DISCUSSION Multiplayer in battle communication....

[Major Robert Dump]

Another option would be some sort of "help" beacon. Of course I would be the one always using it. Seriously though, I think Dawn of War had it

As far as other in-game comms, I much prefer voice over text. I have not played NTW, and am sort of in the middle of the road when it comes to games with onboard voice. In addition to external chat programs, I suppose steam could also be used but I have never tried it for more than 2 people.

[drone]

Another option would be some sort of "help" beacon. Of course I would be the one always using it. Seriously though, I think Dawn of War had it

Yeah, DoW had a ping feature, the ping beacon would show in the team's minimap and on the main map. IIRC, it was colorcoded to the player's color, and combined with the team chat allowed for decent coop.

[Magyar Khan]

For me the minimumneeded feature should be THE ping option .... Coloured by THE player colour....

[Togakure]

In some of the best-executed 4v4 MP team games I've experienced, a "leader" was designated on the team, who established a basic strategy and adjusted it as the battle progressed.

Imagine this: that one player on a team could be designated leader in the game interface. This leader could direct what he wants the other players on his team to do by selecting their units (one or more, click and drag) and clicking to establish pathways/waypoints. The interface could show this using visual indicators, like the "ghost" destinations in STW, with "ghost" waypoints to show pathways, using color code tint to distinguish between each member, etc.. Of course, the team members would not have to do what was directed, but the leader's strategy would be captured. If this were recorded with replays, with the ability to view a replay from the standpoint of either side ... we could see strategy intended, vs. strategy executed, and everything that happened in between. We could see where independent deviation was brilliant, or disastrous. It would be both educational and entertaining. There is no way to really see this now except vaguely, from the standpoint of your own team and what you personally experience and do in the battle.

This could be available during battlefield setup after units are positioned, or after the battle starts, or both--depends on how it was implemented.

This would not be simple to implement and would involve some considerably focused and tested design and development. It's not something that I've seen done before though, and the thought of it excites me. I'm thrilled by clever tactics envisioned/executed, and intrigued by what makes or breaks a battle. This would be a way to capture and study these to a degree.

Did I describe this well enough to convey an idea of what I mean?

[UglyElmo2]

I think you described it well. If my small mind can understand it, I am sure others can as well. :)

[pevergreen]

I think you described it well. If my small mind can understand it, I am sure others can as well. :)

....

!!!
elmo?

[Kocmoc]

In some of the best-executed 4v4 MP team games I've experienced, a "leader" was designated on the team, who established a basic strategy and adjusted it as the battle progressed.

Imagine this: that one player on a team could be designated leader in the game interface. This leader could direct what he wants the other players on his team to do by selecting their units (one or more, click and drag) and clicking to establish pathways/waypoints. The interface could show this using visual indicators, like the "ghost" destinations in STW, with "ghost" waypoints to show pathways, using color code tint to distinguish between each member, etc.. Of course, the team members would not have to do what was directed, but the leader's strategy would be captured. If this were recorded with replays, with the ability to view a replay from the standpoint of either side ... we could see strategy intended, vs. strategy executed, and everything that happened in between. We could see where independent deviation was brilliant, or disastrous. It would be both educational and entertaining. There is no way to really see this now except vaguely, from the standpoint of your own team and what you personally experience and do in the battle.

This could be available during battlefield setup after units are positioned, or after the battle starts, or both--depends on how it was implemented.

This would not be simple to implement and would involve some considerably focused and tested design and development. It's not something that I've seen done before though, and the thought of it excites me. I'm thrilled by clever tactics envisioned/executed, and intrigued by what makes or breaks a battle. This would be a way to capture and study these to a degree.

Did I describe this well enough to convey an idea of what I mean?

Nah sorry, the best teambattles fought was done by player who know what their teammates would do. Mag and me player a few thousand battles together and reached a point where we mixed the armies in a way you dont see at all these days.

Blind knowledge what your teammate is gonna do, this lvl you will see in every teamgame. Arena in Wow, WC3, SC2. The best teams also almost never use TS a lot, here and there some words. A rule is: The less a team is talking, the better they are!

Anyway, the pace and the action is what wins a game, slow movement, getting some cav to your teammate is tiresome and obvious. Trapbuilding and hard pushing, offering and also wasting some units, that is what a game is about. Maybe hard to explain...

Today i see player speaking about how good someone is, be cause he win a shootout by stepping his missles. Wow, if thats the new skilllvl, than good night!


Back to topic.

Fog of war is a very good way to raise the momentum, also the teamcommunication of what you or your team can see. Let me bring up some examples here:

In old TW games, you just could bring your camera to certain points of the map, if you got an unit around. Otherwise you could not move your camera there. This was a good thing, since you couldnt see anything, it caused a certain "playing lag".

Fog of war cant just be done without creating units around it, with FOW you need scouts,
in my world of balancing, the scouts should be ( lets stick to cav) a very small fast unit with almost no h2h stats.
The turningspeed has to be high, the runningspeed should be not the highest, there should be one ore two counter, to make the scouting not too static, give that scout a "boost" button, set it maybe on a timer of 1 min or whatever ( that has to be tested).

The boost ensure, that you can take some risk with this scout once the boost is up.
On the other hand it doesnt allow you to scout all the time, this give some momentum and surprise back to the enemy.

Hills should have effect as well, if a hill raise scoutingarea, it has another advance.


Once you did scout somewhere ( now comes my delay for your team) the area you can see shouldnt instantly be seen by your teammates as well, there should be a delay of 20 sec ( this has to be tested).


Apart from this, Team Speak is the way to go, in STW2 we will see heavy melee or if we take cav also in to it, at least heavy h2h. The moving and fighting speed will be interesting, than we can say something about the pace of the game.

Right now NTW is static and very slow, lets say tiresome, moving skills are less important. The quicker a game become, the shorter is the time to communicate and bigger a mistake counts.


koc

[Togakure]

MmHmm. No mind. Pawn sacrifices to create openings. A piece moved in seeming threat is a distraction but captures the enemy eye; the real threat comes from the pathway created by the piece moved, from the back line. Not hard to understand. You explained just fine.

I agree that teams which reach "no mind" state are usually most awesome. Few achieve it because of the investment and intelligent practice required (thousands of games together, etc). You are fortunate, to have been able to spend so much time playing together. Few are able to do that.

The thread title is about discussion re: in-battle communication. I described an idea along those lines. Do you want to hear ideas from others or not?

[Kocmoc]

Once you have a good team, this wont be needed, especially as the pace of S2 will be much higher, than NTW.

I agree, that new player will make use of it, the question is, if the player who are unexperienced will follow it and if they actual are able to follow it.
Later on, with some games in your bag you hardly will use that tool. With high pace, the game change a lot and i ask myself, if someone can be able to command an army and meanwhile find the time to also command other player.
At the beginning of a fight, play on the map the first time, it might be useful to get an idea where you want to setup your team, yes. Unless something change, later on, i doubt that you will find the time to communicate what you want.

Teamspeak will surely be quicker and much easier to use.

What about a unit-ping? So you can color the unit of ping it somehow, or make a drag area. I can imagine, that this in combination with TS could be done.
Still, the way i move and use my army is many times very different from other, i know player who use just 4-5 hotkeys and still player very good.