Do we need more commander functions?

[Zbojnik]

You can move the arty. That's what the binocs are for.​

​

No. When your all ready set up a strike and it obliterated an area but you want to move it somewhere else. So you pick the new place and put in new co-ods. and it moves the arty strike while it's still going.

 

[Hyperion2010]

I vote yes because there is something that I think ALL classes need, and that is the ability to point at things (with the use key) and have their player shout contextually what they are pointed at or just point and say "there!"

I can elaborate more fully if needs be.

 

[Tak]

No. When your all ready set up a strike and it obliterated an area but you want to move it somewhere else. So you pick the new place and put in new co-ods. and it moves the arty strike while it's still going.

Sweet jumping flatcakes, you want them to adjust the guns (mostly done manually in WWII, if I recall) inbetween the rounds in a volley? Undibs on that job!

 

[Amarok]

Sweet jumping flatcakes, you want them to adjust the guns (mostly done manually in WWII, if I recall) inbetween the rounds in a volley? Undibs on that job!

Well... as an arty strike often takes more than a single round, it makes sense to be able to stop the next round if you see you're making custard out of your own team... as long as you're near a radio, of course. Readjust the guns would mean to place a new strike, with the usual delay.

Back to the topic of the thread: yes, the commander needs more functions. BUT at the same time it would make sense to assign players to different Platoons (in pure infantry maps, lets say P1 and P2), just to give this commander the chance to send an unit to one point and another to another point. I think it may be kinda stupid to say i.e. "two men attack x" and a dozen believe they were meant...

 

[myzko]

Yeah, the commander needs more power, and also I think that there should be a way to votekick a commander away from the posistion, if he's really bad. (hate when n00bs play as commander, and place arty on our spawn or don't do anything)

 

[[5.SS]Strother]

I'm not sure if we should have the ability to remove the commander from his position, but a bad commander can't hurt the team if the commander functions are set correctly. The commander should only be able to coordinate things better and give small benefits in certain circumstances such as faster cap times to people inside a designated cap zone, or steadier aim for people within a defense zone. If a commander is bad, the lack of these benefits will not be a death sentence for that team.

 

[Tak]

The commander already gives a cap time increase, doesn't he?

I'm not arguing with this statement just asking, really. I read it but don't know if it's 'working as intended' or not
​

 

[[5.SS]Strother]

Yes the commander does has an increased cap time, but that is only for himself. What I was meaning is that when a commander orders a specific objective to be captured, ALL the players within that specified area gain a SLIGHT cap time increase. So for example... with like 3 people in the selected cap zone you could cap 1.5 times faster than the norm.

 

[Tak]

Thought so, just never noticed that much of a difference in-game. Thanks for answering.


I see where you're going with your idea, but my concern is people will end up with their commander behind the lines playing with the mini-map instead of being a soldier and leading his troops to battle. If we had a 64 man cap, I'd be *much* more in favor of changes like that. Maybe something to consider in some form for "RO2" on U3?

 

[Nimsky]

I've been advocating for more commander functions for a while now. Things I would like to see:

1. A "go there" and "put heavy fire there" hand signal function, that "marks" the spot you pointed to for other players, like Brothers in Arms. This would especially be very useful in clan games and BFE. Like for example, on Teamspeak you say "Watch out! MG there!" or "[Teammate], set up there!", you point towards a spot and the other players automatically see it (not on the overhead map, but in first person... like a red dot on that spot or something). Not sure how hard it would be to implement this, but it would kick ass.

2. Have the commander be able to draw on the battle map with various colors. It would probably be better to make it a server side option, as we don't want people to draw penises like someone said. Again, most useful in organized play.

I would be very, very happy if these things would be added.

 

[Tak]

1. A "go there" and "put heavy fire there" hand signal function, that "marks" the spot you pointed to for other players, like Brothers in Arms. This would especially be very useful in clan games and BFE. Like for example, on Teamspeak you say "Watch out! MG there!" or "[Teammate], set up there!", you point towards a spot and the other players automatically see it (not on the overhead map, but in first person... like a red dot on that spot or something). Not sure how hard it would be to implement this, but it would kick ass.

Good sir, please no. This is exactly the kind of thing RO should avoid. These are the 'gamey' things that get boos and hisses!


The overhead map different paths and all, while I'm not *for* it, I'm not against it.


Let me throw around 'me' and 'I' a few more times like I mean something!

 

[Amarok]

I'm not sure if we should have the ability to remove the commander from his position, but a bad commander can't hurt the team if the commander functions are set correctly. The commander should only be able to coordinate things better and give small benefits in certain circumstances such as faster cap times to people inside a designated cap zone, or steadier aim for people within a defense zone. If a commander is bad, the lack of these benefits will not be a death sentence for that team.

Hmm... well, as long as he doesn't start to set waypoints and objectives in a minute basis like a mad ape, for instance. Anyway his teammates should be clever enough to give a **** on him if this is the case (and if not, noone can help ), so it's better to keep the hands off any "removal feature"... the imaginable collateral effects are worst than any bad commander.

I also think it could be interesting to introduce some kind of... er... let's say "middle-command": assuming the commander we're talking about be a "Lieutenant", introduce two "Sergeants" as supporting instance (combined with the idea of assigning players to two different platoons or groups, see my post above) to give this little benefits you're talking about, and in turn allowing a better situational awareness to the commander (i.e. *if* they support the actions ordered...). Well that was something like "loud thinking", can be improved.

