Jump to content

Formerly Clan Sea Fox Thread, Now Random!


1961 replies to this topic

#901 DragonClaw

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 187 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 03:25 PM

View PostKurai14, on 14 February 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

I just checked it out. The match sizes are "supposed" to be 24 total. 12 vs 12. So it should play out to Three lances each side.



is that from the dev. or a speculation post?

#902 Ookami14

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 101 posts
  • LocationReading, PA

Posted 14 February 2012 - 03:27 PM

Dev Q&A 2

http://mwomercs.com/...-developer-qa-2

How large are you planning to make match sizes in terms of number of players? 4 vs 4, 8 vs 8...etc. –Red Beard
[color=#CCCCCC]
[MATT C] The current plan is for a maximum of 12 vs. 12 so long as we can ensure a solid play experience for that many players, otherwise we would fall back to 8 vs. 8.
[/color]

#903 DragonClaw

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 187 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 03:31 PM

o cool kurail, thanx. we dont want to fall victom to a spec blog



(o damn 10 pages gain from just this morning)

Edited by DragonClaw, 14 February 2012 - 03:37 PM.


#904 Rabbit Blacksun

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Privateer
  • The Privateer
  • 664 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationAround the world ...

Posted 14 February 2012 - 03:48 PM

currently we can easily field 12 players assuming that every one is on at the same time B) so thats a bonus I am hoping to be able to field multiples to help increase revenues in time for launch or at the very least so we can get our names out there as a small but reliable group

#905 Coralld

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 3,952 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 14 February 2012 - 04:32 PM

View PostKurai14, on 14 February 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

I just checked it out. The match sizes are "supposed" to be 24 total. 12 vs 12. So it should play out to Three lances each side.

Edit: Looks like I got the next page. Cora, get over here and give us our reward!

Places a gold star on your mech.

And pertaining to that last Fox Girl pick on the last page, yeah, she is in my sigy. B)

Edited by Coralld, 14 February 2012 - 04:33 PM.


#906 firefox117

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 14 February 2012 - 04:36 PM

Hey Kurai, nice catch on Coralld's signature. Didnt even notice that. Googled Fox girl nose art as well, nice to see we are the first match to pop up on googles return. We should get something for that.

As far the command setup, you can do it like a normal squad setup with a few modifications. Just my thoughts, but you could set it up as 1 CO, 1 XO and one Platoon Sergeant (PSG). Under the PSG you have 3 Team Leaders (TL) and each TL is responsible for 2 Mechs. Gets your total of 12.

You can set up the teams as a mix of scout and assault mechs, with the PSG, XO and CO providing fire support. This way we can still have some control over the mechs, with all TL reporting to the PSG for orders, the PSG to the XO and the XO to the CO. If we can fill all 20 slots listed on the clan site, they just break it up into two squads with a few teams each, and set em onto the battlefield to unleash havok. There are a few other options for breaking the teams up further, but throwing that one out there for now.

#907 Coralld

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 3,952 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 14 February 2012 - 04:44 PM

Lets try to keep it simple and effective is all I care about, we also have to take into consideration on situations where the top command guys get taken out during the match and how the rest maintain cohesion.

#908 Tim doyon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 139 posts
  • LocationDenali National Park, AK

Posted 14 February 2012 - 04:49 PM

We will just have to make sure all our guys know what their lances mission is I guess.

#909 Ookami14

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 101 posts
  • LocationReading, PA

Posted 14 February 2012 - 04:50 PM

True Coralld, if say Rabbit is taking a Star in to fill a contract, whats gonna happen if he gets smoked and need to eject? Who is gonna assume command, and if its chosen before hand will they know how to handle the situation?

#910 firefox117

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 14 February 2012 - 04:54 PM

The best way to keep control IMO is to add the team leaders or some sort of lower command. This way if the XO/CO's do get taken out, there is still lower leadership to take charge of their teams/squad.

Then again, the setup on the clans page looks good as well. Not sure what you guys are looking at doing or how to merge the mechs together, so just throwing some stuff out there. Again, the best idea is to have some sort of command structure to the lowest level, this way at some point, there is always someone in charge.

