to the ability to build on planets and in space, as well as the ability to play as a Commander of a starstation, will all be properly developed and fine-tuned for GCO and carried over to BC:3020AD (which, incidentally, is a complete, from-the-ground-up re-write of parts of the BCM/GCO core).

And Joe is right, there are a dozens way to either profit as a trader type caste or help your side of the conflict. I don't particularly want to go into battle deep in enemy territory, fleet or not, without a couple of armed transports, stocked to the teeth, in tow. Of course, if you get ambushed and your stash is destroyed, the enemy can just pick up your pods and use whatever they find to hammer you into submission.

BC3K was designed with a dynamic universe. Right now, the gameplay is just about catching up with the technology, which has always been there. In multiplayer, though you can still have NPCs, players are assuming the roles of these NPCs in order to directly affect the outcome of the game world. For instance, if you don't have a Paramedic ship in your fleet, you won't have the capability to tow damaged ships back to port, send over medical supplies, repair crew etc. Though your carrier may have a tractor beam, do you want to leave the battle front to tow a damaged cruiser back home? I didn't think so. There are over 25 castes in the game, but I am only allowing player access to a few, specifically for gameplay issues.

You guys have to think about why you would play as one caste instead of another.

For eg, why would you want to play as a Mercenary? For money. You've got the firepower and if Rattler and his cronies can afford it, then, you're on their side. That, in fact, is the only caste that can choose sides on the fly for money.

Why play as Police? Well, if you have a trade route that is important to your side, wouldn't you want to keep it clear of NPC or player Raiders, Insurgents, Mercs etc? Sure you can do it with regular Military craft, but what if your launch base is out of Military craft?

Why play as a Scientist, Diplomat, Explorer etc? Because they can get anywhere with minimal threats. For one thing, you could send a Diplomat player over to the Vesperons for stuff, without showing your Military face there (especially if playing as Empirian) and getting it blown off.

What about planet surface? If you are running around planetside with your crew taking out an enemy installation and those sneaky *******s show up at your base, how are you getting off that planet without a transport? The answer? You're not. Of course you can just quit the game and log back on...losing all your efforts up to that point of course.

BCM has a regular network of transports going from planet to station to planet to station. So, if you are a marine on planet Earth and you need to get to Mars, you have to go to a base, wait for the shuttle (on a regular interval) that goes from the Earth to GHQ, then from GHQ to Mars. If you are a downed pilot, then, you can do the same thing, but if you don't want to wait around, just find a shuttle or fighter and pilot it off the planet.

And for one thing, you're not going to be driving Humvee from one end of Earth to the other, on a full tank of gas. You're still gonna need to use an interplanetary shuttle to go long distances or you're not getting there. And if some jackass has blown up the starport, how are you going to get anywhere without a transport piloted by a team mate? You're not. So, you can just setup camp, 30 miles into a 75 mile journey and use foul language to subdue the enemy. At least until they figure out you're a sitting duck and put you out of your misery.

For the past year, I've been promoting teamplay here because I knew where the BC3K series was headed. Those who have not starting thinking about this, are going to be in for a shock. This is no first person shooter where its you against an entire force. Heck, you can't even take on the NPCs one-on-one in BC3K v2.0x, let alone a human player or an NPC for that matter, in BCM. Single (Fleet C&C), or multiplayer, teamplay is it. No way around it.

[This message has been edited by Supreme Cmdr (edited 05-14-2000).]

[Supreme Cmdr]

Thanks for adjusting it. I would have, but, but I opted not to, for obvious reasons.

Now, lets get back to the issues of gameplay so that I know I've got everything covered. I want to know what foreseable gameplay problems are present in the current race/caste/career/asset issues.

And btw, the commander career how has access to both transport types. So, you can now be a Military Commander (of any race) in command of an unarmed or armed transport. No need to have civilian(trader/explorer/commercial) castes in your fleet if you don't want to. These commanders still can't trade though, but they can requisition stuff from bases that do have them. Don't think you're gonna go to a station and take all the weapon stash. They won't let you.

