128 player Team Hierarchy

[goguapsy]

^That is pretty neat, but will hardly happen between pub players. More experienced players might achieve that. But that's not 100% of the time.

Of course, I have serious issues when organizing fireteams. Only once it actually worked... Buddy teams, actually. But the level of comms you are suggesting (though I know in-game they will be infinitely simpler) are rare to me.

It all boils down on how well you communicate as a SL and how good are your squad members.

the best way to achieve 2 fireteams in a squad of 8 (if its possible in BF2) is to use a Similar system to the Squad leaders numbers on the Minimap, except you have [Squad 1] (1) for the squad leader, and (1) for the first fireteam [there will only be 2 fireteams anyway]

I have no idea how to do this, probably some way to link the Officer Kit to show up on the Minimap, and give the second Officer Kit in a squad a seperate colour.

If this made no sense to you, raise your hand and ill try again....

That would be PERFECT! But probably not doable... I was told you can't alter a squad map markers (except from altering the symbols of a SL and a SM).

[DudeofDeath]

I like 8-man squads personally for 128 player, 12-man seems to be too many, somewhat harder to control and assemble.

[Redamare]

This was sent to me

HITMAN 2.5.

"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CBA to be argued with on the main post to many people that think they know everything...

based on US/British army (only difference is the UK call a squad a section and some times a fire team a brick) i'll use US terms


Usually in a infantry company you have 3 platoons
under the command of anything from a 1st Lt to a captain some times a major

2 platoons of rifles

1 weapons platoon

usually in one platoon you have 3 squads
they are under the command of a 2nd/1st Lt

each squad is around 9 men under the command of a Sgt 1st class a staff or an average Sgt.

you have two fire teams in a squad
then you have fire teams usually 4 men, the fire team is lead by a Cpl.

so in a platoon you have around 30 men (i didn't include RTO's)

so in a average company you have 91 men "

[Kain888]

For gameplay the best solution would be imo 8 men squad, split into two 4 men fireteams (by players - don't see necessary kits here, like fireteam leader (it can have ugl) - except doubling medic and ar from 7 players in sq). Not confusing, not overloaded and still good for gameplay. 9 x 8 = 72 so it's enough room for players in game. It may be different for each army, etc. but we can't really portray that in game and I think 8 men squads would be good compromise.

[xambone]

Anyone know if this next patch will give all server admins the ability to have 128 man settings?

[Dev1200]

Can't do anything with BF2 VOIP besides turning it on or off.

What about tr.exe voip

[Bob of Mage]

Don't forget that just because 6, 8, 10, or 12 players is the max, that squads will have to have that many members. Since we have to use a 'one size fits all' approach it's better to have emtpy slots in a CAS unit than too few slots in a well oiled MECINF unit. The (if it doesn't kill the game) option to do so is what is important.

One way to have a sub-commander is to make a NCO kit. More or less the same as a Officer kit, a NCO kit should only be requestable by a SL with a unit >1/2 size (or something like that), the SL can then control if and when a NCO is in his unit. The NCO could lay FOBs, wire, foxholes, and HMG, but probably not anything limited like ATGMs. The kit would also make it easier to tell if and when someone had the role (useful for COs, smurfs, late joiners, and snipers:twisted .

These are just my thoughts, I hope they are useful.

[ghoststorm11]

Id have to agree with bob. The ability to have 12 people in a squad is a very good option. That does not meant that every squad needs it. For an armor squad, you have the potential of running six tanks. That is very powerful, even if you split the tanks up within a squad. I have had countless mishaps between tank squads because it is too difficult to communicate with them. For armor, where essentially you have 6 units max, this could prove to be very beneficial.

[Michael_Denmark]

If I recall correct, I think it was Eggman who once wrote that the developer-focus was to create as open a game as possible.

In regard to the use of leader-related-terminology, the very naming not only depends on the different lay-outs, that different branches and different countries make use of in real life, but also just as important, the game-content of PR it self. For instance one type of PR battle-plan could require a 16-man squad in the first phase of the battle, while another PR battle-plan, would require a 4-man squad in the last phase of the battle, regardless of available asset, tech-weather, team-culture, team-skills, server-culture (public gaming), community-culture (tournament/clan/world-cup), and / or game-mode-related-culture.

So as open a layout, as coding-possible, I think is still essential.

[KingKong.CCCP]

50 players per team is almost the same as 32 players, it's gonna be the same game. Squad limit will probably be raised to 8, but still, it will be the same thing, I see no point in this thread (lock coming?)...

... unless you're talking about 300p servers...

THEN it's a different story, but still not much we can do about it. The hierarchy will form on it's own after few months of game play. It's too early to talk about it, since all we had were 3-4 rounds with more than 180.

