Page 2 of 3
Re: Do you consider "Leaving no man behind" while playing?
Posted: 2009-06-10 07:30
by TY2D2
If someone in my squad is alone fighting the enemy or pinned down or whatever it may be...
Why in the world wouldn't I go back? That means there are other players to kill, and I am primarily a killer when I play PR. Unless I am transporting people on Qwai or setting IEDs in Basrah.
The priority for me isnt saving that player, but more or less, to kill the enemy making all that racket in the distance.
Now, there are a select few times when I have felt all RPG-ish and thrown everything out to save a SL in need, but that would only be for MastaLock, not some random pubber

Re: Do you consider "Leaving no man behind" while playing?
Posted: 2009-06-10 07:30
by LeChuckle
Adriaan wrote:Hahah, if i remember well, it was LeChuckle who got shot when we had to retreat for the sheer quantity of enemies on our tail.. Minor detail though

, it was epic sure enough! Too bad the round ended just as we managed to escape.
I agree, if it´s people running off no matter what the SL tells them and getting into trouble, they will have to sort it themselves. You´d probably get kicked from the squad anyway.
killed by some random grenade while sprinting like crazy
Re: Do you consider "Leaving no man behind" while playing?
Posted: 2009-06-10 07:34
by Tartantyco
-This is a cost/benefit issue. Most of the time it's not cost effective.
Re: Do you consider "Leaving no man behind" while playing?
Posted: 2009-06-10 07:36
by Conman51
The point of playing is to be entertained.
You have to be alive to have fun.
I like it when me and others have fun.
I keep my squad alive.
so yes i do think squad members should help each other and random friendlies too.
it pisses me off when an apc or helicopter goes with only half my squad.
All this only applies to good squad mates.
If a squad mate goes rambo and start yelling for a medic and back up all the way across the map then yea f^&k em
Re: Do you consider "Leaving no man behind" while playing?
Posted: 2009-06-10 09:39
by PLODDITHANLEY
Yes...but in PR dead guys come back a minute later makes a big change compared to IRL.
I am very often medic and if I could drag injured guys into cover that would make leaving no one behind more of an option.
I have only ever played on Public servers and there the people are virtually always too quick too run and too slow to observe, this will always be a difference between IRL where guys want to get home to see their kids after!
I think for PR if the squad is together I will try to bring everyone back, but suppresive fire is rare, and the medic has 9 epipens but only two smoke grenades!
What would happen if PR was one death only per map, would we see better gameplay I think so, knowing if you die its over till the map changes or you change server.
Re: Do you consider "Leaving no man behind" while playing?
Posted: 2009-06-10 11:27
by rampo
PLODDITHANLEY wrote:Yes...but in PR dead guys come back a minute later makes a big change compared to IRL.
Its a question of principles

Re: Do you consider "Leaving no man behind" while playing?
Posted: 2009-06-10 13:09
by Dunehunter
As a squad leader on the BLUFOR side on an insurgency map, I will do my best to get the entire squad out. OPFOR? You die, too bad, you're expendable

Re: Do you consider "Leaving no man behind" while playing?
Posted: 2009-06-10 13:16
by cyberzomby
Jonny wrote:If some iraqi infantry got cut off, do you seriously think they would be a high priority for the iraqi army to save as enemy tanks approach their capital city?
Not for the Iraqi army at that moment. But they had an entirely different army rules, lifestyle and training.
The Marines get trained with the: leave no man behind, and I think they wouldnt. Theres also a lot of books describing trying to rescue downed pilots in the vietnam war.
Ontopic tho: I only do it if they have a valuable kit

Im trying to keep my squad together and alive more than I would risk it all to get that guy up. I can just let him die and he'll get 1 death and respawn at RP, FB or even Main. Yea thats bad

Now that I read this thread

Re: Do you consider "Leaving no man behind" while playing?
Posted: 2009-06-10 13:19
by wookimonsta
depends.
is the person holding a limited kit? if so, what kit, if its a automatic rifleman, i might be willing to let it go, if its a HAT, then im gonna try and get him.
Did I ask him to go there and do things, if yes, I will probably try. If no, I will think, was this person acting in the interest of the squad/team or was he just running around like an idiot and was nothing but a good bullet magnet. If its the first, I will try, if its the last I probably wont.
Also depends on how long this will take, if i have to walk 10 minutes I say fuck that.
Also depends on wether or not I still have an rp up and enough people alive. If its only him and one other guy and my rp is down, Ill try and get him.
Also depends on gametype. if its insurgency i might say fuck it, simply because loosing one ticket isnt worth the risk of loosing 6 and killing the enemy has little gain. If its AAS i will probably try to flank his attackers.
Re: Do you consider "Leaving no man behind" while playing?
Posted: 2009-06-10 14:17
by cyberzomby
Ofcourse it isnt in a scenario like that. But I can also write up a whole scenario to prove my point. So I think its not a solid argument.
Re: Do you consider "Leaving no man behind" while playing?
Posted: 2009-06-10 15:54
by Sntff
Jonny wrote:...Its not worth lossing a million lives in an attempt to save a few thousand.
Even if one of them is John Connor?

Re: Do you consider "Leaving no man behind" while playing?
Posted: 2009-06-10 15:59
by jbgeezer
It is depending on the situation. If I am in a realistic mood, I might try really hard. However if there is a rally or FB really close to us, I would mabey let him die. Still, PR is really much trying to stay alive and keep you teammates alive.
Re: Do you consider "Leaving no man behind" while playing?
Posted: 2009-06-10 16:01
by Wicca
Well, a real life example would be the Paratroopers trapped in that city during the invasion of Germany. And Pattons army came and gave a gateway to deliver supplies (they didnt get rescued as far as i know)
Re: Do you consider "Leaving no man behind" while playing?
Posted: 2009-06-10 16:08
by Masterbake
Yes unless it's Grottim.
Then I'm chief mediwhore.
Re: Do you consider "Leaving no man behind" while playing?
Posted: 2009-06-10 16:28
by Smuke
Whenever you have a man down, you should make it your squads prioty to get that person back up and alive.
HOWEVER, if getting to him will cost your more deaths, or if you have to evac quickly, its probably best to leave him and respawn. But only in those type of cases.
Re: Do you consider "Leaving no man behind" while playing?
Posted: 2009-06-10 16:58
by Scot
Depends who it is, if it's a serious nub, then they can stay there

Re: Do you consider "Leaving no man behind" while playing?
Posted: 2009-06-10 16:59
by Royal_marine_machine
As a Medic rather than SL, I do say leave No Man behind, I get lots of points
Not only that but, if the person was acting under our SLs orders, then it's kind of harsh to just let them die and have to respawn, kit or no kit, they are worth saving.
Also, a half decent medic can revive someone anywhere, even in the middle of the road, so theres no excuse for leaving no man behind. If your lad or a couple of your lads are cut off and surrounded, it should be a priority of the rest of the squad to rescue them, regroup, and carry on. I also play as commander, I would hate to see squads throw away tickets for reason, even if they do try to save the two squad members, this may cost more Medics, but will inflict more if succsessful.
Re: Do you consider "Leaving no man behind" while playing?
Posted: 2009-06-10 17:03
by goguapsy
Adriaan wrote:
Heh, i will spare you the witty comment, as i suppose you mean "poll"

But no, i don´t know how..
lol! XDD