#911 Tim doyon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 139 posts
  • LocationDenali National Park, AK

Posted 14 February 2012 - 05:00 PM

Wait a sec, dont we have a couple military types around here? One would think that Command and Control would be an area of expertise for them.

#912 firefox117

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 14 February 2012 - 05:01 PM

Kurai, they are going to have to pick someone regardless to replace the commader if he goes down. That when our training will come in, and who ever is in charge will have to pick someone they feel either knows the missions, or knows what to do if they have to take charge. Im sure everyone here has a different command style, but what really matters is that we continue to work together, and understand that who ever is in charge is trying their best with that they know. If we just stop listening to who ever replaces our leader, they all hell is going to break loose.

Tim, I am one of those types, think Rabbit is also, but not %100 sure. The best thing would be for us to sit down and chat over it, get peoples opinion and go from there. Command and Control (C2) is pretty easy to establish, but we have to ensure that whoever is picked to be in charge understands C2 and what they need to do.

Edited by firefox117, 14 February 2012 - 05:04 PM.


#913 Coralld

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 3,952 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 14 February 2012 - 05:01 PM

It definitely needs to be broken all the way down while still simple.
The problem with most basic Clan command structure is that it heavily relies on the single leader barking orders. Now that is well and good and keeps things simple but once the leader is gone the lower guys have very little to no structure and become very sloppy.

#914 firefox117

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 14 February 2012 - 05:12 PM

If you guys plan to continue promotions and what not, they if you have a single mech leader, the guys under him should be trying to get promoted, correct? It would have to be setup and understood that if the leader goes down, then pilot X is the next in charge. pilot X and the leader should be working together during training and what not, so they both know what to do, and can lead, so on so forth down to the last pilot in the group.

Or, is the leader of lance A goes down, then the rest of the mechs would fall under Lance B's leader. The problem with that though is the other lances wont really know how each fight or how to employ them. I.E. assaults and scouts wouldnt pair up well with the same leader. There are several different ways of estabisling C2, we just got to find one that works the best.

#915 Coralld

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 3,952 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 14 February 2012 - 05:16 PM

I think there needs to be a list made for our lances that shows not only who's in the lance but who is also in charge in descending order, this way its simple and easy to remember.

#916 Rabbit Blacksun

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Privateer
  • The Privateer
  • 664 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationAround the world ...

Posted 14 February 2012 - 05:18 PM

CnC is fairly simple ... atleast from a learning POV it gets rather ...complicated... in actual combat.

A battle plan never survives the initial battle as the saying goes

We can break this down pretty simply with the current load out. Though I would highly recommend that we do nothing to indicate who is in the command structure.

And yes I am in the military :(

What we are looking for from what I am gathering is a rather loose command chain that has a distinct place and the ability for any member to step in and fill the role should it be needed ?

#917 Coralld

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 3,952 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 14 February 2012 - 05:22 PM

View PostRabbit Blacksun, on 14 February 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:


What we are looking for from what I am gathering is a rather loose command chain that has a distinct place and the ability for any member to step in and fill the role should it be needed ?

Something to that effect yes.

#918 firefox117

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 14 February 2012 - 05:24 PM

That sounds good to Rabbit. Everyone should be able to step up, but at the same time there should be, at the most, a loose command structure so we are all not fighting over who takes control one our first leader goes down :D

But there are a ton of different ways to set something up and what not. Im just along for the ride now until I get to kill something :(

#919 Rabbit Blacksun

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Privateer
  • The Privateer
  • 664 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationAround the world ...

Posted 14 February 2012 - 05:29 PM

hmm well i will sit down at some point today and run through a few options and see what we can come up with :( though ideally i would like to train every one in a command role (not necesarily skill wise just knowledge wise formations movements etc)

#920 Coralld

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 3,952 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 14 February 2012 - 05:29 PM

I'm for the organized and loose command structure as it lends its self to be rather adaptable and keeps cohesion when things hit the fan, but I am am also open to other ideas.



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users