 

[Nimsky]

Good sir, please no. This is exactly the kind of thing RO should avoid. These are the 'gamey' things that get boos and hisses!


The overhead map different paths and all, while I'm not *for* it, I'm not against it.


Let me throw around 'me' and 'I' a few more times like I mean something!

Commanding is "gamey"? What do you think the commanders were saying to their troops during WWII; "pwnz0r that MG pls kthx lol" ?

Then it WOULD have been gamey, yes.

 

[Rrralphster]

Commanding is "gamey"? What do you think the commanders were saying to their troops during WWII; "pwnz0r that MG pls kthx lol" ?

Then it WOULD have been gamey, yes.

Hmmm... I have to rethink my position in "no commander voting"...
Commanders like that should be globally banned from commanding if they use that kind of language

 

[Tak]

Commanding is "gamey"? What do you think the commanders were saying to their troops during WWII; "pwnz0r that MG pls kthx lol" ?

Then it WOULD have been gamey, yes.

No, anything displayed in the world such as markers/red dots/floating icons. Honestly I'd like to see the floating name removed too, and I play with the HUD off. Granted, I know not everyone feels the same way about that But, as for putting in any kind of in-game dot/floater, lets leave that to other games. It really detracts from the feel. Hated it when they put it in EverQuest, will hate it even more if something like that ever gets into RO.

 

[[5.SS]Strother]

No floating icons please. It really is not that hard to tell your mger or one of the troops via mic "Hey mger go over to those sandbags beside the blown down door over there" That is what you would have done in real life. In real life if you just point peopl arn't always going to know what you are pointing at unless you describe it. How do you describe it, by talking to the guy, thats how it is done in real life and that is how it should be done in RO.

I like the idea of a LT or Sgt. They could give special bonuses like increased stamina, decreased weapon sway, increased cap time to anyone near the leader, and any other little thing you want to add. I don't know how these stats would be decided since there would only be 1-2 sgt or lts per map and you obviously shouldn't have all of these benefits.

 

[Tak]

The special bonuses and all I ahve to disagree with too, after some thought. They're in the same category as on-screen floaters for making RO feel 'gamey'.


It just doesn't fit what RO seems to be doing (trying to, anyway )
​

 

[[CoFR]BeerHunter]

I'd like to see the ability for artillery to be adjusted before the barrage begins.

In RL (prior to laser sites and electronic range finders) artillery would fire one or two "sighting rounds" and the trajectories would be adjusted accordingly by a spotter then the well known Hollywood phrase "fire for effect" would begin the barrage.

IMO the commander should plot the artillery co-ordinates , then the usual delay (I assume scrambling the crews and loading the first rounds are simulated by that) then one or two rounds are fired.

The commander would have ONE opportunity to adjust his artillery plot just after the first (and only the first) salvo then the barrage would commence.

Now , to balance this a little I would also suggest that the number of salvos remain the same BUT the first sighting shots would be counted as a salvo.

In essence , for the increased acuracy of being able to adjust your salvos the total number of shells falling would be reduced as the first salvo would only be one or two rounds.

This I would love to see.

 

[dktekno]

When the commander places waypoints, every soldier needs to move to that position. Every player has about 1 minute to reach that objective from the start of the spawnpoint.

If the player is not reaching that point within 1 minute, he is automatically killed. The kill will be displayed with a special icon, that represents that this one has been killed for not obeying the commands.

Of course, sometimes it is impossible to reach the goal within 1 minute. But they have to go there no matter what. At least, they can then contribute to the army by being cannon fodder and thus take incoming fire and save the other people.

This means we actually make the game move into realism. Because this was the way the war was fought. Stalin said: Not one step backwards, and everyone who didnt follow that order was shot. In fact, the army actually had officers placed behind the frontline, with the one and only purpose of not shooting the enemy, but shooting their own people.

This is how the game should be played. Everything else is not working.

When the player has reached the point, he will have to stay within some borders. He may not move out of that area/point etc. before given the orders.

Team work is not working. We need commands from above.

Nobody should be able to not obey the orders without punishment and control.

 

[elak]

Good sir, please no. This is exactly the kind of thing RO should avoid. These are the 'gamey' things that get boos and hisses!

You could make them look more WW2 if that would help (flares anyone?). I completely agree that floating icons do not belong in the real world, however truth is that peoples ability to point, identify describe and so forth in real time is capped ingame by two factors:

1. Gamers are not soldiers, at least not the vast majority. Once I have stumbled upon a commanding player who could use short and clear messages to point out the enemy and give his team directions.

2. The VoIP-tool only allows for one speaker at the time and this creates an effective bottleneck for all battlefield chatter. It is enough for a commander to give orders, but it is vastly insufficient for a whole team to coordinate.

Now, both of these things may be solved by a fancy thing called a 'clan', however there are plenty of people not having the time being active clan players. And I can safely say that these things do make the difference between a serious WW2 action-simulation and a boring CS clone. As I said I completely agree that floating icons are unrealistic, but the effect they are meant to create are certainly not! I would not mind if there would be a clan/public setting on the game, but I do welcome every addition that encourages effective communications and teamplay.