14 replies to this topic

[BerserX]

I don't know if this is practical to do, or if something similar is even being done; but I just had an idea of how the role ideas from the http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1 thread could be incorporated effectively into the game. I was inspired while thinking about the original Ghost Recon squad layouts.

Here it is:

Each mission will be divided up into multiple objectives (naturally). To capitalize on 'Mech roles, the objectives will be individualized. There will be the obvious "Destroy Enemy" primary objective; but there will also be many others, such as "Scout Enemy Perimeter," "Disable Enemy Base Static Defenses," "Secure Nav Center," "Scout Terrain," etc. (these are simply ideas of objectives). There would be one main objective: such as "Destroy Enemy Base," or "Capture Enemy Flag;" but then, there would be multiple secondary objectives (like in Crysis) that would unlock special bonuses (like airstrikes or artillery) or team XP points. Certain 'Mechs would naturally be better than others at accomplishing these objectives - there might even be special buildings/hardpoints in each base, that would encourage usage of ligther 'Mechs to capture/destroy.

Before each match, there would be a roster for such groups as: "Command," "Assault," "Defence," "Reconnaissance," "Support/Miscellaneous." Assuming that each game can host about twenty players per team, these groups would represent individual lances (there would be a slightly different setup for the Clans, to represent stars).

The team commander (the head of the Command Lance) would have the ability to give orders to his teammates (maybe like a BF2 setup). The commander would have to be someone good at managing a fight (someone good at RTS), and would be in charge of utilizing team XP points and bonuses, in addition to commanding the fight. This would make the Command Lance a prime target for the opposing force.

This idea would encourage the usage and proficiency of lighter 'Mechs for recon/support roles; brawlers and snipers for support, recon, and defence; and then - of course - the BIG 'Mechs for assault, command, support, and defence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's my idea. I wish I had thought of it sooner.

What does everyone think?

[Dlardrageth]

Current status seems that each team would rather be compromised of 12 players/Mechs each, Mech company sized thus. And unless you want to implement your idea for a "campaign mode" mostly, good luck getting random people in random battles to listen to any kind of orders, no matter if those make sense or not.

Also bit of a letdown if you wanted to join a fight and lo and behold, only "Defence" roster slots would be available as all others are taken already. Yeah, bet your itty-bitty Locust is the optimal choice for that one... It could work somewhat if we get the option to set up a lance prior to the battle, so you join as a pre-configured scout lance already. But having roles assigned to random people in random matches who might not care a whit for that role sounds like it might not work out quite well...

[Threat Doc]

Yep, that idea is shot in the head out of the gate, BerserX, and in this instance the "kill it all now" crowd has the field. Things like this might get implemented later on, but the idea of having any manner of depth to this game is dead on the table. Sorry. I would rather be anything than gloom and doom, but this is how it is, for now.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

@Kay - I thought from what they said that Merc Co would be able to choose their makeup before drop on a Contract, only having to accept lone wolves if they don't have the numbers?

[Threat Doc]

I think we're actually waiting for the other shoe to drop on that one. We've been told there will be a 'bulletin board' in the Merc Corps HQ that will list contracts, and we've been told we'll be able to drop in 12 v 12 matches. What we haven't been told is whether or not we'll have an optional gathering time that will allow us to get our crap together; it might sound ridiculous to say that, but taking anything for granted, now, is just a bad idea. What I was talking about last night was the multiple map objectives, because we've been told, unless I've just read it incorrectly, that border (NOT boarder) planets will exchange hands on the merits of a single fight, for now. The latest Q & A sort of killed any actual plans for a strategic to tactical fight developed by the players; our hosts have now made it abundantly clear that the game is going to be a drop-and-kill simulator with, perhaps, better means of fighting and fun to fit everyone's yen, perhaps being added, later.

The conversation I began about "My Vision..." and the convo's begun by others about this very same subject, have been put down pretty badly, even if the conversations were otherwise very good. I figured squashing this one before it goes too far would be a good idea, so we don't get our expectations up too high.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Agreed it has been pretty much shot down for the start but I think if they want any longevity, then the campaign game will need multiple objectives/maps. It's just wrong to allow a planet to fall on the result of a single 20 minute 12v12 match. That sort of game will not get me to play mutch longterm, just drop in occaisionally to have a "blast". It certainly won't persuade me to spend money as I'm not a PvP "ranking" chaser which is all it will cater to.

Edited by Nik Van Rhijn, 27 December 2011 - 02:04 PM.

[Threat Doc]

Precisely. Do the devs have the resources to do anything about that, right now... I honestly don't know. I'm extremely good when it comes to budgeting, though, and if it weren't against the FCPA -oh, wait, it's Canada, so it's not-, I would love to see where they have their money so they could squeeze as much out of this game as humanly possible.

[Dlardrageth]

Well, we can still set some hopes on the next expansion(s) after launch for more depth. If they don't decide to go the "easy" way and just make expansions with Mech models/gadgets only (which has almost no long-term customer-binding effect IMHO). In theory PGI could even release the "campaign/strategic game" as a seperate title with interaction possible between the two. Although, how (not) well that could work out shows the example of EVE-O and its "Dust514" spinoff.

