Commander Mode

[Penguin]

After looking at some Battlefield 2 footage, I realized that there is something lacking from the ground warfare of Fly Aces High 2.  There is no way to formulate a strategy and then have it availible on the minimap; the solution is a commander mode.  This could be instituted in stages or all at once, depending on the preferences of HTC.

Stage 1: In Commander Mode, the icons and radar dots of all the other players in a mission would turn neon purple, and the Mission Planner would recieve VOX priority on the Mission VOX

Stage 2: An improved mission development interface, with the ability separate your mission into either preset (e.g., by plane type or squadron) or custom groups (a drag and drop list with player names).  The mission planner would also be able to mark rally points with pop-up messages (again, either presets such as 'Attack', or custom) and routes for different groups with the same message ability.

Stage 3: An automatic command VOX controlled by a bot.  For instance, if the player were to reach an 'Attack' rally point, the command VOX would display "Attack Field X", with X being the name of the field.  If the player were to stray from the objective, a popup in a far-flung corner of the screen would ask the player if they would like to leave the mission.

Stage 4: A point system for carrying out the commander's orders, this could be a multiplier or a simple bonus.  The idea would be to encourage players to carry out orders, and give the commander some confidence in his/her troops.  The next step would be to add an honor point system, where a mission planner could bring up a list with filters, with players who carried out the highest percentage of orders per mission being at the top.  If the planner were to select the player, the player would recieve a popup in the corner of the screen as to whether or not they would like to join the mission.  The same would apply to commanders, since the commmander would end the mission at his perrogative and another popup would appear with a five-star rating system being given to the players in order to have them rate the commander on his/her performance.  Commanders' ratings would be displayed in the join request for the mission, in order to allow players to make a good judgement of whether or not they out to join the mission.  Commandders would reviece 10% of their troops' perks if the perks were earned carrying out an order.  However, the player who earned those perks would not lose them, but rather they'd be 'copied' from the player to the commander.  This would encourage the commander to lead successful missions with many fights.

This system would prevent any limitation of player freedom because no-one would be forced to join a mission, but would reward those who do with points and prestige.  It's a win-win situation.

-Penguin

[Karnak]

After looking at some Battlefield 2 footage, I realized that there is something lacking from the ground warfare of Fly Aces High 2.  There is no way to formulate a strategy and then have it availible on the minimap; the solution is a commander mode.  This could be instituted in stages or all at once, depending on the preferences of HTC.

Stage 1: In Commander Mode, the icons and radar dots of all the other players in a mission would turn neon purple, and the Mission Planner would recieve VOX priority on the Mission VOX

Stage 2: An improved mission development interface, with the ability separate your mission into either preset (e.g., by plane type or squadron) or custom groups (a drag and drop list with player names).  The mission planner would also be able to mark rally points with pop-up messages (again, either presets such as 'Attack', or custom) and routes for different groups with the same message ability.

Stage 3: An automatic command VOX controlled by a bot.  For instance, if the player were to reach an 'Attack' rally point, the command VOX would display "Attack Field X", with X being the name of the field. 

Sounds fine.

If the player were to stray from the objective, a popup in a far-flung corner of the screen would ask the player if they would like to leave the mission.

Stage 4: A point system for carrying out the commander's orders, this could be a multiplier or a simple bonus.  The idea would be to encourage players to carry out orders, and give the commander some confidence in his/her troops.  The next step would be to add an honor point system, where a mission planner could bring up a list with filters, with players who carried out the highest percentage of orders per mission being at the top.  If the planner were to select the player, the player would recieve a popup in the corner of the screen as to whether or not they would like to join the mission.  The same would apply to commanders, since the commmander would end the mission at his perrogative and another popup would appear with a five-star rating system being given to the players in order to have them rate the commander on his/her performance.  Commanders' ratings would be displayed in the join request for the mission, in order to allow players to make a good judgement of whether or not they out to join the mission.  Commandders would reviece 10% of their troops' perks if the perks were earned carrying out an order.  However, the player who earned those perks would not lose them, but rather they'd be 'copied' from the player to the commander.  This would encourage the commander to lead successful missions with many fights.

This system would prevent any limitation of player freedom because no-one would be forced to join a mission, but would reward those who do with points and prestige.  It's a win-win situation.

-Penguin

Sounds horrible.

[kvuo75]

i already avoid most missions because I cannot stand micromanagement.



lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromanagement

[FLS]

You didn't mention how the Supreme Commander would be selected, not that anyone would argue over that. 