[SpacePhish]

S.C,

So you're saying in MP we will have to work toghter and in SP we will have to use Fleet c&c for teamplay?

Can you use fleet C&C in MP? Let's pretend nobody wants to be medic in our fleet, can we some-how send a NPC medic to where the downed player is? Can we have a *S.C* type player back home directing NPCs to various *hotzones* in the universe. (is not a wishlist, I'm just asking about how BCM works). Same with traders, can we use the NPC to trade for us (probably not, they won't know what to trade anyway).

To what extend can the *player* control npcs? Is it governed by *rank* as in the bc3k? What if during single player I'm playing as a marine on a base, and the base is under attack. The NPCs is not doing a good job of protecting it, can I *take over* and start directing the action myself (using fleet c&c).

[Charles Lindsey]

Rattler's right. I will be trying out those transports. Along with Rico Jansen and just now learning Joseph Bosch I really like the trading. Dunno why, I just do. Really fun sending all the shuttles hither, thither, and yon whilst I patrol a region. That's why I would want to play as commercial or trader.

Least I wouldn't have Insurgent plastered on my CVD for people to take potshots at me. Would take people a while to figure out who I was working for. Sounds like fun. Mercs might be a small problem but that's why I wanted an armed transport and they are available as commercial caste. I'll be able to defend myself to a degree. So no problem there.

The only problem I see is how do you tell whose "side" a trader or commercial is on? Or are they free agents? Then it would just be his own code of conduct that keeps him on his side. I hope those traders stations are close enough to allow me to get somewhere on time. Time to study the game map again. Would be terrible of me to launch from GHQ and then go playing with Rattler.

Sounds like a blast. Can't wait to get my hands on it and see for myself.

------------------

Commander Chavik

Spectre Fleet

ICV Phoenix

Official BC3K Tester

"We Shall Arise From The Ashes"

[Supreme Cmdr]

SpacePhish, very good questions. Now thats the kind of stuff I'm interested in.

quote:

---

So you're saying in MP we will have to work together and in SP we will have to use Fleet c&c for teamplay?

---

That is correct.

quote:

---

Can you use fleet C&C in MP? Let's pretend nobody wants to be medic in our fleet, can we some-how send a NPC medic to where the downed player is?

---

Only if the server enables Fleet C&C. I probably won't because then it means that gamers will saturate the world with too many NPCs and bring the game to a crawl. But, currently, NPCs use their AI to go about their business, so, one may come along. Again, depending on if the server enables NPCs.

quote:

---

Can we have a *S.C* type player back home directing NPCs to various *hotzones* in the universe. (is not a wishlist, I'm just asking about how BCM works).

---

No, you can't for the reasons stated above. Imagine 16 players on a server, all with Fleet C&C access to stations, carriers etc. That would be one terrible game, performance-wise. In SP, there is no big problem, so, I will enable Fleet C&C there.

Anyway, one thing that I have been toying with is a way to have one player have Fleet C&C access to their own base/station assets for this purpose. But, that would mean giving them control of those assets, something I have decided not to do in BCM but to do it properly for GCO and beyond.

But one thing that I may modify is the asset based structure for stations. So, if you are playing an MP game, the assets that you get to choose from, are part of the station (the way it is now). So, if nobody wants to play as a Paramedic, you can just assign that asset as an NPC player and it will then just follow the fleet around. The problem is that who does it follow? Or does it just hang around the area until needed. Which means, that there could be minimal Fleet C&C to these types of assets that are already created. The problem arises: 14 people playing with only 2 paramedics NPCs. Who gets to order it about? Right now, an NPC will terminate current orders and follow new ones. So, you, for eg, could want the Paramedic to your location and enroute, I decide that I want it. He gets to turn around. You'd be pissed!

quote:

---

Same with traders, can we use the NPC to trade for us (probably not, they won't know what to trade anyway).

