Structurizing squads

[Apheirox]

Far too often, squads are mess. Squads are meant to create better teamwork and structurize the team but more often than not this is not what happens. For example, it is not at all uncommon to have a squad with a squad leader with officer kit, one pilot flying a jet, two AT kits , a sniper and a marksman - and all of them spread across the map. This is not a squad. This is a bunch of lone wolves grouped together, and it is hurting gameplay.

Now, I am not a person who likes imposing restrictions on what people can and cannot do. I believe in personal freedom to the widest extent possible. However, I am also not blind to the fact that the BF2 community has some less-than-ideal players. It is also clear to me that will never see great teamwork on public servers unless there are some restrictions - and in the end, I think people would come to love these limitations simply because it creates a much, much better gameplay with more realism and a real sense of working as a team. Besides, PM already enforces a long list of restrictions.

Below is the list of changes I would suggest to create a much more structurized Battlefield. I realize much is probably not possibly because of stupid 'hardcoding'. I then hope you can find a workaround. To sum it all up the goals of my suggestions are the these:

-Prevent mixed squads, make sure they are infantry only, armour only or air only

-Realistic loadouts for squads: No silly squads with too many of one type of kit

-Stop people from joining a squad just to be able to request a certain kit

-Make it easier for the commander to effectively command by being able to order around important units like snipers directly

Suggestions

-You cannot lock squads. Locked squads simply do not belong in PR: They reduce overall team effectiveness by making squads too small, and with squads and rally points being so important it is not fair to prevent people from joining

-In a full squad with six players, the squad leader can only request the officer kit, crewman kit or pilot kit. This will ensure the the squad leader is actually leading the squad unless he is running an armour or aircraft squad

-In a squad with an officer kit squad leader you cannot request crewman or pilot kits. This will keep infantry squads infantry only which will make sure they are as large as possible. In a squad with a crewman squad leader you can only request the crewman kit, and in a squad with a pilot squad leader you can only request pilot kits - and you are required to do so! If you do not have a kit that corresponds with the squad leader's type you are kicked from the squad automatically after one minute

-A squad can never request more than one of each type of limited kit except crewman, pilot and sniper kits. This will prevent a squad from hogging all the powerful weapons

-A squad cannot request the sniper kit if it has any other type of kit in it. Likewise, you cannot join a squad with a sniper kit unless you are a sniper yourself. Also, the sniper kit now requires only one person in a squad to request. This will make sure snipers do not take up valuable slots in regular squads or join squads just to be able to get the sniper kit. Fail to get a sniper kit within a minute after joining the squad and you are automatically kicked from the squad

-The spec ops class should be made a limited kit. A squad cannot request the spec ops kit if it has any other type of kit in it. Likewise, you cannot join a squad with a spec ops kit unless you are a spec ops yourself. Also, the spec ops kit now requires only one person in a squad to request. This will make sure spec ops do not take up valuable slots in regular squads or join squads just to be able to get the spec ops kit. Fail to get a spec ops kit within a minute after joining the squad and you are automatically kicked from the squad

-The support class should not longer be a limited kit. With the spec ops now a limited kit there would be room on the spawn screen for the support's icon. However, you would still only be able to spawn one support in a squad

-A squad can never have more than two of the same class in it. This will prevent silly 'AT only' squads with no medics or riflemen to resupply them and equally silly 'medic only' squads

I hope you will seriously consider some of these suggestions - I really do think they would make PR much better even if they look a bit too imposing. It is just a matter of cleaning up the all too common misuse of the squad system, really.

[Long Bow]

Ok I tried to read all that but it hurt my head.

If you impose all those restrictions I agree you could fix some issues. However there will be negative impacts to teamplay as well.

- No pilot kits except for a full squad with SL as pilot. I'm a decent SL and a crappy pilot, hence we would never be able to have an air insertion squad.

- No crewman if SL has officer kit, who's going to drive the APC in our squad then?

- You want specific squads i.e. air support but not allowed to lock. You are then working towards having two pilots trying to work with 4 other guys joining in to run around without a dedicated SL.

Those are just a few things that I picked out of the post. I'm not trying to be an a$$ I just see some issues coming from some of the proposed rules. I would love to see some of the things you listed implemented i.e. too many of certain kits in a squad and joining a squad just to get a kit.

[[LTC] Gunther.S [4SFG]]

I dont know. I dont feel that the structure of squads should be strengthened.

However, I dont agree with much you suggested.

I agree that it is stupid to see 2 snipers 2 Hvy AT's and an officer totally spread across the map.

