Miguel addressed the count of the WC members as 5, where as it was previously 10. So i guess they are toying with the WC idea. One thing that kinda struck me with worry is when he presented how the WC can reward strikeforces with resources for something good they did. While they should obviously be rewarded i worry that the WC might be steered in a bad way as to prioritize giving resources to a few strikeforces whilst leaving the others out to dry. Then again we dont know much about the WC/SF system so we cant really debate it much.
Not sure about the design on this, but if I would implement the system without knowing what Brent has in mind, I would not give the rewards directly, but give them for completing the "objective". So whichever strike force does it first, gets the extra resources?! I'll have a word with Brent and David - I'd be surprised if it would be done directly in a way that would work as described by DjemoSRB.
Well first im glad its gonna get thrown to the powers that be for another look-see, thanks for that. As for how you want the system will work, well im just interpreting what little we had to view of the presentation (im sure you are aware that after you left the stream went down and we didnt see the whole stream). And there Miguel said how the WC saw someone do good and they reward the strikeforce with this resource. Doesent sound automatic to me, then again everything is up in the air for a change, so this might be just an idea of how it would be. About your example of an automated system it might make some negative competition, where people will ignore their comrades dying besides them (example 1 strikesquad ignoring the other) only to go and cap some base which will make them claim the reward. And they will get rewarded but because of their greed and letting their allies die the outpost might be lost in mere moments after its capture. And some might not care, they got their reward. The system interpreted their actions as successful, irrelevant if they brought about a bigger failure on a scale that affect everyone. Perhaps im getting a bit paranoid, but the idea of the WC (which i do indeed support) is one that will in my opinion be finely tuned for quite some time after launch.
Im good with the WC rewarding resources. These people are there through a popular vote and they should be doing the right thing if they want to stay in that position. By keeping it as a manual dispersement you get that whole political meta game working and thats good.
well if this happen then the WC did something wrong if this outpost is under attack then the WC should set the mission there too since they don't want to lose it maybe if they see no chance on holding it maybe then they would try to get the strike forces somewhere else
The War Council needs to have some sort of power, even if it's something that can be abused. Consider EVE, with all of the theft and ganking and banks and market speculation. The choice of whether to be corrupt or not is a form of game content - and an important one. Without it the interaction between players in sandbox games are only about success or failure. Shades of gray are interesting. Call it 'moral content' if you like.
Well as said - I have not seen the final document, also you guys will be heard! I think the tricky part will be "how to get elected", if that is working right, only good "leaders" will stay in power
you mean like peer election lets say strike force leader =1 vote so in theory it should be fair if there are no secret deals made i kinda like the idea of that some extra things to watch out for who is good with whom... what I'm asking rly is just who is going to vote for the WC Options: 1.Only strike force leaders (SFL) 2.SFL + Squad leaders (SL) 3.Everyone Keeping in mind that SFL voting would be the fastest one to be done and the guys who are SFL-s would most likely understand the game better and have a better picture how it all works but option 2 is kinda nice to get a few more votes in again and have a possibilty to have someone else be picked to WC then again the SFL can influence the SL to vote for him so it just makes no impact on it does it now ..... The 3 options is a no go in my opinion.... The best solution would be to go for option 1 but the Strike force leaders can't vote for themselves