---

No. They don't know how. In GCO they will know how to trade because they will carry inventory. Actually the NPC traders in BCM currently carry inventory, so, I may activate trading with them (not just stations) but that would be between player and NPC.

quote:

---

To what extend can the *player* control npcs? Is it governed by *rank* as in the bc3k?

---

Yes. And only if Fleet C&C is enabled on the server

quote:

---

What if during single player I'm playing as a marine on a base, and the base is under attack. The NPCs is not doing a good job of protecting it, can I *take over* and start directing the action myself (using fleet c&c).

---

In SP, Fleet C&C gives you control of everything on the planet, just the way it does in space if you are a commander. So, playing as an EF Marine, you can do what the heck you like. In MP, the answer is the same as what I mentioned earlier.

One of the problems I see is that I don't think anyone in their right minds would give a marine or pilot, control of a base. So, even allowing Fleet C&C for these careers, is something that I may not allow. But, the scenario you present is an interesting one, and I'm open to suggestions on how to solve it without losing the game's premise credibility. There is only so much that I can put in BCM if there is any hope of shipping it this year, which is why, I'm defering most high-end stuff for the next title, without sacrificing much in BCM.

[Supreme Cmdr]

Charles

quote:

---

The only problem I see is how do you tell whose "side" a trader or commercial is on? Or are they free agents? Then it would just be his own code of conduct that keeps him on his side.

---

Yes, they are free agents. Your TTD will, in addition to your name+asset name, have your race/caste affiliation, as normal. In GCO, I'm going to introduce commercial corporations and the like.

Also, in BCM, I may allow (due to their weaknesses) commercial traders to have about 2-3 ships max. This way, you can buy other ships, stock them with garbage and be a travelling fleamarket. Hardly any code change, with the exception that I have to figure out how to get you to transfer cargo into the holds of those other ships of yours without having to put in the ability to switch to them (which is probably the way to go). And then, once you have your own fleet (more than 1 ship), you can order them about, just like Fleet C&C, even though you only have access to your own.

Then problem of MP arises again. Too many players like this and their could be mayhem. Though the MP engine developed by Nick (a friend of mine over a MIT) is rock solid and can do anything, it is currently streamlined for 16 players only and the crap introduced into the world, the more processing it has to handle in MP. I don't want to put restrictions on the number asset classes that can be played, because that would ruin the game. Imagine if, on a 16 player server, you can only have 1 commercial trader. I know I'd be pissed.

[This message has been edited by Supreme Cmdr (edited 05-14-2000).]

[SpacePhish]

Cool S.C!

Okay, maybe you could allow the host of an server to pick someone as the acting director. But then another problem would rise from this, who is to decide on the director for the other side? And what if the game is 3 vs 3 instead of 2 vs 2 (as in 3 teams against 3).

Another way I see it happening is to have the NPC do their own thing (since they know whasup anyway). Whould it be too much of a hassle if NPC players know where the players are? Limit the number of active NPC for each job to reduce CPU cycle time. So in a 16 player game only 2 medic is needed per team( one would work too I guess).

My last idea is I think the best one. Have the downed player automatically send a SOS signal to the nearest (or homebase, depends) friendly base, that base would generate a medic NPC to tow back the downed player, after it's done it's job, NULL it .

Oh yeah, why not just forget about MP towing, if you're are stuck, well hell you're stuck! LOL, I would never leave a damn disabled ship, not if I can help it. I'm going to blow the **** out of it and steal it's cargo

See you peeps in 2 month. BTW I will try to drop by along the way, you know about them Internet cafes right? They're all over the place hehehehe...

S.C good luck, I WANT BCM on my shelf when I'm back, if not, I'm will stop by your house and pick it up

Have FUN BC GANG!

Out...