I feel the SL is to blame. If you dont tell them what to do then you're to blame.

Sometimes people just dont listen, or are just screwing around. That is a problem sometimes. SL must then kick.

Maybe the SL should get points lost for not keeping order in the squad. And maybe the SL should be given the ability to take points away if they dont cooperate.

I dont think the restrictions are so much nec. Espec the locking part. You dont need 6 people in a squad to have a pilot squad. You only need 1 or 2 for a attack helo. In fact, sometimes I think it is much easier to do this. It is the restrictions that are in PR right now that make the locking of squads a problem. I dont have any magic solutions to that. I kinda like it the way it is. I just wish that there was the ability to make more squads per team. And yes, people joined one squad. That is their choice though.

And yes it was to long lol.

[mammikoura]

umm.. definitely not a good idea?

I have actually already spend quite a lot of time thinking how to respond, but instead of just telling you what the problems are in each of those suggestions I'm just going to say that you can't make a good game if every single thing becomes restricted.

You can't mod everything so that you force people to act in a certain way. (like use certain kits etc) It's not going to be fun anymore.
If there are idiotic people on the server then leave and find a server with smart people, it will solve all your problems.

[Apheirox]

- No pilot kits except for a full squad with SL as pilot. I'm a decent SL and a crappy pilot, hence we would never be able to have an air insertion squad.

- No crewman if SL has officer kit, who's going to drive the APC in our squad then?

- You want specific squads i.e. air support but not allowed to lock. You are then working towards having two pilots trying to work with 4 other guys joining in to run around without a dedicated SL.

1) To make an air insertion, you simply type '4 needs pickup'. The pilot picks you up and you say 'To the Dam'. Simple.

The thing with having pilots in your squad is they take up slots. Your air insertion would not be as effective since you are not landing a full squad.

2) Same as above. 'APC, 6 needs ride to Fishing Village'.

3) Those guys get kicked after a minute automatically since they do not have pilot kit.

[Long Bow]

1) To make an air insertion, you simply type '4 needs pickup'. The pilot picks you up and you say 'To the Dam'. Simple.

The thing with having pilots in your squad is they take up slots. Your air insertion would not be as effective since you are not landing a full squad.

2) Same as above. 'APC, 6 needs ride to Fishing Village'.

3) Those guys get kicked after a minute automatically since they do not have pilot kit.

I don't know what servers you play on but finding a good pilot or APC driver who can come and get you all the time doesn't happen often for me. When it does it's a thing of beauty. However they don't see your move marker on their maps so sometimes you have a very specific location for drop off in mind. I appreciate what your saying but I find that good quality players make for the best teamwork regardless of the rules in place.

[Apheirox]

I agree that it is stupid to see 2 snipers 2 Hvy AT's and an officer totally spread across the map.

I feel the SL is to blame. If you dont tell them what to do then you're to blame.

Sometimes people just dont listen, or are just screwing around. That is a problem sometimes. SL must then kick.

I kick, but the vast majority do not. I know it is sad but I fear they need a helping hand.

[daranz]

While I do agree that having some way to regulate squads in game would be beneficial, I do not agree with a lot of your points. Here are some of them:

-You cannot lock squads. Locked squads simply do not belong in PR: They reduce overall team effectiveness by making squads too small, and with squads and rally points being so important it is not fair to prevent people from joining

Locking squads is very useful simply because there are retards out there. Any open squad, regardless of the name (even if you were to call it "gay sex in main base") will get random people joining just to lonewolf on the other side of the map. If your entire squad is in two choppers, the two remaining open spots are likely to be taken up by smacktards, and if you're flying, you might not have the time to kick them.

-In a squad with an officer kit squad leader you cannot request crewman or pilot kits. This will keep infantry squads infantry only which will make sure they are as large as possible. In a squad with a crewman squad leader you can only request the crewman kit, and in a squad with a pilot squad leader you can only request pilot kits - and you are required to do so! If you do not have a kit that corresponds with the squad leader's type you are kicked from the squad automatically after one minute

As nice as it'd be to always have a competent commander, it's not always the case. And if you don't have a good commander, coordinating a transport can be a *****. This is why many squads internalize transport roles, with infantry squad members taking on pilot or crewman roles in order to transport their squad more effectively. Another consideration is that armor squads can have support players in engineer roles. I certainly wouldn't want to discourage people from going engineer, driving the supply trucks and repairing tanks, since engineers are about 20 times better at those things than crewmen.

