DISCUSSION Multiplayer in battle communication....

[Magyar Khan]

For our wish-list I want to investigate what we want for ingame communications besides voicechat....

Do we want being able to give signals ingame/on the minimap?

Koc suggested being able to give delayed signals.... im not in favor of this every signal as respond due enemy action is delayed enough....

So whats left?

[UglyElmo2]

Maybe the ability to set waypoints which your team can see?

I may want someone to cover my left flank, so I set a waypoint on the minimap and it appears on my teammates' minimaps so one can set up there to help out if possible.

It would only take one click to accomplish. Have it set to where it only lasts on the minimap for 10 seconds or so. You could quickly click, and forget about it. You wouldn't even have to talk/chat very often for your teammates to know what you wanted them to do.

[Togakure]

Maybe the ability to set waypoints which your team can see?

I may want someone to cover my left flank, so I set a waypoint on the minimap and it appears on my teammates' minimaps so one can set up there to help out if possible.

It would only take one click to accomplish. Have it set to where it only lasts on the minimap for 10 seconds or so. You could quickly click, and forget about it. You wouldn't even have to talk/chat very often for your teammates to know what you wanted them to do.

Yes indeed, though I'm a little foggy on how it might work mechanically, I definitely like the idea.

[Swoosh So]

You could just have a key that you hold that shows you your allies movement arrows and ghosting from drawing units on the map and assign the arrows and dots colors depending what all it is.

[UglyElmo2]

I think Company of Heroes has a feature where you can set a flag on the map, which only your teammates can see. Maybe have a different color flag for each teammate. It doesn't sound like a big problem to program, though I admit I am no game programmer, my programming experience ended with Fortran 77 and Cobolt and a keypunch machine. :)

[Swoosh So]

I think Company of Heroes has a feature where you can set a flag on the map, which only your teammates can see. Maybe have a different color flag for each teammate. It doesn't sound like a big problem to program, though I admit I am no game programmer, my programming experience ended with Fortran 77 and Cobolt and a keypunch machine. :)

Noone knows what they are elmo :D Yes a flag would be nice also a ping on the map that makes some pingy noise? :p and makes little circles like water ripples on the map. seem to remember a game in the past that said attack here! and did this when an ally set it.

[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.

[Gregoshi]

Koc, you are talking about playing the game at a very high skill level that not many will attain (relatively speaking). However, think about training new clan members on how to better play the game, or those who don't know what their team mates will be doing instinctively (new players/casual players/random matchups). Communications tools such as being discussed here don't have to be used, but you can't use a tool that was never added to the game.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I got to agree with Greg on the issue of the skill. There was only 3 people in 6 years of my MP career where we could do things in 2v2's and not think about each other per say.

[Kocmoc]

Koc, you are talking about playing the game at a very high skill level that not many will attain (relatively speaking). However, think about training new clan members on how to better play the game, or those who don't know what their team mates will be doing instinctively (new players/casual players/random matchups). Communications tools such as being discussed here don't have to be used, but you can't use a tool that was never added to the game.

I think, that this kinda of idea/tool will be used, its useful.

I personal think, that new player will learn the fastest, if they watch replays or as spectator. If you want to train your team/clan you just join with 6 or 8 friends and noone is goin to attack, you just train movement.


In the end, this is about communication, if i just look from the topic pov, than i admit, that this will help.


The way this game is played, the basics are interesting in the first place. If the game keeps like it is now. That everyone can move with the camera around and see anything, than i dont think that we will need much better communication.


One thing i would like to see are hotkeys for camera points.
The way is easy done, same like doppleclick a unit somewhere, the camera moves quick over, there could be waypoints.

This way you could set some points, without the need of a unit. Even with max speed (shift + the keys) i need probably 2 sec to move from one side to the other, 2 sec is a lot of time....


edit: let me add one more thing, today many things people learn from watching vids, while back in 2000 many "secrets" kept within a few player, there were many little tricks which
made the difference and let you hold for quite long or even win 1v2. Let me bring the defender advance in MTW, shooting was always won by the defender...
The game evolved, in the early days many armies was setup and than walked into each other...

My point is, the difference is many times the small things, it can be very frustrating for player to lose, while thy do anything "right".
Can we make that seen? can we publish that?
I had a train camp running back in STW, each Sunday i did show real new player the basics, the effect of a hill, the doubling, effect of moral....standards.

I wish there where little vids out, where new player would see the effect of a charge, the outcome of different units.
How to react, in certain situations.

Raise the knowledge of new player, they surely wont use that all, but they at least know and can work with the knowledge.


In another tread i already wrote about the main problem of TW, if you want to turn the game in a massiv MP game.
the game is complex, not for me and not for other who played it some years, but for new player it is complex and it can become frustrating.
The quick victory wont happen many times. This has to be the main goal for us and CA, to ensure, that new player get quick into the game.

Right now you dont find enough infos, not in the game itself and surely not here on this forum. I admit, i didnt searched for it, maybe there are guides out.
Most successful games out there has guides, written by player, with tons of information vids and posts.

Here i see some discussion goin, but most for experienced player, almost nothing for new.

[UglyElmo2]

The Fearful Ways clan was probably the first group to master 4v4 Teamplay. We earned it by attacking 1000's of difficult maps against some of the top defender/campers in the game. Many clans followed and surpassed us, but our original 4 (Fucyuman, BlackShip, Obake and myself) could always give the top 4v4 teams a difficult time. Which is amazing, because I was not a very good player. My army was always the first to rout and my teammates always had to save my butt . . . but it worked for us. After all those difficult attacks on those horrible maps (Tosa mountain comes to mind) my Fear teammates pretty much knew what I was going to do and would cover me and use my sacrificed army to envelope and destroy the remaining enemy. We discussed what we were going to do before the game started, and once things began, we didn't really type that much unless it was to joke around or laugh at someone's mistake. We never took ourselves too seriously back then. :)

So what Kocmoc is saying is true: The communication function will benefit the new players more than the veteran. It will make things easier for them until they find a team that they know like the back of their own hand, and until they learn the complexities of the game . . . if there are any after seeing the releases after MTW VI.

[Magyar Khan]

so far we have a ping function on the minimap and an ability to see the ghosts placement of the friendlytroops in different colours...