If they only make it "yet another FPS", I'd agree with you, Kay, probably some initial success and quick money-grab, and not much of a perspective/niche in the long run. Nothing to hang around for or spend much, if any, money on for more than a month or three. If I just want some stat-padding, rank-grinding FPS, I won't need MWO for that.

On that note, I really wished PGI would have some accessible "roadmap" of the project/development, obviously not with time frames listed or anything. But giving more of an indication what is to come short- to mid-term. Not the usual thing with the gaming industry, as they seem to fear negative user feedback on that one if not proceeding 100% true to it. On the other hand, they should realize, that most gamers would prefer this, even if some parts will have to be canceled out. Instead of being left hanging to dry without any info. Waiting for yet another patch or yet another expansion in order to get any clue of where "their game" is going to go to...

[BerserX]

So... do y'all think it may eventually happen?

I must admit that I do not do much online (this would be my first MMO - assuming that reliable internet comes my way), so I am a little confused. I understand about the "roadmap" idea, but I am a little confused as to everyone's actual opinions on this.

Do you think it's just a little too ambitious now?

[Threat Doc]

I think anything the devs have not planned, at this point, are too ambitious. Unfortunately, without the suggested "road map", we don't know what they have planned.

For my part, I would rather see a complete list of the features the devs WANT to put into this game, and then three columns in a table after that for Integrated, In Work, and Not Begun. Then, DO NOT LINK anything to these forums for people to talk about, just leave it the hell alone. Perhaps make an announcement, fire and forget, and be done with it... let the speculation begin.

[verybad]

Well they've mentioned that linked missions are something they want to do. When the game comes out, it will probably be somewhat limited in terms of overall depth. This will change over time as more stuff gets done, and data from players is used to balance everything.

I think the "Commander" will be an important part of the Lance. I would change their title to Communication Officer, and the actual commander won't necessarilly be the one titled with Commander.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Well the "Commander" is the one that the "scouts" supply info to and has the "radar grid"(map?) and has an important role to play. Obvious mech would be the Catapult so they could also act as fire support to facilitate multitasking.Perumably they will be the one to communicate with the others. If you have 3 lances does each have a "Commander"? Trouble is every time they answer a question, they create 20 more.Ican see this working where you have "clans" playing as house units or Merc Co's but what about people that just join a House without being part ofn existing group. "Herding cats" was one expression used.

[Threat Doc]

verybad, on 28 December 2011 - 02:03 PM, said:

Well they've mentioned that linked missions are something they want to do.

Man, I can NOT wait to see how this is going to work.

Quote

I think the "Commander" will be an important part of the Lance. I would change their title to Communication Officer, and the actual commander won't necessarilly be the one titled with Commander.

On the most literal definition, you're absolutely right, but I think our hosts have something more in mind for Command role-players. I don't know what, but I can't wait to find out.

Nik Van Rhijn, on 28 December 2011 - 02:42 PM, said:

Well the "Commander" is the one that the "scouts" supply info to and has the "radar grid"(map?) and has an important role to play. Obvious mech would be the Catapult so they could also act as fire support to facilitate multitasking.Perumably they will be the one to communicate with the others. If you have 3 lances does each have a "Commander"?

I don't believe the command roles, the higher ranks, etc. actually interfere with one another; they are almost mutually exclusive. Each of the roles is supposed to have its specializations, and the Command role, I guess, can call in off-board support elements, get better intelligence and, yes, is the communications center for the unit. The way I would like to see things done for my unit is to have at least ONE Command role player per Company.

The real-world organizational control recommendations are that each person controls between 3 and 10 people, at the absolute most; 7 is really the best number, but the typical Inner Sphere organizational setup doesn't allow for that. So, what's best is for the Company Commander to speak to all of their people for fast or nebulous orders, and speak to their Lance Leaders for more specific/specialized orders. It fits, from experience I know it's the best way for communication to work, and I believe a minimum of one Command role player per Company would be best.

[Rhinehart]

I think we'll be fine. These guys have their heads on their shoulders and have been quite adamant about desired multiple roles for differing mechs. Some cautious pessimism isn't a bad thing but let's not get too down on things. It's not even 2012 yet. Besides, the world could end before the game is released and then we won't have to worry about any of it

[BerserX]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 28 December 2011 - 02:42 PM, said:

Well the "Commander" is the one that the "scouts" supply info to and has the "radar grid"(map?) and has an important role to play. Obvious mech would be the Catapult so they could also act as fire support to facilitate multitasking.Perumably they will be the one to communicate with the others. If you have 3 lances does each have a "Commander"? Trouble is every time they answer a question, they create 20 more.Ican see this working where you have "clans" playing as house units or Merc Co's but what about people that just join a House without being part ofn existing group. "Herding cats" was one expression used.

I definitely understand that point of view. I remember the first time I fought a clan on Halo 2, I felt like a punching bag.

Rhinehart, on 28 December 2011 - 05:03 PM, said:

I think we'll be fine. These guys have their heads on their shoulders and have been quite adamant about desired multiple roles for differing mechs. Some cautious pessimism isn't a bad thing but let's not get too down on things. It's not even 2012 yet. Besides, the world could end before the game is released and then we won't have to worry about any of it

Agreed, we are not even guaranteed a "tomorrow." And, it's always easier to critique, than to "create."