-A squad cannot request the sniper kit if it has any other type of kit in it. Likewise, you cannot join a squad with a sniper kit unless you are a sniper yourself. Also, the sniper kit now requires only one person in a squad to request. This will make sure snipers do not take up valuable slots in regular squads or join squads just to be able to get the sniper kit. Fail to get a sniper kit within a minute after joining the squad and you are automatically kicked from the squad

What about snipers who do NOT want to lonewolf? There are people out there who will form 2 or 3 person squads, and provide recon, artillery requests, etc. I know that I've been in sniper squads without being a sniper, acting as a spotter/guy covering the sniper's ***.

Another thing is that people die at irregular intervals in PR. So, 4 guys take two tanks out of the main base, and one of the tanks gets blown up within a minute while the other survives for 10 minutes. Are the squadmembers from the tank that just blew up supposed to just sit on their asses in the main base, waiting for a new tank? Are they supposed to form a new squad, taking up squad spots, if they wanna help out with the next attack? I know from experience that armor squads can often turn into infantry squads once their tanks get taken out, and such squads shouldn't be prevented from doing so.

One thing that will certainly help with squads in .6 is the 2 minute kit request wait time. After you join a squad, you have to wait for two minutes before requesting a kit. This means that a SL has two minutes within which he can note that the new squad member isn't helping but instead spamming QM requests in main base. Of course, then it comes down to whether or not the SL is competent - and I don't believe that forcing SLs to lead properly is a thing that can be easily done by imposing more limitations in game.

[Apheirox]

umm.. definitely not a good idea?

I have actually already spend quite a lot of time thinking how to respond, but instead of just telling you what the problems are in each of those suggestions I'm just going to say that you can't make a good game if every single thing becomes restricted.

You can't mod everything so that you force people to act in a certain way. (like use certain kits etc) It's not going to be fun anymore.
If there are idiotic people on the server then leave and find a server with smart people, it will solve all your problems.

1) PR already imposes heavy restrictions on what players can do. You get kicked from most servers for not joining a squad, you die if you remain in driver/gunner seat without kit. The quartermaster even gets annoyed and will not talk to you for two minutes if you spam too much and asks you to read the manual.

2) There are no [public] servers with smart people only.

[Apheirox]

While I do agree that having some way to regulate squads in game would be beneficial, I do not agree with a lot of your points. Here are some of them:

Locking squads is very useful simply because there are retards out there. Any open squad, regardless of the name (even if you were to call it "gay sex in main base") will get random people joining just to lonewolf on the other side of the map. If your entire squad is in two choppers, the two remaining open spots are likely to be taken up by smacktards, and if you're flying, you might not have the time to kick them.

That assumes that a) you are flying, b) it is imperative for some reason (?) that you kick them right now and c) you are not a good enough pilot to take the five seconds it takes to kick them. It is hardly a big issue.

As nice as it'd be to always have a competent commander, it's not always the case. And if you don't have a good commander, coordinating a transport can be a *****. This is why many squads internalize transport roles, with infantry squad members taking on pilot or crewman roles in order to transport their squad more effectively. Another consideration is that armor squads can have support players in engineer roles. I certainly wouldn't want to discourage people from going engineer, driving the supply trucks and repairing tanks, since engineers are about 20 times better at those things than crewmen.

I already explained the issue with non-infantry in squads, see above.

I did not know engineers were better at repairing than crewmen - how does that make sense, anyway? Nevertheless, this issue is easily solved: We allow engineers in crewman squads.

What about snipers who do NOT want to lonewolf? There are people out there who will form 2 or 3 person squads, and provide recon, artillery requests, etc. I know that I've been in sniper squads without being a sniper, acting as a spotter/guy covering the sniper's ***.

Your team cannot afford to have people doing nothing but guarding the sniper.

Another thing is that people die at irregular intervals in PR. So, 4 guys take two tanks out of the main base, and one of the tanks gets blown up within a minute while the other survives for 10 minutes. Are the squadmembers from the tank that just blew up supposed to just sit on their asses in the main base, waiting for a new tank? Are they supposed to form a new squad, taking up squad spots, if they wanna help out with the next attack? I know from experience that armor squads can often turn into infantry squads once their tanks get taken out, and such squads shouldn't be prevented from doing so.

The squad system should be used dynamically and adapt to the situation at hand. Those crewmen are fine to stay with the squad initially as long as nobody else is looking to join, but they should seek to join other squads ASAP.

One thing that will certainly help with squads in .6 is the 2 minute kit request wait time. After you join a squad, you have to wait for two minutes before requesting a kit. This means that a SL has two minutes within which he can note that the new squad member isn't helping but instead spamming QM requests in main base. Of course, then it comes down to whether or not the SL is competent - and I don't believe that forcing SLs to lead properly is a thing that can be easily done by imposing more limitations in game.

