14 replies to this topic

[Alcom Isst]

I used Mordor as it seems to be the map best designed for this concept. The image is mostly self explanatory. It is a rearrangement of lances in Skirmish mode to encourage less blobbing and more separate smaller lance-on-lance combat.

Spoiler

Edited by Alcom Isst, 30 January 2014 - 09:20 AM.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

Eventually we'll figure out which two lances can meet up while smashing one of the enemy lances and then it'll be 8v8 deathballs.

[Xmith]

That's a pretty good idea. I can see less stomps with this set up

[fandre]

Would give it a try.

[MischiefSC]

that's a rock solid idea for Skirmish. Hell, I'd say do it for every match type.

[Accused]

Sure, why the hell not?

[EGG]

I guess the way to 'game' this would be to rearrange lances in pre-game so your 4 fastest are in a group and then the other two heavier lances sandwich an enemy 4 while your fast lance bolts across to join up.

-edit not trying to rain on ideas but if players can do something cheap they will try it on, as pgi have found out a few times now.

Edited by EGG, 31 January 2014 - 12:22 AM.

[Accused]

Yeah, but the option for the enemy team to do the same is there.

[process]

I'd really like to see something like this on a much smaller scale. I'm thinking HPG Manifold-sized, configured as a proper concave crucible with relatively high visibility and enough cover to counter all that entails.

I think the concept is tough on Terra Therma, because the size of the map and deep terrain mean it's slow enough to gain situational awareness, let alone react to it.

[EvilCow]

Then let's just make lance spawns random, a lance could spawn on any of the 6 available spawns regardless the others. I would make this an option, I would keep the current mode.

Not all maps would support this however, it could work only on the big ones (and could justify even bigger maps, imagine that).

[LastPaladin]

As others have said, if players can find a way around this they will. Trying to force players to play the game in a way that reduces their odds of winning is not a good plan, because they will try to circumvent it and be resentful about it at the same time.

That's why the separated drop formations we already have are pointless, and this would likely end up the same. As long as there is nothing in the actual gameplay to encourage lance-based strategies over blob-based ones, people won't be easily forced into using lance-based ones. If you want to change player behavior, you simply need to offer incentives for the preferred behavior, and the players will change quite willingly. Until that happens, they will resist.

[Alcom Isst]

LastPaladin, on 31 January 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

As others have said, if players can find a way around this they will. Trying to force players to play the game in a way that reduces their odds of winning is not a good plan, because they will try to circumvent it and be resentful about it at the same time.

I see. Well, Mr. Lastpaladin, you must be having an insight into my proposal that I am not. Please tell me, for which team, red or green, did I reduce the odds of winning?

Edited by Alcom Isst, 31 January 2014 - 04:50 PM.

[LastPaladin]

Alcom Isst, on 31 January 2014 - 04:47 PM, said:

I see. Well, Mr. Lastpaladin, you must be having an insight into my proposal that I am not. Please tell me, for which team, red or green, did I reduce the odds of winning?

Whichever team is silly enough to try to fight it out lance by lance, instead of running back to their group.

[Alcom Isst]

LastPaladin, on 31 January 2014 - 09:08 PM, said:

Whichever team is silly enough to try to fight it out lance by lance, instead of running back to their group.

Yes, though in this case regrouping is half the challenge, at least that was my intention.

Edited by Alcom Isst, 01 February 2014 - 07:40 AM.

[Nathan Foxbane]

The problem I see here is there are a couple basic tactics, but all of them end up screwing at least one friendly lance over and rely on the other team pretty much doing the exact opposite. Lance composition is never taken into account, nor is the PUG tendency to leave the slowest 'much behind. This kind of thing does not work on all maps either, so it becomes a conditional deployment chance on only certain maps and only in one mode.
First tactic: Lances 1 and 2 target the lance between them and attack it. Lance 3 is left with the unenviable choices of break through to Lances 1 or 2, get pincered, or make a run straight up the middle at the target lance and hope they are faster than the opposing lances. Lances 1 and 2 become vulnerable to the second tactic.
Second tactic: Lances 1 and 2 decide to link up with Lance 3. Lance 3, with any luck, becomes the target of the above tactic and is left in the equally unenviable position of being the anvil for two hammers or holding out long enough to be relieved and hope Lances 1 or 2 do not get waylaid by the unchecked opposing lance.
Third tactic: Lances 1, 2, and 3 attack in a clockwise or counter clockwise direction.
Fourth tactic: The company rushes to the volcano and attempts a King-of-the-Hill style defensive action.

While interesting all these tactics are bound to go horribly wrong with amazing speed. Also of note is that no sane commander would deploy their forces in such a matter unless something had already gone horribly wrong in their campaign or deployment.