Page 3 of 4

Re: Why no inter-squad teamwork?

Posted: 2010-02-09 17:39
by Lucke189
killonsight95 wrote:RT mumble is **** because everyone is in the same channel and you can hear the enemy which is why i never play on that server TG is much better
I like RT just because it has only one channel. Although I understand why people would prefer two channels, I think one channel is more fun.
For example - Yesterday in Lashkar Valley I held a Taliban hostage (he had dropped his kit for some reason) and threatened to kill him if he didn't tell me were their cache was, but he said he didn't know anything (All lies of course, haha) and then my SL killed my new friend for no reason. :(

In the same way it's great for civilians on normal insurgency maps to be able to speak with the BLUFOR, just like in real life.

It isn't necessary, but it's fun. Also, when we usually call Mumble silence when sneaking up on enemies, so I don't see how it's a problem.

Re: Why no inter-squad teamwork?

Posted: 2010-02-09 17:41
by KeksTerror
I do not like some of the changes too, but I would like to take part in the discussion:

I will describe you a situation (e.g. on Muttrah City): you try to attack an objective and the enemy's defence is so strong that you can not assault. Your APC'S (Armored PERSONAL CARRIERS) shoul NORMALLY pick you up or try to provide some defence. But: in Project Reality are also a lot of guys who do not know how it works in the reality... They take the APC's and try to shoot as much as enemy infantry as possible (or enemy BTR's) - ok, but usually they do not provide any backup.

Another example in terms of the limited rally points:
Your teams firebase(s) are the most important spawn points. If there is a firebase placed on a tactically poor location you could perhaps loose the round. It happen often since I started with 0.9 at Saturday!

The Dev-Team tried to improve the gameplay with those and other changes, the shaking screen when you are running (which causes headache after ~20 min playing 0.9), limited Rally Points and more futuristic looking weapons (e.g. IDF), the balance on Azad Khal is totally destroyed, the main battle on the map now takes place infront of the IDF mainbase...

Oh. And I forgot the dropped kits. When someone dies and his kit lies on the ground, you can not see which weapon he got. It makes everything a bit more complicated!

When I came home yesterday, it was the first time that I did not like to play PR.

I am very sad about the 'Design', it reminds me of Windows Vista with Aero or something like that. I can not play some maps because the lags are so strong that before you can aim on an enemy you are dead.

I am really very very sad!

Re: Why no inter-squad teamwork?

Posted: 2010-02-09 17:52
by mati140
Zi8 wrote:That's why our server regulars/admins have been Commanders mostly in insurgency maps and made the whole US team move as a one big team. If squads go solo or stupid == kick/ban and suddenly people are interested in working together and there has been some really epic rounds.

I also lead a group of 18 men yesterday in Gaza Beach with Mumble + had a tank squad in sl channel... pure madness all the round apart from the times caches were very hard to find from the city area :p
I completely agree with that. Only Red Army discipline and Mumble can save the teamwork. On each server there MUST be two designed Commanders (for 24/7 servers about 6-8 from different timezones so it will be possible to keep command round the clock), one for each team, with possiblity of imediately kicking players. They should order squads that are going stupid, kick SL if he don't execute order and ask same question to next SL. They also shold kick all people that will go alone or without squad assigment.

Another thing is with Mumble - it won't integrate squads if people won't be forced to join Mumble server when joining game server. The only way to force them is to... integrate PR Mumble application with PR exe, like battlecommo is. Yes, that sounds a bit incredible but I belive it's possible. And dedicated server ap. need to be integrated with PR Murmur. Just imagine...
1. All people are joining mumble server automaticaly when joining game server.
2. People are automaticaly joining SL radio channel when becoming SLs.
3. Voice activation is forced.
...what can u see? If u say sth via radio, people close to u can hear u without radio, like in real live when you're talking by phone person next to u can hear your words. When u want to talk to ANYONE ingame, stand next to him and just talk. Can u imagine how much realistic would it be? But I'm worried that it's only a far future. However [R-DEV] and BSS should think about talking with Mumble developers about cooperation in doing this, bc I think that those are only ways to save teamwork in PR, except for going back in PR's evolution.

