Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: Narc's "Halo 3 Partnership" article | |
| Posted By: vector40 <brandon@degreesofclarity.com> | Date: 5/3/09 10:06 p.m. |
In Response To: Narc's "Halo 3 Partnership" article (Hawaiian Pig) : Is this not already a given in Halo? A good team requires good communication, : and all that this concept really seems to suggest is that one person be in : charge. That being said, when it comes to Halo, the strategy isn't too : complicated. Good Doubles Teams know exactly what they're going to do on a : specific map right from spawn. I remember talking to goatrope and Devin : about their approach to doubles once. On the Pit, for example, the : meta-game has evolved such that the first spawn involves both teams : rushing Rockets and Camo; the direction is understood, and it requires the : team to slightly split up and then adapt based on how each fire-fight : goes. Similar scenarios occur on maps such as Construct or Epitaph. With : understood objectives, really all that's left is the need for good : communication. : The Lead and Wing concept seems as though it would work better in a
Just in case anyone's in the dark, the original article was this: http://rampancy.net/blog/vector40/11/07/2008/Banshee_Voice_Communication My thoughts: I originally developed this idea explicitly for two-person Banshee wings. I'm not saying it can't be adopted for ground fireteams, but I really want to emphasize that it's not the original concept. What made it a viable strategy in Banshees was the specific nature of that type of unit, and I cannot promise that it would be equally effective on the ground. For instance, you have less mobility on the ground, so you have fewer options in terms of maneuvering... but tactically things also move faster, so it's less feasible to attempt to coordinate actual combat-level stuff, because you just can't talk and react that fast -- it's all so fine-grained. So one of the points you'd need to think about here is whether the two-person team is even a useful method of play on the ground. Again, in the air, the Banshee wing is just an effective unit; it STARTED that way and then afterwards I started looking at ways to improve its functionality using better coordination. On the ground, do people even play in two-person fireteams? Stick together, moving as a single unit? I don't play H3 so I can't tell you, but if they generally don't, then you have to ask whether that's something that would even work, because if not you're trying to convince people to play in a manner they simply won't do, which makes coordination and communication a non-issue. Seems to me that there might be some use to tactically-supporting fireteams (e.g. you come in the door, I'll come in the window, we'll win because there's two of us and only one of them), but it might be limited. There might be more applicability to a looser arrangement where the two-person unit is more ORGANIZATIONAL than tactical -- i.e. they may not physically be in the same place, but the command structure is still in place, so the lead can still use the wing as a kind of remote extension of his will (i.e. I'll grab the flag, you clear out the hallway so I can escape), plus of course the two-way stream of pure informational exchange. I could imagine arranging an entire team this way, as two-person teams, and then one or more overarching levels of command to organize the overall strategy. That way you can task a fireteam to some vague task or responsibility, and let the tactical-level stuff all take place internally to that unit; it's just a flexible, two-handed appendage of the team as a whole. One issue with that is that my original system was specifically meant for communication within a wing, where it's really just a person-to-person link-up. There's probably room, potentially, for a codified system of organization and communication on a larger team level -- for instance, to share information and coordinate strategy -- but to do that you'd need to modify the system to include elements like a command hierarchy and an addressing scheme (so you know who's talking to whom). With regards to HP's points, one of the things I raised in the original piece was that if you play a great deal with a partner, you'll naturally develop a lot of the same skills that we're explicitly discussing here. That's great. So why would you want a codified system like this? Two reasons: (1) to help bring you up to that level WITHOUT thousands of hours of playing together until you develop a telepathic bond; and (2) to add some "power" to the dynamic, let you potentially use some tactics and methods that wouldn't be possible without explicitly pre-arranging (and probably practicing) the maneuver. So this is the sort of thing that would be nice but perhaps not necessary for an experienced already-existing team; rather, when it would really shine is as a device you could drop onto something like a clan, forging a method of teamwork from whole cloth. The only final thing I'd add is that I have no idea whether this stuff can work, but if it can, I suspect that it's going to be really challenging to implement. It was fairly difficult to do it in the air, but because things are so much faster and so forth on the ground, it's just going to be commensurately harder to make it work. So if it's doable, then great, and it may be very worthwhile, but it won't be a cakewalk getting it operational. Very interested in seeing what people can make of this, though. Keep us in the loop.
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |