10 replies to this topic

[Aderas Keegan]

Reposting this here:

So, I had a thought. Given the nature of battlefield information in MWO, a lot of the fight is going to be understanding where your opponent is through use of your scouts, and coordinating that information to your team-mates. While most of that is done automatically, such as through the targeting interface, there's still the matter of more direct locations.

In most MechWarrior games there's a Tactical Communications officer giving you an overwatch, providing nav points and alerting the rest of the team to new information when applicable. I've thought, wouldn't it be interesting to be that person?

Basically the idea was to have, in a Merc Corp or a House unit, a person or persons who could be designated as TacCom officer. Said person wouldn't participate in any of the three Lances per battle, but would have an observation of the battlefield, provided by radar readings that the 'Mechs on the ground give them. Or, remember the original Reveal from 2009 where the guy launches a drone? Something like that would be nice.

The issue here is that such a position would be optional and completely reliant on the rest of the team giving the operator the necessary information to be effective on the whole. Plus, most folks would rather be on the ground than giving intel. All the same, what are your thoughts?

Got some very positive attention in the fledgling thread (here), and figured I'd bring it to the attention of folks up in this area!

[Graives]

Yes, I think this is the right place to put this. As I was going to continue in the other thread, I will post here instead. Hope it does more good. Also, it would be a good idea if you posted a link from the other forum thread to here, for those who were following that thread.

Regarding the issue of getting unwanted TacCom Officers, the Dev's have already handled this issue regarding Commanders roles in games. I don't remember exactly which thread it was in, probably something about Role Warfare. But I think it's covered in my other thread HERE.

[ManDaisy]

Why does everyone still call em Commanders? Thought they were properly named to deflate egos.

[Graives]

Thank you ManDaisy for pointing that out but not providing the updated Name/Title.

Getting back to the idea, we know there will be someone in the group with the ability to issue orders and guide the rest, depending on their modules and being designated to command by the group. We also know that the Dev's seem to want to break us of the idea of designated roles, or limiting a person to playing a specific role. Which is all fine and well. I think the Dev's have a pretty fine line to walk, and know it. They are making a game based on the TT for BattleTech(SP?). Obviously I'm no guru, but I realize that we will have to respect a few things when asking for this implementation. First, it obviously has to have existed in the game universe for that time period. I would assume it does, but if it doesn't, then we have to respect that.

That all being said, a few other things seem obvious to me. First, the Dev's are wanting to get their gamers immersed in the universe AS a MechWarrior. Second, they also are wise enough to not try and put too many projects upon their shoulders, keeping them from reaching their deadlines in time.

The 3rd point I wanted to bring out is a counter point in favor of the proposed idea. You see, while some players do seem to be set on roles, I believe it is for very good reason. Time and experience has proven that you can accomplish a lot more by specializing. You do want to have the agility to fill those in-between gaps, but you also want to be effective enough to accomplish important tasks well, not just in a cursory manor. Serious gamers do want to specialize, because they want to win. And it's just a proven fact that it's much more efficient and effective.

I for one appreciate the current design, allowing players to unlock every "talent" in both Mech and Pilot. But getting back to specialized roles being more effective, if the guy who's supposed to be giving commands is also having to fight off the enemy actively, the likely-hood that you can be outmaneuvered increases. Your "Commander" can get overwhelmed with staying alive and fall behind in their duties to tactically lead the group as a whole, and that's where specializing and having an optional non-pilot TacCom becomes appealing. At least in theory.

[Graives]

HAH! Check THIS out! It's exactly what we've been talking about, AND it's in the TT game already!

[Aderas Keegan]

I'd say the Command Console is very close, but not exactly what we're talking about; for one you'd still technically be on the battlefield in the CC, just not controlling the 'Mech you're on. While in game that would be pretty interesting, Sarna makes a good point; it stopped being used largely due to how big of a target it made the CC equipped 'Mech.

All the same, it is pretty much as close to it as you could get in game, without being on an orbiting dropship or something. Which does bring into factor... if they're planning on adding tanks/aerospace fighters etc, maybe implementing a 'Commander' would be the first step in that direction? It'd certainly be less cumbersome than handling it from within your 'Mech.

[Graives]

I suppose that's another idea. And then again you could supposedly use their current setup too, it would just probably mean either a mech is less active, or your commander could possibly not be as active leading. There are good commanders out there that can do it all, but I think less multi tasking would open the position/role up to more players that don't have to be quite so talented. Also you could fit one more player into each match that way if you wanted. The problem then might be how issued commands would be received. Which could easily be a simple set of recorded voice responses, one for a male voice and one for a female voice, or just make it computerized. And maybe use the map to signal orders. Plenty of options there without forcing people to use mic's.

[CCC Dober]

I can imagine that fire support units have more time on their hand to manage the information and flow of battle. Playing WoT, I've been using artillery for precisely that reason: total overview and relative security with screening forces and/or base defenders nearby. It's going to be difficult to lead the whole game from the front when you're busy dodging Gauss and PPCs at the same time.

[Graives]

CCC Dober, on 22 July 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

I can imagine that fire support units have more time on their hand to manage the information and flow of battle. Playing WoT, I've been using artillery for precisely that reason: total overview and relative security with screening forces and/or base defenders nearby. It's going to be difficult to lead the whole game from the front when you're busy dodging Gauss and PPCs at the same time.

I see your point, and agree to some degree, but it really depends on how one plays and what their ability level, or natural talent is for the game. Someone could be really good at one thing and terrible at something else, and trying to do both could cause the pilot to do worse in their best skills trying to compensate for what they are lacking in other skill performance. That's the beauty of specializing.

[JokerPW]

Well, there are organized teams that meet here, go out to make their strategies and defining their structure.
And I, unlike ManDaisy, agree that this is the best way. Even if I'm not the one giving orders.
This is a military game, and strategy and organization help.

[Graives]

JokerPW, on 23 July 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

Well, there are organized teams that meet here, go out to make their strategies and defining their structure.
And I, unlike ManDaisy, agree that this is the best way. Even if I'm not the one giving orders.
This is a military game, and strategy and organization help.

^ This. Exactly.