But there is still problem how to force server admins in forcing TW. However, it's easy to solve - just cancel licence for admins not doing this or don't give them licence for next PR version. Out

Re: Why no inter-squad teamwork?

Posted: 2010-02-09 17:54
by Meza82
Q: Why no inter-squad teamwork?
A: Not enough players use Mumble. With Mumble, inter-squad is 100x easier and more effective.

the other day on the TG server me and 2 other infantry squads on Korengal made a massive 18 player "rifle and special weapons platoon". We marched across the whole map wasting entire Taliban cells by everwhelming them with lots of firepower, destryong caches along the way.

the point is: GET MUMBLE

Re: Why no inter-squad teamwork?

Posted: 2010-02-09 17:57
by myles
BlackFallout wrote:ALSO there are NO training servers anymore. So all these people who might have gone to a training server to figure out how things work have to do that INGAME with us.
Ye im with you aswell bring back the trainning servers it solves alot of problems

Re: Why no inter-squad teamwork?

Posted: 2010-02-09 18:12
by gazzthompson
Training = coop.
killonsight95 wrote:RT mumble is **** because everyone is in the same channel and you can hear the enemy which is why i never play on that server TG is much better
both unrealistic, both different. but thats for another thread.
offmason wrote: Who cares what people say in the servers? Perhaps if I was part of a development team that actually cared about the players at large, instead of just a few fan-boys on beta servers that wouldn't stop playing even if soldiers started to wear rainbow camouflage, perhaps I would care about what PR players in general have to say -- especially when there is a drastic change in game play.
Forums. Game servers = playing, forums = discussion. Game servers are filled with players who wont like PR but are just playing to try it out, new version and all, they will leave. If they want input in the mod they should register, how could the DEVs realistically monitor whats being said on various game servers? even if they could, who would be assed when they have a active forums (which is moderated instead of on game servers where comments are normally limited to "THIS IS SHIT!").

also this team had no problem sticking together:

http://i50.tinypic.com/2lvz1pz.jpg

Teamwork = successful team.
No teamwork = fail team.
Mod about teamwork = first option.

Re: Why no inter-squad teamwork?

Posted: 2010-02-10 01:28
by badmojo420
Thanks for all the responses guys. Even if some of them went WAY off topic.

I regret saying anything about the new patch. This thread is about PR in general. I saw this happening a lot before the patch and ever since I started playing PR. In my opinion the new changes to the rally system will help with inter-squad teamwork. But, it's too early to judge.

Yes, mumble is great, and servers that enforce it like RT and TG and the others, are the bees knees and all. But, the whole PR community can't get on those 3 servers. And since we're from all over the world, a lot of people won't have a decent ping to all of them. And then there's the people like me who prefer to spend all their time playing the insurgency game mode, which is not possible on the few servers who enforce mumble and teamwork.
Bringerof_D wrote:sometimes when the communication just isnt possible or friendly squads wont listen or say STFU, instead of trying, i just adapt to what their doing and use it to my advantage. so instead of asking him to flank the other side, i see he's going straight, i'll organize a flank from the other side in my squad.
I like this idea, and wish more people would adopt it.
offmason wrote:badmojo420, what do you think?

Back in .8, as a SL I would commonly leave my rally near the rally of another able squad. I believed that strength in numbers was a good strategy. I would usually try to group up with other squads on the map and provide them support by following or covering their flank. With the new patch, if you help out another squad in a fire fight... you may very well have to experience the inconvenience of walking for years. Hence, I rather go my own way -- because some squads attract fire more than others. I don't feel like helping - because my squad-mates will pay the price; ie: exercising their internet legs.