They are seriously looking to do that with 0.6? Without having tried it I must still say it sounds like a downright awful idea. It will totally kill game flow and make the squad system overly rigid. No - my ideas are far better.

[dbzao]

They are seriously looking to do that with 0.6? Without having tried it I must still say it sounds like a downright awful idea. It will totally kill game flow and make the squad system overly rigid. No - my ideas are far better.

Overly rigid? Your suggestions are even more rigid... and please test a feature first before judging how it plays out...

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

They are seriously looking to do that with 0.6? Without having tried it I must still say it sounds like a downright awful idea. It will totally kill game flow and make the squad system overly rigid. No - my ideas are far better.


Humble aren't we ?
One huge glaring hole in your superior theories is that not every server is full.
So mixed squads are kinda of necessary when it's 10v10.
As far as killing the gameplay, like dbzao said you should actually have a clue before making a comment like that and from my limited experience with the BETA(20-25hours) it does not kill the gameplay and I find it to be a very flowing game where a losing team can regroup, coordinate and comeback from an almost certain loss.
Today on DVB Al Jabal was a great example for those of you who were playing about 11-11:30EST.

However, I am also not blind to the fact that the BF2 community has some less-than-ideal players.

I thought was kinda of funny until I read the rest of your "plan".
Where do these less than ideal players fit in your grand scheme that seems to have more rules than the IRS tax code ?

Ironically, it seem that your "plan" would work with top notch players, who of course not need such a rigid structure in the first place.

I am not a person who likes imposing restrictions on what people can and cannot do
Almost everything you have posted is about imposing draconian restrictions on people who are playing a video game in their spare time.

The DEV's had said often that they will take steps to force teamwork and that has gotten some negative results so if by magic you were able to impose your will on the game it would disappear almost overnight.
There is enough problems getting people to read and learn the player guides now but your rules would require even more arcane regulations to be imposed for the sake of teamwork and as it has been mentioned before most of the rules simply would not work for gameplay reason let alone the player's reaction to them.

[Apheirox]

So mixed squads are kinda of necessary when it's 10v10.

Interesting! Please provide an example of this as I cannot think of one.

As far as killing the gameplay, like dbzao said you should actually have a clue before making a comment like that and from my limited experience with the BETA(20-25hours) it does not kill the gameplay and I find it to be a very flowing game where a losing team can regroup, coordinate and comeback from an almost certain loss.

I am sure it works as I put great faith in the development team's abilities. However, I doubt it is optimal.

I thought was kinda of funny until I read the rest of your "plan".
Where do these less than ideal players fit in your grand scheme that seems to have more rules than the IRS tax code ?

Agreed, it is very taxing on the brain. I mean, keeping infantry to itself, armour to itself and aircraft to itself - so confusing! It simply is not fair to expect the players to have a clue what they are doing - they should be able to jump right in, Vanilla style! Just like it is now where players do not have to learn any new rules to be able to play PR - oh, wait...



Rules tend to have very good effects on this aforementioned type of intellectual colossi players. Much like how in BFV 1.0 the whole US team was packing the M60 support weapon to great Rambo'ing effect, elevating gameplay and sportsmanship to whole new levels of greatness. Somehow, however, with the patch that fixed the M60 they all seemed to realize that using actual assault rifles might be a better idea. Strange, huh?

Almost everything you have posted is about imposing draconian restrictions on people who are playing a video game in their spare time.

The rules already enforced by the game in 0.5 are 'draconian' as well. You should read my suggestions again. You will see that these new rules would come naturally, especially since they would be explained in-game like is the case with current rules... 'Sorry, you cannot spawn as a medic. Your squad already has enough medics.'

The DEV's had said often that they will take steps to force teamwork and that has gotten some negative results so if by magic you were able to impose your will on the game it would disappear almost overnight.
There is enough problems getting people to read and learn the player guides now but your rules would require even more arcane regulations to be imposed for the sake of teamwork and as it has been mentioned before most of the rules simply would not work for gameplay reason let alone the player's reaction to them.

That is a matter of whom you want PR to cater to. You cannot please everyone. The casual player niche seems to be filled nicely by BF2 itself, though. Maybe there should be a mod for the slightly more advanced players?

[Apheirox]

As already said if a tank get's destroyed the previous crew will have to just sit there witouth doing anything.

I thought I already answered that, but here goes: No, if there are no vehicles to drive the crewmen should leave the squad and join an infantry one. Much like how if a player realizes there are all sorts of powerful vehicles sitting unused in base he should consider leaving the infantry squad and starting an armour one.

