Eagle's Eye View
#1
Posted 03 August 2015 - 11:37 AM
They could create the 13th Player for each team, and the 13th Player would play as the MechCommander.. controlling the Lance Move and Company Move commands, and dropping artillery strikes.
No guarantees that the pilots would listen.. but that's also true for real Mechcommanders. Remember the Mechcommander intro trailer?
#2
Posted 03 August 2015 - 11:40 AM
#3
Posted 03 August 2015 - 11:45 AM
So the 13th player would just join the CW lobby with the rest of the team, selecting "Mechcommander" or soemthing.
But I suppose it could be done in a normal PlayNow match as well..
PGI would probably have some ideas.
#4
Posted 03 August 2015 - 11:46 AM
Edited by Ultimatum X, 03 August 2015 - 11:47 AM.
#5
Posted 03 August 2015 - 11:48 AM
#6
Posted 03 August 2015 - 11:48 AM
The Eagle's Eye view shouldn't show mechs that can't be seen by pilots.
Ultimatum X, on 03 August 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:
#7
Posted 03 August 2015 - 11:49 AM
#8
Posted 03 August 2015 - 11:54 AM
What if Blue Team Mech A can't see Red Team Mech Z but Blue Team Mech B sees him?
Is that mech now suddenly visible to the mech commander?
I'm certain you are not fully thinking through the level of effort to implement nor all of the massive ramifications that this would entail.
I'm not trying to pee in your cheerios' but sometimes people think "this would be cool" - and it would, but it's also extremely unrealistic or unlikely to ever happen.
Edited by Ultimatum X, 03 August 2015 - 11:55 AM.
#9
Posted 03 August 2015 - 11:56 AM
#10
Posted 03 August 2015 - 12:00 PM
Ultimatum X, on 03 August 2015 - 11:54 AM, said:
What if Blue Team Mech A can't see Red Team Mech Z but Blue Team Mech B sees him?
Is that mech now suddenly visible to the mech commander?
I think that's how it was in Mechcommander too, mechs disappear from the Mechcommander's view once they hide behind buildings. When another mech on your team sees it, it becomes visible again. A diamond red would appear on those invisible mechs but detected by radar.
#11
Posted 03 August 2015 - 12:07 PM
There would need to be strict settings for such a system, where this would be a better possibility for Community Warfare over the quick matches.
And with my experience with the Total War series, I can see having Commanders being able to only see the Battle Map where that would be the main screen for the Commander, and/or then maybe have a restricted camera (basically a small side monitor of how Spectate currently works, where you would only be able to see what your units see).
This way as info on the map pops up, the commander can relay orders as to what to do to counter and have control to launch Artillery and so on.
I just remembered a game I had played before called Natural Selection that has a Commander in gameplay, I just haven't played that in so long though I don't remember enough details about that mode.
#12
Posted 03 August 2015 - 12:22 PM
If enough time and resources were spent to make it a balanced and fair system (LoS tracking of enemies, etc) then it could work, but there are two main problems.
The first, is that very few people in the PuG queue are likely to listen to a Commander. Organised Groups, yes, but PuG drops will just wander off and die like they usually do, then blame the Commander, and the Commander will have to sit in frustration as NOBODY does what he said they should have, and deal with a horrible loss. For the Commander, it'd be like getting legged in Death Valley, and watching as the four Trial Stalkers laugh manically.
The second issue, is that the amount of resources that PGI would have to devote to making it successful, and the three to four years for it to FINALLY work the way it's meant to, are better spent working with what we already have.
So, as much as I love the idea, I think it's a bad idea for now.
#13
Posted 03 August 2015 - 12:26 PM
Alistair Winter, on 03 August 2015 - 11:40 AM, said:
Not in the pub queue. 9(for 8+1 vs 8+1)/13(for 12+1 vs 12+1) man group queue only, with a dedicated spot for commander in the list.
Also, add a Commander spot for CW as well.
Potentially allow 8+ man groups in the regular group queue to select someone as commander before launching so that group has 7+ combat players and thus a garaunteed majority of players on the team in that battle.
You couldn't have solo players going that way, it's just a recipe for failure. But with full groups? Majority groups? Yeah, you could do that just fine.
#14
Posted 03 August 2015 - 12:30 PM
You can just have it like SC2 where you see the map, but enemy mechs not seen by one of the mechs or a uav are covered in Fog of War.
