31 replies to this topic

[Armored Yokai]

but you did see the trailer when the drone scouted the area so i am just checking it like that

[Threat Doc]

Ahh, okay... I think that will be one of the cool tools to implement in the game, and it would be great for checking the most local situations, to keep your backside out of the proverbial bind. Yeah, that would be okay.

[Garviel]

What you need to be careful with on this topic is to make sure that someone who's skilled up as a commander can still join in a fight and be useful even with another commander on the field. To this end, the command mechs will need to be quite versatile.

For instance, your main commander could be rigged up for Information Warefare & Communications (effectively a team leader), while other commanders can spec their mechs for Electronic Warfare; target jammers, sensor dampeners, etc.

Only an 'off-the-top-of-my-head' suggestion, but the principle is: can the game still function if you end up fighting along side a couple of other chaps also in command mechs with command orientated pilots?

Any thoughts?

[Threat Doc]

Nothing but agreement, man. Nothing but agreement.

[Dlardrageth]

Will depend all on implementation. Surely a "nice to have" option there. Has to stay an option though. I don't really like the idea that in a PUG battle one person is totally randomly chosen. Even if you go by built-in command console and what not, how about 2 or 3 players in one team having it installed? So you would roll a dice who of those gets command or what?

Mind me, sounds like a good idea, but the actual implementation could be tricky. It might eventually even come down to the point that the command option might be there for a certain game mode, and not for another. We can certainly not expect that all people will always be happy if in PUG matches they get assigned a random person as "commander" (no matter what actual "extras" that commander gets in-game).

A way it might work, is if you get pre-match the option to form a Mech lance with an assigned lance commander. And then enter a battle/PUG match as a lance. Anything beyond that might be real hard to implement properly for PUG matches. Now for a different game mode, like, say, a so-called "historical battle", where both teams have to be set up completely before entering the match, that sure should be easier to implement. But a stringent and complete command structure for random PUG matches... don't see a real good solution for that as of now.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 21 November 2011 - 12:39 AM.

[Anval Gato]

I like the idea of the commander aspect to a game, Battlefield 2 did it well. Of note, Battlezone 2 is also worth looking at for how it was implemented there and incorporated a resource gathering and building element.
Quake Wars has something similar as well I believe but I have not seen this game.
World in Conflict, as an RTS, could also provide some inspiration.

The scope of the role would depend a lot on the game size. The larger and longer the battle scenario, the more scope for a greater chain of command. The higher up in the chain of command, the role becomes more strategically orientated and less directly involved.

In Battlefield the Squad Leader was doing most of the commanding through setting objectives for his/her squad. This is the equivalent of a Lance Commander. At this level you want to be able to react quickly to the battle so need to be able to set objectives and make requests quickly. The interface needs to be simple and efficient, a visual point and click style with a few options for situational planning.

At the next level up, the Commander in Battlefield could issue squad commands and had several support functions and this is as high as it got.
Effectively this is a Company Commander, as it would be in Mechwarrior, they aren't going to be too far from the combat but they have more logisitcal and support options available such as artillery and aerospace support. Notably, a company has a dropship. Assigning roles and objectives to the lances as well as utilising options such as artillery and aerospace support make up a fair portion of this level of command, but the most important aspect is communication and feeding information between the lances.
Effectively there are 3 lances and a variety of support personnel and vehicles in the company.

Above this you get to Battalions and then Regiments. The Battalion consists of 3 companies, a Regiment could be from 3 to 5 Battalions. Now if the scope of the game allows for large scale battles, and I truely hope it does, then having these additional levels in the command structure should be included with appropriate options. Playing through a scenario which gets into this scale would be truely exciting in this genre. After all, we are talking about an MMO.
Having 120 or so mechs battling it out might be a bit of a challenge but there would be elegant ways of handling this in the game design. For example, running simultaneous maps and allowing for transfer of personnel and information between them. This is where a Regiment command or possibly the Battalion Command would be spending their time. Controlling resources at the different fronts, specifying new drop locations for reinforcements. There's more of a resource/builder role and you start to think of RTS elements.

Going higher in the command at this point become more political and you start to delve into a different arena. Which worlds to target, how many regiments to send, are there enough jumpships. Evolving the game to this level should be considered and left open to possible development but would be a different game in it's own right. Having it tie in with the guts and steel of mech combat on a thousand different worlds in a realtime MMO? Now there's something that could make your brain spin and mouth water! (Probably best for another topic!)