[Wicca]

How people organize their squads, is not that important in my oppinion. Some run FTLs, some run with a blob. If gameplay is to succeed the team communication is more important. I suggest making 3 SL channels. And having 3 platoons with 3 Squads in each. Then having 1 PL per Platoon who can communicate with the other Platoon Leaders.

In mumble ofc. Cant play 128 without mumble

[marlboroman]

How people organize their squads, is not that important in my oppinion. Some run FTLs, some run with a blob. If gameplay is to succeed the team communication is more important. I suggest making 3 SL channels. And having 3 platoons with 3 Squads in each. Then having 1 PL per Platoon who can communicate with the other Platoon Leaders.

In mumble ofc. Cant play 128 without mumble

Won't happen with the lack of admins on the test server, btw why is it still a test and not a standard available to all servers? Maybe we get one two GG's a day under a hierarchy but honestly, you think even half of the 128 pubbers playing will give two shits what some guy "above" him said if it isn't the CO or an admin? Maybe on the tournament level, not the pub level IMHO. Trust me, I wish it wasn't that way.

[killonsight95]

Won't happen with the lack of admins on the test server, btw why is it still a test and not a standard available to all servers? Maybe we get one two GG's a day under a hierarchy but honestly, you think even half of the 128 pubbers playing will give two shits what some guy "above" him said if it isn't the CO or an admin? Maybe on the tournament level, not the pub level IMHO. Trust me, I wish it wasn't that way.

because it's still being tested, it won't be in the next ver of PR, it might be in the next if testing goes well.

[Wicca]

its far from ready yet mate. The admins are there to make sure nothing bad happens. And they do. ALOT.

[Michael_Denmark]

Won't happen with the lack of admins on the test server, btw why is it still a test and not a standard available to all servers? Maybe we get one two GG's a day under a hierarchy but honestly, you think even half of the 128 pubbers playing will give two shits what some guy "above" him said if it isn't the CO or an admin? Maybe on the tournament level, not the pub level IMHO. Trust me, I wish it wasn't that way.

On tournament level it should work out already by now, however, as you say, on the public level, that's where the challenge is.

Although I'm not sure if it can be coded in PR, -yet, it should still be possible to organise player-informations, so public-teams in the future will fell sure to trust the person playing the FT/SL/PL-function, as well as any other function on the team.

It i simply a matter of identifying what makes a player-function trustworthy in all and every aspect of the game, -and then deploying the related information to the community, however, the down-side is that many players will find such an approach too serious, so its not a perfect solution.

[Wicca]

Well usually having one person who binds the entire team togheter is better than having a butt load of squads not communicating.

[MAC$DRE]

The 128 player organized battle (USA&GER vs HPC&FRANCE) was a blast! Even with the language barrier, an extremely strict chain of command made it work perfectly. On the tournament/match level it's just like a 64 tournament, except much more epic. On the pub level, its just like a 64 pub, not much worse or better (teamwork) on average. A CO has to work 2 times as hard on 128 to herd the cats, if not more. Also, if there is a complete failure of a platoon leader and I'm an SL, I'm not going to follow his stupidity into death. I imagine most people feel that way in a 'non-organized' pub game. I foresee much insubordination in the pub realm.

Could a mutiny system, like the CO mutiny, be implemented/coded for subordinate officer positions?

[Cassius]

Won't happen with the lack of admins on the test server, btw why is it still a test and not a standard available to all servers? Maybe we get one two GG's a day under a hierarchy but honestly, you think even half of the 128 pubbers playing will give two shits what some guy "above" him said if it isn't the CO or an admin? Maybe on the tournament level, not the pub level IMHO. Trust me, I wish it wasn't that way.

I would think that most people who play PR would like a somewhat structured gameplay. Its the point of the game. If you want a different style of play you are better off with some other game and the grafic engine will be more advanced too.

Respect the principle and basic premise of the game. I dont load up left for dead and try to squadlead my teammates military style.

[MAC$DRE]

I would think that most people who play PR would like a somewhat structured gameplay. Its the point of the game. If you want a different style of play you are better off with some other game and the grafic engine will be more advanced too.

Respect the principle and basic premise of the game. I dont load up left for dead and try to squadlead my teammates military style.

I applaud your optimism and vigilance to do what is right in PR, if everyone played like that it would be great. However, you are extremely lucky to get 5/6 squads working together in 64 player, let alone 128. I understand and agree completely with what you said, but the teamwork (from what I have seen) on the 128 is average. With dwindling #'s in PR I already oppose the 128, so maybe I am biased but its nothing more than a big 64 w/ twice as much trouble and few admins. Sorry, my griping is just as pointless as going super-tactical when the rest of your team isn't. I digress and point out that PR is free and a wonderful game (:

[vishuddaxxx]

test server back up for the weekend.. password on mumble