I came here in response to the OP's question. I gave my opinion.
I believe that inter-squad cooperation took a hit with the new rally system.
I've already said above that I believe the new rally system has improved inter-squad teamwork. But, it's too early to judge for sure. But, I disagree with your comments about having to walk forever if you decide to work with another squad. If you are working with another squad, you've now got two medics at your disposal. And 6 additional guns to defend your position and watch for contacts. In theory you should die less, which means less walking from a spawn.
Zi8 wrote:That's why our server regulars/admins have been Commanders mostly in insurgency maps and made the whole US team move as a one big team. If squads go solo or stupid == kick/ban and suddenly people are interested in working together and there has been some really epic rounds.
Sounds amazing, what server is this?

--------

I want to comment a bit more on mumble. It's a great tool. But I don't think the lack of mumble should be used as an excuse for no inter-squad teamwork. Because, often on mumble rich games you'll see squads inter-mingling, so it ends up being a mass group of people, with a few officers barking orders at the crowd. Not exactly what i would call inter-squad teamwork. But it works.

And also, the people who generally use mumble on those teamwork enforced servers, were already making use of inter-squad teamwork before mumble came around. Perhaps the segregation of those team players into specific servers is hurting the quality of the other servers. So, in fact it's not mumble that is causing the inter-squad teamwork, it's just that all those players who see value in that type of teamwork, are mostly drawn to those servers. I dunno, i'm just thinking out loud here.

What I dream of seeing in PR, is inter-squad teamwork, without the need to always be RIGHT next to the other squad. It wouldn't be very difficult for a SL to type out in chat "Sq2 will wait here for sq3 to get into position before we assault the flag." or just "Sq3 this is sq2, we'll cover your western flank" or even "SQ3 come to our position, our medic is down, we need your support" This type of inter-squad teamwork would go a long way in the world of PR.

I suspect a large part of the reason this not happening is due to the tendency to RUSH through everything in PR.(or almost any video game) You spawn, and RUN to regroup with your squad, or your squad regroups and RUNS to the objective. Or someone goes down, and while the medic is attempting to revive and heal the squad just RUNS away to prevent other casualties. It doesn't always happen this way, but with pub squads in pub servers, it happens way too much for my liking. And with such high time limits, there really is no reason to rush.

There is also the issue with having 32 players who think they're all commanders. Who think they know best what the team needs to do. I'm as guilty as anyone in this regard, and it leads to a lot of arguing over team chat, which also has the effect of drowning out any legit team chat, not to mention takes everyones attention away from what they're doing and focuses it on some text at the top of your screen. The only solution i can see, is for commanders to be present during every game and be more forceful with their orders. Which would also mean the server admins enforcing the commanders authority.

I could go on and on about this topic. But, I'll leave it at that for now.

Re: Why no inter-squad teamwork?

Posted: 2010-02-10 04:20
by Gunners87
Mainly because most squads in the game are incompetent. It would be real interesting if there was a study conducted.
But I tend to notice that its usually one squad on each side which makes the biggest contributions (usually a VoIP squad)

Re: Why no inter-squad teamwork?

Posted: 2010-02-10 04:36
by anglomanii
i see a lot of value in what your saying mojo, i just can only think the game needs to be tweaked a little more as time goes by, ie: objectives in AAS not appearing untill the one before is captured, and the commander not having to be in the command tent all the time, and being rewarded a little more with more commander only deployable assests.
things like that might releive the commander bordom.
it might also help if commanders could create and name squads so this helps reflect his objectives and plans.

Re: Why no inter-squad teamwork?

Posted: 2010-02-10 05:03
by Exterior
maybe it is possible to have a squad leader comm.. like how all squads can talk to commander, make one for just squad leaders too? i

Re: Why no inter-squad teamwork?

Posted: 2010-02-10 05:35
by Kirra
anglomanii wrote:i see a lot of value in what your saying mojo, i just can only think the game needs to be tweaked a little more as time goes by, ie: objectives in AAS not appearing untill the one before is captured, and the commander not having to be in the command tent all the time, and being rewarded a little more with more commander only deployable assests.
things like that might releive the commander bordom.
it might also help if commanders could create and name squads so this helps reflect his objectives and plans.
Commanders SHOULD stay back at main and COMMAND. There is absolutely NO valid reason for the commander to leave his tent IMO (driving a logi truck to a squad if absolutely no one else is capable of doing it being the only exeption). A commander should command, not running around "helping to cap flags" or other ****.