[HIS MASTERs VOICE]

Do we even know how many players the game supports in one match? Is there a re-spawn or dead-and-gone round system? BF2 commanders worked because there were multiple players on each side (which meant lots of stuff to coordinate) and every time the commander bought it, he could simply respawn back into the game. If MWO goes for the Counter Strike system (dead and out of the round), I'm not sure how the games won't devolve into hunts for the other side's commander, provided he brings a tangible benefit to the team (and if not, why even bother).

Wouldn't giving lance leaders an equivalent of the commorose plus some extra tools like scout drones or deployable motion sensors be a better idea?

[Joseph Mallan]

I'm going with maybe. first I don't know what being the leader "in game" will entail, but otherwise, I'm a leader not a commander, so I'd happily lead a Lance but I am hesitant to command a Company and above.

[Bridger]

As far as a command interface is concerned, it is not that big a problem. Take a look at what Operation Flashpoint 2 has. They use a radial context menu. It is a good interface not only for command but also for instant communication with your team. I don't think that you will need some special "command module" on your actual mech, Simply a different menu based on your respective "rank". This can also help with the whole "intelligence warfare", as team mates can more easily call out targets.
The more interesting element of this is that you can use it to call in support (artillery, airstrikes etc'). But this begs the question of how deep they are taking this game. If they put in support units, then the commander has a real role, as the one who can communicate with these units. Otherwise it will just be another shooter with mechs (a prospect i do not like).

[metalwolf2900]

i love the idea of a chain of command with rank advancement, but what if the commander starts doing a very horrible job of commanding and doing an equally horrible job of damage control, would there be more like a vote to be done for non confidence or are you just stuck with the frak head? the idea of a situational commander is awsome as to rely info back to the commander and to have a quick reaction to changing events on the feild.

[Strayed]

Don't suppose anyone's played Empires Mod for Half Life 2? Got me thinking cause they manage to pull off an rts and fps at same time with that using real players.

[Threat Doc]

Dlardrageth, on 20 November 2011 - 10:17 PM, said:

I don't really like the idea that in a PUG battle one person is totally randomly chosen. Even if you go by built-in command console and what not, how about 2 or 3 players in one team having it installed? So you would roll a dice who of those gets command or what?

Okay, I keep hearing mention of PUG battles, and I don't really think that will be the case in this game. The commander forms their Lances, Company's, etc., keeping in mind that standby MechWarriors will need to be able to launch if they're available and, for whatever reason, a formed Lance is not whole when it's ready to drop-in. Even if PUGs do become a problem, for the Lances that are formed, the PUG simply comes in as the low man on the totem pole; therefore, the Command & Staff form the plan, ship it to their Lance Leaders, and let their Lance Leaders do what they're supposed to do, meaning the PUG guy(s) won't get in the way, they'll do what they need to, or they'll be kicked.

Quote

Mind me, sounds like a good idea, but the actual implementation could be tricky. It might eventually even come down to the point that the command option might be there for a certain game mode, and not for another. We can certainly not expect that all people will always be happy if in PUG matches they get assigned a random person as "commander" (no matter what actual "extras" that commander gets in-game).

Again, I don't think this will be the case. If what PGI says is true, and we commanders have our Merc Corps HQ interface, it will be up to people within the Merc Corps, or the House or Clan for that matter, with Launch authority, to launch the game. If no one is there with Launch authority from the unit, even if that someone is not dropping into the game, then the game simply doesn't launch. This is, of course, speculation, and there may be PUG games, but not in my Merc Corps, AU, if I can help it.

Didn't read far enough down on your post before writing that lot, so... yeah, what you said!

metalwolf2900, on 21 November 2011 - 07:50 AM, said:

i love the idea of a chain of command with rank advancement, but what if the commander starts doing a very horrible job of commanding and doing an equally horrible job of damage control, would there be more like a vote to be done for non confidence or are you just stuck with the frak head?

If a commander is doing a horrible job, their MechWarriors will vote on that by joining other units.

Quote

the idea of a situational commander is awsome as to rely info back to the commander and to have a quick reaction to changing events on the feild.

This is how I intend to command, anyway, having my Lance Leaders talk to their Company Commanders -if things get that big- and on up the chain. Someone mentioned earlier that the Force Commander would have the neat 'tronics to move the battle along and then the Field Commanders would have ECM, AMS, BAP, and perhaps some other advanced gear for utilizing and relaying information from inside the fight.