In between the hassles…

Taking breaks from trying to solve the game’s problems and actually playing the game (as my non-caps name) has keep me running these last few days. I’ve been playing BioShock too, but far less than our game.

Watching the lightbulbs going on over players heads as they get to grips with whats new in 1.27 is pretty fantastic. The way people conduct their battles didn’t suddenly and magically change over night – but it shifted into gear.

The first pass was people driving supplies around willy nilly, which doesn’t work because trucks are kinda soft targets. However – going up against an enemy with supplies is a different beastie than going up against an enemy without – a battle between two equal forces is going to be decided by which co-ordinates with its suppliers better.

Mortars…

Well, individually, as I’ve said before, they’re zilch. Like as not, you’ll go thru your standard ammo issue just ranging a target. It’s also surprising how short 500m is – especially for a round that takes ~20s to travel the distance.

But the mortar is anything but useless. I didn’t imagine myself spawning it more than a handful of times. Oh, silly me ;)

8 Comments

I think the mortars are a blast to use, but if not in a squad thats actually getting organized its hard to use them effectively.

The two most dificult things to do with mortars in a ‘lemmings’ mission is say “this is a good spot to deploy” and “lets concentrate our fire here”.

I think some new map icons would help this. Would it be possible to make “deploy here” and “concentrate fire here” icons that only MLs and mortarmen can place?

I really think that more specific mission types (eg: mortar team mission) would help this a LOT once you have dynamic origins and targets for missions implemented.

When I first logged in with the new patch I was like “I want to find some people using them in a group and join them” and the best I could find was large missions with three or four scattered all over the place.

Do you guys have any kind of specific mission types like this planned? I can even see tank missions, ATG missions, AA missions. Looking at the mission list and having some idea what the plan is for each would greatly help a player decide which to be on.

I think “concentrate fire here” is a great icon — /report it :) As a player myself, I’ll certainly suggest it but it helps the team to know its not just me asking for my ideas :)

Gophur wants to add a bunch of mission types, I want to add one or more extra “atom” of mission type definition – so that the basics (attack, defend, supply) remain simple, but you get adjectives you can add, like “Infantry” and “diversionary” etc.

Hopefully when we do the mission system changes, objectives will become “meta” missions that you can spawn on aswell, find people and then form a sub or new mission with your own objectives and people can join/leave/transfer as they change their own goals – making it much more like grouping and much more effective/relevant.

The mission sub-type could become a mechanism for grouping like-expectation players, if the game mechanics backed up the mission types effectively. A mission of standard-defined type “fire support” wouldn’t attract players that want to run off and cap or interdict supply or blow up tanks if the “fire support” mission type always had a 150 meter mission-OIC-proximity requirement. But, other mission sub-types wouldn’t be so neatly controlled.

Another way to move toward purpose-coherent missions populated by like-expectation players would be to allow mission creators to define a mission sub-TOE. An infantry mission with a TOE of four mortars, 2 LMGs and no other heavy weapons wouldn’t attract players expecting to sap tanks…but it still might attract cappers and interdictors.

At all times there has to be a gameplay outlet for those players that reject team play and just want to run off and do their thing. I don’t see a good reason, though, why all such players can’t be grouped into just a few missions entirely of that player type, with the teamwork-expecting players joining different missions.

The mission system inherently will be weak as a means of encouraging team play until mission leaders can be assured that *all* the players joining their mission are accepting the defined mission goal and will work toward it on a team basis.

I’ve always been an advocate of some sort of Grouping mechanism, something along the lines of a 2-5, 2-6 or perhaps even a 2-7 man ‘Fireteam’, where success is shared amongst the team rather than just rewarded to the individual…”Assists” as it were. As has been pointed out, Mortars need to work in teams in order to be truly effective. Unfortunately, the game rewards only Individual effort rather than Team effort. Allowing folks to group up in small Fireteams, allows for the success of an individual, to be shared with his fireteam.

A bonus function for Groups/Fireteams would be to allow for some Icons and other map markings to be shared with just the members of the Fireteam. There is some information that does not need to flow outward beyond the team itself.

One notable potential advantage of ‘Fireteams’…mission coordination…particularly if the ML had a ‘List’ function that would allow him to see the names of every fireteam leader on his mission as well as the number of team members and most common or most powerful weapon type for each of those Fireteams. This way the ML can know generally who and what are on his mission…something that is constanty changing…without having to spawn out to look at the Briefing page or mousing over all mission member icons floating on his map. As a bonus to assist this coordination, offer up a ‘Command Channel’ which can only be accessed by Fireteam Leaders the MLs. There is some information that doesn’t need to be lost amongst the normal, ‘Mission’ or ‘Target’ channel chatter.

A finally bonus thought and a nod to Squads, if two Fireteam Leaders belong to the same squad, they can group up and thus allow them work together as a proper ‘Section’. You could even go so far as to allow for Squads, if they got enough members leading Fireteams to create temporary Platoons or even Companies…using the Fireteam concept as force-multiplier for a Squad and providing a means where Squads can truly Lead on the battlefield.

Just a thot.

How about always showing your squad members on the map no matter what mission they are on.

I’m sure we all agree that mission types need to have more than just different labels and descriptors. Those would only tell people what they can expect (sort of ) and what is suggested /expected of them.

Different mission types could have:

-different scoring mechanisms
-different equipment lists (Jwilly’s idea)
-more or less restrictive spawning rules
-limited access to new features.

One mission type that I think we really need is “escort” and not just for air units either. Escort missions would be gated (you cant join after the mission has launched) and scored according to how long the vehicle you are escorting survives.

Trout

I suggested the “concentrate fire” icon 6 months ago in the forums.

Does that count?

[quote]I suggested the “concentrate fire” icon 6 months ago in the forums.

Does that count?[/quote]

Count for what?

You want to score points for a “suggest idea in the Forums before other people” mission type?

Leave a Reply

Name and email address are required. Your email address will not be published.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <pre> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> 

%d bloggers like this: