Mission system, squads and specialisation

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by Shanesan

Gotcha. Nobody uses the search before they make topics anymore.

I do not create threads anymore as it seems most subjects are already covered in one or another.

Unfortunately though, I think you're right about the search function being underused.

[DviddLeff]

What I was trying to get at originally was to have squad roles to help commanders coordinate battles tactically, but as I wrote the post it ended up turning into yet another concerns thread...

[Stardouser]

I wanted to make a reference to an old game from the 1990s, Tornado, which was a flight sim, but it had a simulated campaign, and I think its mission planning system deserves a mention. Unfortunately I lost the disks years ago and this is the best screenshot I can find.

Now, it's quite advanced, so I'm not saying everything or even anything specific should be adopted from it.

If I remember correctly, the area represented is something like 64 miles X 64. The green lines are higher territory, red is roads, black is rail roads(or vice versa). You can see the rivers and lakes, and if you look closely you can see the airfields. You can also see that Waypoint A is the origin airfield for the attack flight, and Waypoint Y is the secondary target(X is the primary). The bright white waypoint markers are yours, the greyed out waypoints are the flight paths and targets of your squadron.

Granted, the focus of the games are different, Tornado you went around blowing stuff up that stayed destroyed. Nevertheless I thought it deserved a mention as respects the planning system.

And it's too bad this is the only screenshot I found, it has a lot of filtering levels, it will show AA coverage of friendlies, AA coverage of enemies if known, and a hell of a lot more.

[ringring]

Platoons are not in ....

this iinfo came from an interview (in a bar) at GDC between Higby, TRay and someone (sry can't recall names) representing PSU readers.

Higby said, they don't have platoons, squads only. TRay interjected that if they're need they will put platoons in.

So, platoons are not in for now, but they could be added.

(The inference Higby seemed to give, although I may have misunderstood, was that the levels of control were squads then outfits - which to me doesn't compute)

Referring back to the op, I don't see how missions could possibly replace platoons.

+1 for return of platoons please
+1 for inclusion of bigger groupings e.g companies, brigades also

[Grognard]

Originally Posted by ringring

Referring back to the op, I don't see how missions could possibly replace platoons.

+1 for return of platoons please
+1 for inclusion of bigger groupings e.g companies, brigades also

I think no less than companies should be an ingame supported echelon. Top, left, right side platoon graphics, not too hard, not too clutered...

If they do battalions... it would be interesting to see how they implement it. Probably a pull-down placard or some such.

To me, an Outfit is a Brigadesque-type formation, given that most outfits have a general officer as an Outfit leader.

[Ruwyn]

Guys, I made a mission. accept.

guys?

Guys?

GUYS? I MADE A MISSION!

[Mechzz]

Originally Posted by Ruwyn

Guys, I made a mission. accept.

guys?

Guys?

GUYS? I MADE A MISSION!

lol. I just made a post in this thread worrying that you would only be able to initiate a base capture if you had accepted the mission to capture that base. That mechanic would get your mission some acceptance?

Bit too much Big-Brother about it for my taste though.

[Malorn]

I believe there are two issues that may be getting muddled.

1) Empire-commanding
This is commanding people who are not directly under your influence. It should be other squad leaders, outfits, or just random zerglings. Defining a mission and having them get bonuses for achieving it is one positive way to both communicate where you want them to go and reward them.

2) Outfit-commanding
This is commanding people who are directly under your influence and are there voluntarily already. You don't have to convince these people to go where you tell them to, nor do you have to (or want to) advertise your plans to them.


The mission system seems to handle #1 well. The game itself can also generate missions to help encourage certain behaviors over others. This is all goodness.

But I think there's a gap in Outfit commanding.


Here's what Higby said in the AMAA on managing outfit resourceswhen BuzzCutPsycho asked him about it.

Originally Posted by BuzzCutPsycho

Will there be organizational tools for outfit leaders? Back in PlanetSide 1 during the prime of our outfit (The Enclave) we were fielding 50 guys a night and eventually ran into the problem of the "2nd Platoon" being off the map, hard to coordinate with via way-points, etc. We did manage to make it work via the use of grid coordinates and proper communication that didn't make it any less annoying to do. Essentially once our first platoon was maxed out anything after that just felt out of place.

Our outfit in PS2 will be of similar size, potentially larger and I am wondering if you have anything in place to allow for such a force to more efficiently organize? Things such as "outfit way-points" and seeing every outfit member on a battle map would be ways to help out with this.

Originally Posted by Higby

A lot of our hopes for massive coordination both for outfits and in general rely on the mission system. Our design for the mission system is that players (including your outfit leaders) can create missions which are then accepted by players to complete. Ideally by having various levels of granularity we will allow large groups of people to coordinate without the overhead. We've got a lot of work to do to make this perfect, and my hope is that by having some big organized outfits helping us out in beta we can hammer out all the features that you guys want / need in order to have the best possible experience.

As Buzz points out it is hard to efficiently manage a group, and being able to see them on the map is important. Waypoints are important. Not having cross-squad visibility will hinder group efforts.

The great part about Platoons was that it was a dynamic multi-squad creation system and didn't even have outfit requirements. You could add in a recruit or some random guy who happened along and wanted to see what your ops were like.

I'm unconvinced that the mission system will adequately supply the control necessary to organize multiple squads efficiently. It seems fine for general empire management but not for the type of organization larger outfits require.

[headcrab13]

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

The mission system is replacing the platoon, allowing commanders to direct any number of squads around the continent to perform various tasks, mainly involving capturing or defending territories or parts of facilities.

The thing I find most interesting about this is that at launch, there won't be platoons OR a player-driven mission system. The only missions that will be available for months will be from SOE, so how are squads going to collaborate?

[Malorn]

Organizational tools for a MASSIVE combat on an EPIC scale shooter? Nah, don't need 'em!

I expect they look back to PS1 which shipped without platoons (or a mission system) and see it as something that isn't ship-critical. So they're focusing on ship-critical things so they can get a functional game out there and then add in "quality of life" things like organizational tools later.

[Eyeklops]

Imagine:
Die to small zerg at some random outpost control point.
Right click control point on map death screen --> "Create Mission: Defend Control Point".
10 people see this mission and accept, you can tell this by checking your mission status log.
Feel all fuzzy inside with the knowledge that your not alone against a small zerg.

[Ruwyn]

the gaps that Malorn and other have described are the exact problem many of us see. The mission system is a hand holding function for those that do not know how to read a map or look at chat and decide what to do. Which I find hilarious since I am someone who most likely will never use it. The whole "accepting" the mission is about providing feedback to whoever made it so they know someone is going there. What if a squad accepts it then never shows up?

Guess what? PS1 had missions without an actual system. You joined a squad and then the leader would decide where to go and what entry and what not. How many out of 10 people actually made it to where they were supposed to be? IMO this whole mission system is a waste of time when you are building it for PUGS who never actually follow through 100%, let alone something like 7/10.

All this is going to do is move people to certain places on the map. Fight over territory A. Need 2 squads to Territory C. Wow, i just typed that....wonder if it could be read in chat....

Now if you can get 10 random people together, have them accept a mission to SPECIFICALLY get to a tower and grab MAX units. Then Wait. Then Wait. Then Crash BD when called on. Or any other technical task beyond "go here. shoot. derp a derp". I will concede and never doubt SOE again. Until then, not buyin it.

[Eyeklops]

As someone who suffers from ADD, ADHD, and Macrodactly, missions will help keep my focus on target.

[CuddlyChud]

I'm not sure where the idea that platoons are gone comes from, but Higby mentioned platoons in the mmorpg interview.

[Bittermen]

Originally Posted by Ruwyn

Mission system = stupid.

All kind of targets were already called out in chat. Anyone with a brain could look at a continent map and foresee where the fight was heading. All decent outfits moved to counter or defend and would put out the call for reinforcements.

The only thing this mission system is for is to attempt to spread people out, instead of having 300 vs 300 over one tower/base. I think they fear Forgelight will not handle it and we'll be back to 50 vs 50 in general areas without lag.

I think they used it so zerg players would have more of an objective... You have to remember not everyone plays video games to be a tactical badass.