

Role Classifications: Lance/Group Assignments/Objectives
#1
Posted 25 December 2011 - 05:15 PM
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?
#2
Posted 25 December 2011 - 05:47 PM

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...

#3
Posted 25 December 2011 - 10:47 PM
#4
Posted 26 December 2011 - 04:07 AM
#5
Posted 26 December 2011 - 07:34 AM
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.
#6
Posted 26 December 2011 - 09:56 AM
Edited by Nik Van Rhijn, 27 December 2011 - 02:04 PM.
#7
Posted 26 December 2011 - 12:26 PM
#8
Posted 27 December 2011 - 12:40 PM
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...
#9
Posted 28 December 2011 - 11:36 AM
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?
#10
Posted 28 December 2011 - 12:48 PM
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.
#11
Posted 28 December 2011 - 02:03 PM
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.
#12
Posted 28 December 2011 - 02:42 PM
#13
Posted 28 December 2011 - 04:46 PM
verybad, on 28 December 2011 - 02:03 PM, said:
Quote
Nik Van Rhijn, on 28 December 2011 - 02:42 PM, said:
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.
#14
Posted 28 December 2011 - 05:03 PM

#15
Posted 29 December 2011 - 06:28 AM
Nik Van Rhijn, on 28 December 2011 - 02:42 PM, said:
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:

Agreed, we are not even guaranteed a "tomorrow." And, it's always easier to critique, than to "create."
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users