Lack of overall strategy?

[Jevski]

The thing about having Clan people lead a bunch of sqds, remember, the sqd is only as strong as it members.

During a normal round when I sqd lead I end up kicking an average of 5 players from the sqd, for not communicating, following orders, doing rambo etc.

It is nowadays a strain to SL unless its players you are used to play with, so unless servers starts kicking all those who dont have a mic, dont tw, steal kits and so on, this aint going anywhere. And to be honest I dont think the player base of PR is big enough to uphold a server with this kind of teamwork. Hence TG is gone.

[Jevski]

A couple of years ago, there was this initiative of players wearing certain "tags", so in-game you could identify players that were teamwork oriented and all. I believe it was "#" as the clantag. You might be able to reintroduce that, as players that are willing to lead a squad or something.

Just an idea though .

The HOG has tried to implent this with the "t" tag, but it has not gotten of the ground due to lack of initiative and information.

[Rudd]

#

Yeah, it would be a good idea, but the only problem with a system like that is it had no official backing. I think the only way to make something like that real is to have the "PR-values based" stats where people are responsible for their record, where other can check your asshat-stats on here.

well the recommend a player/SL/pilot/etc threads haven't seen much action recently, need to get people networking

[lukeviper248]

I completely agree, its hard to play a game like this when there is no coordination, when I am commander on a map, I do it like I am a 911 dispatcher. I tell my guys where to go and direct supporting units as they need them, if things are rough on the ground and they need shooters, Ill hop a chopper and give them a hand and continue to give them support. The commander's job is to be the coordinated between all of the elements of battle. The worst thing I have seen is a commander trying to "command his men" meaning trying to set up a strategy and tactics that dont work

[ComedyInK]

I think it would help SLs if the squads, at least INF be limited to 6 people, it's easier to manage 6 than 8, and this way, there can be more inf squads.

[Rudd]

I think it would help SLs if the squads, at least INF be limited to 6 people, it's easier to manage 6 than 8, and this way, there can be more inf squads.

iirc the whole problem is that there couldn't be more than 9 squads or something?

[waldov]

As I said before being able to see what all the other squad leaders orders were would be very helpful in terms of team coordination as for more squads if it was possible it would've been done.

[Pronck]

If the average squad member still cannot handle the task of covering his sector it becomes very hard for a squad-leader to design and execute a plan.

[ElshanF]

What pronk said pretty much pisses off every SL.

[cro-wd40]

First there's lack of sharing intel on enemy troop movement to be able to organize attack or defense of flags.

When we get that going it will be much easier for squads to start cooperating when they have a common goal.

Most of the times we get 1-2 usefull (usefull to the team) squads doing their own preplaned thing, sometimes it works , sometimes it doesnt, while rest of the team doesnt even know whats going on.

Just check the amount of map markers SL's make to warn other squads, almost none , and SL mumble is quiet a lot.

[Mikemonster]

SL mumble has been quiet ever since the new system was brought in that meant you could talk directly to other squads (rather than just having one 'net' that all SL's heard you on).

Great for cutting down spam and information overload, but it discourages people from talking and this has a huge effect. It now feels rude to talk to all SL's at once and it has made the teams a lot quieter. As soon as you remove the comraderie it encourages SL's to do their own thing. Part of this is because they think they can 'get away with it' as the team is so silent. Basically you no longer know who the other guys are.

Personally I never had a problem with the constant talking and just filtered it out, it was great for team cohesion and it encouraged far better teamwork. Humans need some cues in order to form a hierarchy/team, and voice comms are good at providing that.

[waldov]

Humans need some cues in order to form a hierarchy/team, and voice comms are good at providing that.

Exactly, all the initiatives like having teamwork orientated players lead squads etc. are good ideas but in the end of the day humans for the most part are simple creatures of habit, almost always following the most obvious course of action. Currently in PR this happens to be joining a squad and at least making some attempt to work together, when it comes to teamwork though there is little cues or examples to follow and consequently little effort is made in this aspect of PR. Personally i think players attitudes are best shaped by game mechanics rather then by the players themselves, after all the most teamwork orientated player ever can became a gun running, no scoping, Rambo if he plays COD and your average quick scoping, running in circles COD player can become the vital team working element in your squad if he decides to plays PR.

Looking to the community to step up to the challenge is the wrong direction for teamwork in PR it simply comes down to game mechanics. If I could I would be a quick scoping, gun running maniac but I'm not, not because i think it would be bad sport or it ruins teamwork, no it is simply because i cant do it in PR. That's why PR works, not because everyone who plays it got together and said what would be the best way to do this or that, its simply because PR doesn't allow you to be a self-centered shoot'em up idiot and it almost forces you to be part of a squad and play tactically through its well designed game play. Now it needs to do the same for teamwork if that's ever to become a working element of the game.

[matty1053]

Really, if you are commander. Most of the time (approx 85% of the time) squad leaders will not follow orders. Unless it's like a [R-DEV] doing commander, then you should listen.


But if you are commanding, basically it's like Stay in UAV the game and find enemy assets and tell Asset squads where the assets are.


And, iirc, most squad leaders go on their own missions. Some do listen to commanders. But, if you wanna be a 'game changer' and be a sql that follows orders. Then be my guest! (please!)

[Portable.Cougar]

I will follow my SL or CO anywhere. Sometimes it gets us all killed. So what though? Its a game, I'll respawn and that leader will learn a valuable lesson.

I am happiest when the CO has a plan and the ability to have his subordinates carry it out. Win or loose.

[Startrekern]

I'm not sure what others' opinions are on the topic of Commanders, but I would command far more often if squad leaders would be willing to follow orders as issued. If only half the squads listen to instruction, your force is crippled.

I've long been an advocate of adding to server rules a clause enforcing the chain of command. If Admins stand behind commanders, they might have a fighting chance at being recognized.

[DropoftheGun]

This is how I play. I hate leading squads, but when I do we get shit done and we keep comm lines open and flowing.

It keeps the game fun and making a comeback using sound tactics is one of the better feelings of any MilSim.

[_Fizzco_]

The problem is, its all dandy when you have a commander thats not an idiot and communicates (some of the best rounds) But it's even worse when you get a complete retard barking orders at you. It's a 2 way street with this. There will always be idiots and there will always be players that have sense. It's just the gaming world in general and especially PR.