[Rattler]

I'm sitting here taking all of this in and I'm begining to actually think!

quote:

---

Anyway, one thing that I have been toying with is a way to have one player have Fleet C&C access to their own base/station assets for this purpose.

---

We're beginning to stress team play aren't we? Why not have it determined, prior to entering into the game/server, just who IS in control of this particular armada and give just that individual control over his assets? I know personally that, even if C/C is not implemented, Insurgents will have a Command Ship pre-designated prior to EVERY battle. With the ability to talk between ships, He/She that is designated as Command Ship will issue orders to the Players in their group and the other players had better !!@$~ well follow them. I personally have no problem turning on a vessel that refused to follow orders and blowing the crap out of them. 'Tis considered treason in times of war to not follow ones Leader's Orders!

Just a thought though. Insurgents, Are You Listening?

------------------

Rattler, Insurgent One

Commander-In-Chief,

Insurgency

Official BC3K Tester

[email protected]

ICQ 12894104

"Life consists not in holding good cards but in playing those you hold well! - Josh Billings

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

My last idea is I think the best one. Have the downed player automatically send a SOS signal to the nearest (or homebase, depends) friendly base, that base would generate a medic NPC to tow back the downed player

---

Thats how its done for NPCs in v2.0x anyway. You have probably noticed stations sending shuttles to tow their damaged assets, or paramedics picking up SOS emitting targets. I could extend this for players via the request-tow command and put a limit on it in order to avoid abuse by players.

quote:

---

Why not have it determined, prior to entering into the game/server, just who IS in control of this particular armada and give just that individual control over his assets?

---

That is how I had envisioned it working, but what happens when that person drops from the server? Sure you could auto-assign someone in the team, but what if that person doesn't want the responsibility or simply can't assume it, because they just happen to be playing as a marine on a planet?

[SpacePhish]

quote:

---

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why not have it determined, prior to entering into the game/server, just who IS in control of this particular armada and give just that individual control over his assets?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is how I had envisioned it working, but what happens when that person drops from the server? Sure you could auto-assign someone in the team, but what if that person doesn't want the responsibility or simply can't assume it, because they just happen to be playing as a marine on a planet?

---

Hey I got an idea! Why not have some kind of ordering system? When the server is first started, I'm pretty sure the host already have a few person ready to place. So during say the chat screen you determine the ordering of the players.

The 1st player is the leader *director* dude, 2nd player is the next in line if the 1 st player gets kicked or quits, and so on... So when a new player joins the game after this selection he will be added to the last position, if he wants to be director that's just too bad, he should been there when the server got started

1. Rattler *Director* Race:Terran,Caste:IS

2. Mike Race:Terran Caste: IS

3. ....

4. ....

5. SpacePhish Race:Terran Caste: IS

Elite Force Marine.

6 .....

7 ....

[Ben Zwycky]

I suppose with that system, you'd have to have some sort of opt out (a box to tick when you join the game, or an automatic opt out if you're playing as a minor character (marine, fighter pilot etc) if someone has joined the game early on but never wants to be director, so that if it's his turn (i.e. everyone above him on the list has left) it skips him and goes on to the next person in the list.

------------------

Cmdr. Ben Zwycky

GCV Svoboda, ISS08

Adjutant to the Fleet Commander

ISS Fleet Recruiting Officer

Director, CIOPS Directorate of Training and Administration

Initiate - Order of Jade Dragon

ISS Fleet Homepage

GCV Svoboda Homepage

"Nakonec pravda vitezi" (in the end the truth wins)

ICQ:72897748

[This message has been edited by Ben Zwycky (edited 05-15-2000).]