The self organizing anarchy of the current setup probably provides better country defense and offense than a random single Commander. Mission creators already use their reputations to populate their missions.

An idea that works on a server with a 64 player limit may not be a good idea for a 600 player arena.

[gyrene81]

why are all of these little people with absolutely no military experience trying to find some way to become supreme command generals of the battlefield when even the people who actually have the experience don't want anything to do with such nonsense?   

[Penguin]

You didn't mention how the Supreme Commander would be selected, not that anyone would argue over that. 

The self organizing anarchy of the current setup probably provides better country defense and offense than a random single Commander. Mission creators already use their reputations to populate their missions.

An idea that works on a server with a 64 player limit may not be a good idea for a 600 player arena.

There is no supreme commander, only the mission commander, who is the mission creator.  This whole idea is a tool to help him/her lead his/her troops more efficiently and to reduce the confusion and 'fog of war'.  If one is not in the mission that is led by that commander, then one will not see the markers.

why are all of these little people with absolutely no military experience trying to find some way to become supreme command generals of the battlefield when even the people who actually have the experience don't want anything to do with such nonsense?   

Why are all of these little people with absolutely no flying experience trying to find some way to become supreme fighter aces of the sky?  Your point could be applied to any form of playing pretend, which is exactly what a video game is.

-Penguin

[The Fugitive]

The tools are already there. As a leader one MUST lead. This means that they run the battle and NOT really participate in it. All these people want is for someone, or some thing to setup and manage the mission.

Years ago I would up a buff and fly high alt over the target base. From there I would manage the mission. Diverting people to different tasks as reports came in on what was hit or what was missed. Control when players upped after dieing to control how they came back in, and what with due to the changing mission objectives. To run a mission well you have to RUN IT ! Period. all the toys,bells and whistles isn't going to make your mission any better. A good plan with one guy controlling it, and a number of people WILLING to follow you is all you need.

[gyrene81]

Why are all of these little people with absolutely no flying experience trying to find some way to become supreme fighter aces of the sky?  Your point could be applied to any form of playing pretend, which is exactly what a video game is.

-Penguin

difference is flying a plane and shooting down other planes is the point of the game, trying to be supreme commander is not. squeaker generals in waiting are trying to implement real time strategy supreme general controls in a first person shooter, doesn't work.

[FLS]

Penquin when you said strategy I assumed you meant country goals not mission goals.

It seems like what you're asking for could be accomplished more easily with the mission briefing.

[Penguin]

difference is flying a plane and shooting down other planes is the point of the game, trying to be supreme commander is not. squeaker generals in waiting are trying to implement real time strategy supreme general controls in a first person shooter, doesn't work.

You're missing my entire point- this is not to control the country, it's to control a mission. Get off your high horse and relax, I don't bite.  However, your point is vague and could use some elaboration:

• Why wouldn't implementing improved, easy-to-use tools for marking the map work?
• Since when are all mission planners squeakers? (This question is rhetorical)
• Since when is Fly Aces High a first person shooter?

-Penguin

[Karnak]

A stronger tool is great, until you start putting in rewards and penalties that make it a requirement to submit to mission planners whims in order to get all the benefits of the game, and then give those mission planners the ability to screw your record by being lousy tacticians and demanding you do impossible or stupid tasks.

[Penguin]

Since when were there punishments?  I said that one could get rewards for carrying out orders, and only if one were successful.  To add to that, the Mission Commander gets points when these actions are carried out successfully, so setting up a suicide run would ruin his reputation and leave him without points gained.

Here is a simple setup:

Assuming a perk multiplier of precisely 1

Reaching a transit point: 0.1 perks
Rallying a a Rally Area for the allotted time: 0.5 perks
Killing an enemy in an Attack or Defend zone: 1 perk
Unloading troops in an Unload Troops zone: 0.1 perk per troop

The commander would recieve the same, but his own actions such as kills or troops would net him nothing.  This system is completely optional to players once in the game, and can be applied as one complete package or as any number of standalone stages.  Furthermore, poor commanders would recieve poor marks from their troops, and therefore branded as failures for all to see.  Conversely, if one were to succeed as a commander, one would recieve high marks and become renowned throughout the arenas.  This would allow players to become not only prestigious pilots, but tacticians as well.

This would encourage more players to join the game, as RTS fans would love the idea of taking a shot at commanding real people.  If they fail, no harm done, if they succeed, may woe befall their foes.  It would also allow for new types of fights, and to elevate organized conflict to a new level.  Imagine this:

A calm, clear day, perfect as always in the pilots Valhalla known as AH2.  However, the sound of war soon breaks the silence.  Tanks, and many of them! They race across the plain, supported by aircraft that rain death from above.  The alarm goes out, and a greenhorn tactician races to the scene.  Putting up an urgent mission, he asks for pilots to come defend the base.  With little time to lose, he assembles a motley crew of fighters and tanks that race out to counter the assaulting force.

