In Response To: Re: Narc's "Halo 3 Partnership" article (vector40)
: 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.
Most of the strategies that popped into my head did in fact involve the team members being in separate areas of the battlefield with general instructions that were occasionally made more specific depending on circumstances.
|