[Supreme Cmdr]

Nah, already thought of that one. Still has holes in it. Anyone play Allegiance yet? I haven't, but I understand that it requires some all-seeing overall commander who just directs forces....kinda like what we do in TacOPS. Sure, BC3K/BCM already supports that, but the question is, how often will any commander want to be the guy who barks out orders? Take Rattler for instance, I'm sure he'd want to be in the thick of any skirmish, not tucked away behind bullet-proof padding back at Spectre HQ

The solution is probably to allow 1 player from a team, to be in command of the station. Since the kernel doesn't really care about anything other than the entity AI, a station is just another ship and it can have a bridge, access to Tacops etc, but nothing else (no crew, repairs or any of that jazz). So, if I allow a player to assume control of a station asset, that person could be the one with the ultimate Fleet C&C control over NPC and to an extent, human players (if they listen to him that is) as well. This way, paramedic NPC entities can be launched from that station, when needed, without forcing a player in the team to be a paramedic. In fact, now that I think about it (as I type this), when the game starts that station commander could launch a paramedic ship to escort the leader of the human player fleet!

So, lemme thing about this for a minute....ok, that might be the way to go without giving more than one person in each race/caste, access to Fleet C&C in MP.

The next problem is that if 16 people are playing and they all choose different race/caste, thats 16 people with Fleet C&C. Back to square one.

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

would be just to allow only well organised teams/fleets on to servers.

---

1. OUT of the question. Gamers should be allowed to do what the heck they like, when they like and how they like. Am not going to allienate the fan base by putting restrictions like that on servers.

2. This suggestion does not solve the problem at hand. The problem is not about gamers behaving, its about gameplay issues.

3. As for gamers who misbehave, well, just like the site, they'll just get kicked off the server. I'm going to ask Nick to put in a vote-ban type function for me to implement. This way, gamers on the server can vote to have someone kicked off, in case the server op is not around.

[Supreme Cmdr]

Just heard from Nick. Yep, we're going to have all kinds of banning in the SDK, including a vote ban option where player on the server cast a vote to ban someone. And no, you can't be banned and log back on because your IP changed. Nick's too clever for that. He's got it covered.

[Rattler]

Have I missed something here SC? If so, please straighten me out on this one. Once the server is up and running with gamers launching from chosen sites, won't there be multiple stations of their designated caste out there? If the Station Commander avenue were to be chosen, wouldn't we always have One Station Commander not only worrying about not only the one he was on, but he also would have to worry/defend his other stations as well. Far too much to keep tabs on and having multiple Station Commanders would be totally out of the question. A virtual Paradox IMHO! I think I hurt myself just pondering this quandry!

I still believe that it is possible for the ORGANIZED Fleets out there to pre-designate a "Task Force" Commander, if you will, prior to engaging in an organized invasion. There should be an easy way to have that Commander recognized by the server prior to launching that particular game/invasion. I know that I've heard the argument about what happens if that Commander has to leave the game before it's finished. Well....what happens (in real life) when the Commanding General of an army dies? He's replaced on the battlefield by the next man who has rank on that field. Come to think of it, aren't the sanctioned/Galcom servers going to track/assign ep's based upon game play? If so, it could automatically assign the C/C to the ranking player of that cast when the game begins. If he leaves/dies and doesn't re-spawn within, say 2 minutes, it gives C/C to the next ranking Commander of that caste automatically. Would that work or would that require too much in the way of programming?

quote:

---

Take Rattler for instance, I'm sure he'd want to be in the thick of any skirmish, not tucked away behind bullet-proof padding back at Spectre HQ

---

You know it! How else am I going to exchange Vagrants with Warmonger? If the above scenario were adopted, the only way would be to find a way to get my station close enough to your station to exchange Widows! It's a thought, but not very likely!

------------------

Rattler, Insurgent One

Commander-In-Chief,

Insurgency

Official BC3K Tester

[email protected]

ICQ 12894104

"Arise, Old Insurgents,

Long dead but eternal in time and space.

Forgive us NOT for what we do,

We merely take your place!" - Rattler

[Supreme Cmdr]

What you said is true Rattler, but the problem remains: if the commander dies, what happens if the next loser who has the most EPs, doesn't want the job?

And btw, the station assets are written in stone. There won't be any new ones. So, yes, if the Insurgents have 5 stations (can't recall how many I put in), then, whoever is the base commander, needs to monitor all 5 or use probes and Tacops, to see what the heck is going on in those 5 regions. Sure, I could let him switch from station to station, without flying anywhere (no big deal, asset switching is already supported) but that only solves the problem if you actually have someone who wants the job. That person would be responsible for defending the station too, btw. He won't be manually firing turrets, missiles etc, because there are PTA/FATAL for that purpose. However, it is still an added responsbility while remembering to dispatch a Paramedic ship to, say, Parias, stranded half-way across the galaxy. I can just see who repetitive chat messages from him now ...are you guys planning on getting me out of here?, ...where the hell is that ship!!?!?......OK, thats it, next time I want to be base commander, see how you like being left stranded deep in Gammulan territory!!

And if that happens to SpacePhish. Well, enough said. [This message has been edited by Supreme Cmdr (edited 05-15-2000).]

[Guest macross]

Just FYI, I played Alliegence in the beta, and I still play Tribes when I have a spare few minutes, and they both run about the same way: There's a command position that anybody can hop into (and out of!), and give orders/allocate resources/lead the team.

Any time somebody is in this position, the team is generally better off (assuming a reasonably competent Commander), and more organized. But here's the trick: It's not a _required_ position. If there's nobody in the position, things continue on. The players have a pretty good idea that the enemy needs to be attacked, and team communications help identify hotspots. The resources have default allocations. The game goes on. There are no _negatives_ if nobody is commanding, there are only positives added if someone is. Does that make sense?

Somebody can jump into command, set some things up, give a few orders, and jump out and get back into the battle. If somebody's in charge, fine. If nobody's in charge, that's fine too.

I'm sure it took a lot of balancing (especially to get it to run well enough with nobody in command), but it's a good system - it works.

[Rattler]

quote:

---

What you said is true Rattler, but the problem remains: if the commander dies, what happens if the next loser who has the most EPs, doesn't want the job?

---

Not just if he dies. That's an eventuallity that is certain IMHO! If he dies and doesn't re-spawn in 2 minutes, then the next ranking member on the field has the job. No questions asked. If he refuses the assignment, do what the real military would do. -EP's, Demotion, and let him keep flying that BC or whatever. Responsibility comes with rank. One of life's little lessons that can be taught well on your servers, again IMHO! I might seem a little "hard over" on this but I've seen it all to often in real life. They pay you the big bucks for a reason. They expect you to earn them!

------------------

Rattler, Insurgent One

Commander-In-Chief,

Insurgency

Official BC3K Tester

[email protected]

ICQ 12894104

"Arise, Old Insurgents,

Long dead but eternal in time and space.

Forgive us NOT for what we do,

We merely take your place!" - Rattler

[ShoHashi]

Quote:

Not just if he dies. That's an eventuallity that is certain IMHO! If he dies and doesn't re-spawn in 2 minutes, then the next ranking member on the field has the job. No questions asked. If he refuses the assignment, do what the real military would do. -EP's, Demotion, and let him keep flying that BC or whatever. Responsibility comes with rank.

SC, Rattler certainly has a point here. Even my experience in the Corps showed me that there was no refusing assignments. And per chance, if it was refused, there was dire consequences. Think of the havoc it would cause in the military if officers and enlisted alike could "refuse assignments." There would be chaos and battles wouldn't be won because no one wanted to send their Marines in the hotzone because it was too dangerous, food wouldn't be cooked because no one wanted mess duty, etc. Ooops getting a little off topic here. Just my two cents, SC. Feel free the yell at me...I'm used to it!

------------------

Cmdr ShoHashi

Spectre Fleet

Commanding Officer, PreComm Crew, StarStation New Frontier

ICV Aries

ICQ 484321

[email protected]

"Attack With Effectiveness"

[This message has been edited by ShoHashi (edited 05-15-2000).]