28 replies to this topic

[SuperAtomicAirplane]

This sounds like a good idea. I've been gone for a couple months but I'm easing back into MWO now that we're gearing up for CW.

I think what would help more than anything is just playing together in the FRR hub. The more familiar we are with each other, the better we will perform when planets are on the line, no matter who's leading.

I'll do my best to show up to the regularly scheduled hub events (and since the hub is the 1stRDR's home, I'll be the rest of the time too). I hope to see more of you fellow Northmen (and Northwomen) there as well.

[Mercer Skye]

The general idea is one I fully support, but Abivard put it best at the end of one of his posts; K.I.S.S. (Keep it Simple, Silly).

We really just need to promote more usage of the FRR Hub teamspeak, imho. Even if you're dedicating most of your comm time to your unit's main TS, it usually doesn't soak up too much more data to have the Hub in the background.

What I'm getting at, is that we don't need to complicate CW with an overarching, trans-unit ranking system. Units have already figured out what works best for them, and likely the problem is that they need to fill out their team.

We promote more usage of the Hub, and it would be possible to 'sound the call' to other units when one is in need of pilots to fill out a Company in order to defend, or when an opportune time to attack arises.

So; Isengrim has a 6man group on, notices Trondelheim is under siege, and hopes to not deal with random pugs. They see SoR and 1st RDR each have three man teams in the Hub, they pop in, give the call, and if we promote inter-unit camaraderie well, they answer, slide in where needed (and in this example, conveniently under the two Isengrim Lance Leaders who don't have lances). Bam, full 12man, fully understood that Isengrim is in charge, and ready to kick clammer, snake, or merc arse.

Just my opinion though, I could be wrong. (It's happened before )

And as we work with each other across Unit lines, we'll be able to see who tends to rise to the top as far as Company/Group/Lance level command is concerned, and we can establish some way to communicate internally among each other, and post lists on our respective unit forums on who we should defer command to when they're present.

Edited by Mercer Skye, 11 October 2014 - 06:21 AM.

[Klappspaten]

I like Danes idea and I agree that we will have to work together in CW.

That beeing said, if the Blue Vengeance is on field with at least 8 men, we WILL take command anyway.
But if we drop with fewer guys we might have a few people that are able to take command. I myself am not the company commander anymore, but I´m still in the staff.

I will forward this discussion to the other staff members and push that we will appoint two, or three people for AltCom.
Also I will suggest that we will have at least one guy on the FRR hub in case we are droping with fewer than 12 men.
Keep in mind though that our command language is german. However, our tactics usually do work if a few guys just run with us and shoot our targets.

Edited by Klappspaten, 11 October 2014 - 02:26 PM.

[Richard Warts]

The 1stH are fairly active these days. You can usually find a few of us on the hub at nearly any hour. Do we still want to keep the Partisans of Rasalhague's Scandinavian Scuffle as a practice time?

As a side note we should also reach out to the Varangian Guard on the Russian forum because as it stands now I believe they are the highest ranked competitive FRR group.

Edited by Tabu 73, 12 October 2014 - 07:28 PM.

[The Gruntmaster 6000]

Well I don't know if the Jarls of Valhalla would be in here because we are not really In-House unit per say (if your definition is active member). Me and my friend's brother are all that are really left in the unit and so we are just dropping together as the 2 of us and neither of us are on the FRR hub or TS.

[SuperAtomicAirplane]

The Advisor, on 12 October 2014 - 05:35 PM, said:

Me and my friend's brother are all that are really left in the unit and so we are just dropping together as the 2 of us and neither of us are on the FRR hub or TS.

If you ever want to drop as more than two, come join us on the hub.

Tabu 73, on 11 October 2014 - 04:56 PM, said:

Do we still want to keep the Partisans of Rasalhague's Scandinavian Scuffle as a practice time?

I'll be sure to be there for the next one.

Edited by SuperAtomicAirplane, 12 October 2014 - 09:28 PM.

[Magna Canus]

As some may have noticed many of the clans have the same idea, e.g. gathering their forces on the same TS Server for easy coordination. So to counter any advantage they have and ensure that ours is the best we can get, we do need to settle on a common TS hub, preferably the FRR HUB.

The more we drop together and practice together before CW begins the better our chances of being able to defend ourselves come CW. In my experience team leaders arise naturally once you begin playing with lots of other people, which also covers the question of ALT commanders from another thread.

Going deeper into the entire CW process we need to have some sort of standardized tag on TS to signify each warriors "specialty": Scout, Skermisher, LRM, Long Range Fire support, Brawler, etc. A short tag on the end of your TS name would make putting together a well rounded defense much easier. Also, a similar tag could be used to indicate "willing ALT commanders".

Example: [1stH] Magnakanus (LFS/SCT) #
Where [x] is your unit tag, then your ingame name, (specialty tag), and i.e. # as "willing ALT commander tag".

[Lord Creston]

I like the idea of semi-PUG groups having some battle leadership. What I would recommend rather than any formal system of ranks would be to simply create 2 categories of TS channels. "Casual" and "Structured". Then come up with a simple set of guidelines for both for example.

Casual channels are to be used for any drops where leadership, tactics, and group makeup are very limited if existent at all. Join these channels if you are just messing around, grinding mechs, etc.

Structured channels will be reserved for drops that require a defined primary battle leader decided upon by the members of the channel and will follow the orders of the battle leader throughout the drop. Expect tactics and possibly group makeup to be taken into account when joining the channel. Changing battle leader between drops is fine but while on the drop that leader has control. The battle leader or someone he appoints will carry out throughout the battle a minimum set of activities such as calling overall strategy, declaring targets, etc.

This will set expectations of people in the channel what type of seriousness to expect and people can move between channels based on how they'd like to play. I understand that this seems to skirt the problem about who the leader is, but I find far more often a pug group wallows about without a leader than it does arguing about who should be in command. Setting the ground rule that the drop will have a battle leader with minimum expectations should go a long way on that.

Also I do like the idea of people marking themselves as "willing" to lead in some way so you know if you're jumping in with a bunch of people who may not have anyone willing to lead regardless of whether or not they're talented at it.

Edited by Lord Creston, 13 October 2014 - 02:23 PM.

[Malzel]

I am open to this idea. It would be easy to create a server tag for individuals proficient in leading drops, and assign those tags on the FRR Hub. Beyond that, Abivard said it first: KISS. The more complex the process gets, the harder it will be to wrangle cooperation between units, and the harder the system will be to maintain as individuals come and go. I'm not against some form of standards or criteria for candidates, but it's going to need to be simple.

My concern is primarily that CW is still a whispered dream at the moment, and while I'm confident it will arrive in due time, there are still a lot of unanswered questions about the process and how it will work. Not only that, but you have to admit PGI's vision of CW has always been...flexible, so there is still the possibility that the final product could end up working very differently than we've been told in the Command Chair. (I hope not, but history is what it is)

Brainstorming can't hurt, but if we pour man hours into a big project like this before we know exactly how CW is going to play out, it could backfire on us.