Now let's say for air transport: not sure for blackhawk but using the littlebird (or however it's called) will become like you said with having a pilot: dropping off not a full squad. Well that heli can pack only 6 ppl, so 1 squad member will have to wait for another ride and by then the air space there will probably be watched.

Not everybody has to spawn right away, you know. You can actually hold off spawning till the squad leader has landed. I know lots of people like to spawn instantly and spam request for the sniper kits, but then these are the same people you see chugging miles on foot.

Besides, while you have a point in the case of the Little Bird, the case is another with the Blackhawk and others. The Blackhawk has enough room to hold both pilot, gunners and exactly a six-man squad.

Tanks in other squads are useless: i typed once that we need tank support at east city - no responce (same thing every round) the tanks just sit down at the dessert to the west. While in a normal squad with voip you can ask for cover there and there and the next thing you'll probably hear will be Ok or a real reason why the tank cannot come.

That has nothing to do with being in your squad or not but with the quality of the player. It is just as common to get people in your squad who ignore just about everything you ask of them over VOIP.

Making a pilot only squad is stupid. The squad will never get full since there are never enough are assets for 6 ppl, 5 is the most i saw in .6 and what does that last 1 have to do? if it's a server like myxo.org then he will get kicked (.5) since he is not in a squad. I could go on but i do not wish to waste time as i think this one is flushed maybe except for a few small adjustments.

Why the hell is it a problem the pilot squad is not full? It is the infantry squads it is imperative to keep full - which will not happen in a mixed squad.

[[T]waylay00]

Although I agree that many of these problems should be addressed, I do not believe your proposed methods are the solutions, for various reasons as others have stated.

There will always be idiots out there, and there is only so much you can do to stop human will.

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

lol
Slight more advanced ?
Really .....Ground control to Major Tom ......can you hear me ?
LMAO
if it's 10 people on al jabal ....you would have 2 squads ....1 mixed armor/Eng/inf and the other air/inf.
But not in your world.
There are other examples I could think of but they probably wouldn't be "optimal" either.
I'm curious, how many FPS have you designed to be able to determine what would be "optimal" ?
The rules in.5/.6 allow for a great deal of flexibility whereas your system sounds like the real military on maneuvers where no flexibility is allowed.
How advanced would a player need to be for consideration for your untitled, uncoded, unanimated,unmapped uber mod ?

Besides, while you have a point in the case of the Little Bird, the case is another with the Blackhawk and others. The Blackhawk has enough room to hold both pilot, gunners and exactly a six-man squad.
eh...um....BH carries 7....pilot and gunners is 3 and full squad is 6....now I am no genius but that won't fit even with a crowbar and some axle grease.

I had another revolutionary idea concerning a mixed squad that wasn't all infantry and so could not bring the full squads firepower to bear......what if 2 squads worked together .....wow... there are just so many possibilities....as long as you are not locked into a squad.

It's not that you don't have good ideas that could be worked into the game, it's your assertion that your ideas are so much better than the ones that are actually being used, on a daily basis, in PR right now.
Have fun, I'm going to lonewolf it w/ a .50 sniper rifle and dual Uzi's and I might even join a squad with a pilot and a tank in it........ Freedom ......

[Apheirox]

So, you could in fact not find a flaw. You are just trolling. But that is ok - hey, welcome to /ignore!

[AnRK]

You wouldn't happen to be a member of a Marxist-Communist party would you? Your certainly acting like one.

I think what alot of people of people are trying to indicate is that people should not have to be forced into these kinds of situations and that teamplay should be a natural occurrence as opposed to being imposed on them. Also being restrictive in this sort of way stops people from creating un-conventional tactical solutions to problems on our lovely virtual battlefields.

Just as a matter of interest, you haven't perhaps heard of mechanised infantry have you. You know those units which encompass armour AND infantry? The kind of squad you'd need crewman and regular infantry in to emulate?


A million brownie points for Armed for using the word "draconian".

*EDIT* Due to the posting speed of this thread many more brownie points to Armed for his practical example of a 10vs10 situation needing mixed squads and many more deducted from the "Strategist" for ignoring it as proper critique.

[Apheirox]

Actually, Waylay: While there certainly are 'idiots' most players belong in the 'inexperienced, casual' category. They try their best but just do not know any better. With my suggestions these players are 'guided' into doing the right thing such as not creating a squad where everybody is a sniper or where the squad leader decides to leave his subjects in base and take the jet for a spin. Is it not what we all want?