It could make the tactics in MWO so much cooler because you work together now, like getting half the team to cover for stranded teammates with suppressing fire, allowing them to pull out and etc.
On any trollmanders that might show up in pug queue, have a vote system and record system where team members can vouch for how someone was good at commanding at the end of a match to show their credibility to the next pug team, kind of like an actual military record.
#15
Posted 03 August 2015 - 12:31 PM
Thunder Child, on 03 August 2015 - 12:22 PM, said:
If enough time and resources were spent to make it a balanced and fair system (LoS tracking of enemies, etc) then it could work, but there are two main problems.
The first, is that very few people in the PuG queue are likely to listen to a Commander. Organised Groups, yes, but PuG drops will just wander off and die like they usually do, then blame the Commander, and the Commander will have to sit in frustration as NOBODY does what he said they should have, and deal with a horrible loss. For the Commander, it'd be like getting legged in Death Valley, and watching as the four Trial Stalkers laugh manically.
The second issue, is that the amount of resources that PGI would have to devote to making it successful, and the three to four years for it to FINALLY work the way it's meant to, are better spent working with what we already have.
So, as much as I love the idea, I think it's a bad idea for now.
Yeah, as it stands no. They'd need to flesh out the interface and get proper LoS/sensor tracking of enemies (so the commander can only see enemies that have been identified by friendlies) and all that.
So, your first objection isn't really relevant as this is an impossible idea for the solo queue, so we can just scrap that outright.
The second objection is valid, however. I don't think it'd require as much time as you say - given PGI's current productivity, I think realistically you could have a functional but bare bones interface in 6-9 months, relatively finished product in 12-15. However, that would be totally consuming the UI engineer's time, as well as a few other folks, for the duration, so that would come at the cost of other major game features during that time. That's a big opportunity cost for something only available to a small portion of the playerbase (very large groups) in the least used game modes. It'd be absolutely awesome, no doubt, but... I think there's a big list of things with a better cost:benefit ratio.
#16
Posted 03 August 2015 - 12:32 PM
Ultimatum X, on 03 August 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:
And this is why we can't have nice things in this game. Player attitude just sucks balls.
#17
Posted 03 August 2015 - 12:43 PM
masCh, on 03 August 2015 - 11:48 AM, said:
The Eagle's Eye view shouldn't show mechs that can't be seen by pilots.
It does when the Blue Team commander is actually working for the Red team and is giving out all the information via the Red team's team speak server.
#18
Posted 03 August 2015 - 01:18 PM
MrJeffers, on 03 August 2015 - 12:43 PM, said:
It does when the Blue Team commander is actually working for the Red team and is giving out all the information via the Red team's team speak server.
Seems like a pretty far-fetched scenario, and one that's not really any worse than having a dead blue player revealing his teammates' positions to red via TS, which is what we have now. Generally speaking though, most people try not to sabotage their team until it's just one guy left hiding and shutdown in a corner.
#19
Posted 03 August 2015 - 01:24 PM
aniviron, on 03 August 2015 - 01:18 PM, said:
Seems like a pretty far-fetched scenario, and one that's not really any worse than having a dead blue player revealing his teammates' positions to red via TS, which is what we have now. Generally speaking though, most people try not to sabotage their team until it's just one guy left hiding and shutdown in a corner.
True enough for pub queue. But for CW and CW events there would be benefits for having traitors on the enemy teams, especially once holding planets becomes worth something. Sabotaging the enenmy forces to take over planets would be a thing and would happen. Probably more frequently than people would be willing to admit.
Just look how much ghost drop planet stealing occurred in the last event. Traitors make that much easier and more rewarding since you actually get match rewards instead of ghost drop rewards and they happen faster than ghost drops. It's hardly far fetched, they are not sabotaging their own team, they are an alt account that is working against that faction to benefit the other.
Edited by MrJeffers, 03 August 2015 - 01:25 PM.
#20
Posted 03 August 2015 - 01:33 PM
However, I would not like "pudding" on my face.
The best/cheap alternative is actually allowing said player to spec through everyone on the team... essentially figuring out who is the best "eyes" for the mission when needed.
However, I don't think PGI would be able to do this in safe, reliable manner, so I can't even vouch for the idea.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users