Artfully doging the urge to charge headlong into the fray, he lays a trap for the attacking force.  Tanks line the highground of a valley, guns poised to strike.  Anti-aircraft artillery hides in the brush, awaiting the order to open fire.  At last, the attacking force reaches the base, and sees nothing but an open plain.  With no time to lose, they form a line and dash for the center of the town.

Oh no!  The ambush has been sprung- volley after volley of fire hurtles down from the hills, decimating the advancing tanks while the AAA rakes the exposed flanks of the unsuspecting aircraft.  The once formidable attack becomes a rout, and the attacking force retreats from the valley.  The defending tactician is elated, and begins to press his advantage on his fleeing foe.

The architect of the unfortunate blitzkrieg realizes his opponent's mistake, and orders his troops to lie in wait at the mouth of the valley.  As the counterattack races by, fanning out as the inexperienced tactician cackles with joy, the trap is sprung!  The tanks that lay in wait leap forth and smash the unsuspecting counterstrike with ease.  The battle becomes a wild melee, with chaos reigning over the battlefield.

Realizing his mistake, the greenhorn calls out for help, and finds that one of the highest ranking commanders in the game is itching for action.  He sends word of his plight, and the sagacious general races to the scene.  With years of experience, he quickly expels the strike force, and gives the green whelp a stern toungelashing over VOX. 

The greenhorn commander earns mediocre ratings, as the casualties he incurred were staggering, but the fight was intense and enjoyable.  The attacker recieves poor ratings, and hangs his head in shame.  The wily old coot, on the otherhand, recieves plaudits for his expert command of what could have been a disastrous defeat.

All this and more is possible with commander mode; think of the fights, the action, and excitement of routing your enemy on a grand scale, or the no-holds-barred action of fighting under the best tacticians.  The rewards are yours for the taking gentlemen, just reach out and take them.

-Penguin 

[The Fugitive]

All this and more is possible with commander mode; think of the fights, the action, and excitement of routing your enemy on a grand scale, or the no-holds-barred action of fighting under the best tacticians.  The rewards are yours for the taking gentlemen, just reach out and take them.

-Penguin 

And all of this is available now! Commanding your force often starts with a squad. Playing from both the offensive side as well as the defensive side you can see this battle happen already in the game. All your asking for is more points for when it works out, as well as helping to build a name for yourself.

Go out and do the work.

[Penguin]

The problem is that it's impossible to tell what your troops are doing without clogging the VOX system.  Reread the OP, and notice that not all of this needs to be implemented.  The most important parts are stages 1 and 2, with 3 being a nice add-on, but not a necessity.

No, I'm not in it for perk points, I'm in it because it's a great help to those who like to plan missions.  The reputation marks would be very necessary because of the nature of the MA's.  Not everyone knows everyone else, and rounding up people for a mission can be difficult.  It would also leave disgruntled troops no way to show others that a particular commander is a bad one other than by word of mouth.

Go out and do the work?  What is this "work" you speak of?  Do you mean that in order to run a mission I'd have to start my own squadron, build its name and lead it every single day?  It sounds good in theory, but it's a huge turnoff for those who've already joined another squadron.

Furthermore, what if you need bomber pilots, but your squad focuses on tanks?  Where would you get them?  The problem is that the current mission editor is weak and lacks the little things that would greatly ease its use such as a mechanism for anticipating the outcome of a mission or having clear directives as to where to go.

-Penguin

[The Fugitive]

The directives, with clear cut information on where to go all based on probable out comes is PART OF COMMAND.

Running a mission with the editor gives you a "mission channel". Communicating what you need where has always been on climb out, getting questions out of the way. Everyone gets a clear understanding of their part of the mission, why? because you told them. Orders such as planes don't break the radar ring until tanks start the base flashing and such creates co-ordination and timing.

You problem seems to be getting people to join your missions. The only thing that will do that....other than forcing people to play the way YOU want....is by building a name as a good mission planner. The best way to do that is to get 10 guys in a squad and start building missions and learn to use tactics that work to take the targets. Once you start grabbing bases players will notice and start to join. Some mission planners get harassed the minute they get on-line with request to run a mission. That is the "work" I'm talking about, learn to run good co-ordinated missions that people like, and build yourself a reputation as a good leader.