"Ey commander there is an enemy squad on my attack marker, can you tell sq3 to get their APC here and take them out?"
*commander capping flags or whatever* "Oh yeah, lemme just hide and open my comm screen.*taking 3 years* Who was that talking again?"


FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUU

Re: Why no inter-squad teamwork?

Posted: 2010-02-10 05:39
by BloodBane611
Exterior wrote:maybe it is possible to have a squad leader comm.. like how all squads can talk to commander, make one for just squad leaders too? i
I believe this has already been suggested, and isn't possible within BF2. However, mumble provides this, and there is a public PR mumble server that is every easy to use.



As far as team cohesion goes, except for insurgency maps, I much prefer that squad leaders figure it out among themselves. The PR commander is now much more of an intel/FAC officer than a leader, and the reality is that most people don't want to go commander if they're going to be required to tell everyone what to do all the time. As an SL, sometimes it's nice to see the comm get people back in line and focused on the objectives, but ultimately that's a task for admins, not the commander.

The good servers are the ones, like TG and T&T (and others of course, those are just the 2 that I play on the most), where the people leading squads know what they're doing and get things done. The problem is when the team is obviously doing poorly on servers without good administration, and SLs just do whatever they want, generally leading to a crappier game for everyone.
Commanders SHOULD stay back at main and COMMAND. There is absolutely NO valid reason for the commander to leave his tent IMO (driving a logi truck to a squad if absolutely no one else is capable of doing it being the only exeption). A commander should command, not running around "helping to cap flags" or other ****.
This is completely wrong. A commander's job is not to micromanage his team, especially now that SLs can do everything except operate the UAV and send area attacks down range. A commander who is sitting at main is keeping 1 body off the field that could be used more effectively to help the team win. If you're an SL on a server, get on mumble, in the SL channel, and talk to the squadleader of whomever is driving the APC. A commander is not a telephone operator or a secretary, they're playing PR for fun. The reason so few people played commander in past versions is because he was tied down to a boring job in a game that's all about fun.

2 examples of how having a mobile commander helps:

First is from the PRT: Our commander was never in his command post (for multiple battles), he simply expected his SLs to get things done (admittedly with much more planning than goes on in any pub game). Much of the time he wasn't even in the commander position, he was leading a squad instead, often a specialized squad with a HAT or other special weapon, or placing FOBs in strategically useful places. We never won a battle by less than 200 tickets (out of 450), and the total time we played for the last 4 battles in the campaign was less than 4 hours. Now, there were a lot of reasons other than him being outside the command box all the time, but having an extra body on the field, especially one who is putting up spawn points or destroying key enemy vehicles, was a huge advantage.

Second is from playing on the T&T server today on Qwai: I went comm, primarily because all squads were full. Immediately, one SL in particular starts telling me I need to be telling everyone what to do, need to communicate more, etc. At that moment the team had very good momentum, were moving towards the second to last flag, had well placed FOBs, everything you might want from a good team. I saw no reason to interfere with that, so I didn't. During the course of the game I soloed 2 enemy FOBs, delivered supplies to that same complaining SL, and set up one of our FOBs in a strategic location (which turned out to be a waste, but could have been useful). If I had sat in the ACV all game we would have lost, but as it was we barely scraped out a victory.


Too many people are stuck in the mindset that the commander is in fact in charge. If the SLs aren't already on the ball, no commander is going to get them there. However, if those SLs are working together, a good commander who knows where to put down FOBs, or is willing to fight next to his squads, can give them the advantage they need to win over a similarly good team, whose commander is busy sitting in the box.

As a caveat, there are maps where the commander really does need to be in the box most of the time. All the insurgency maps really need the comm to keep the team focused on staying together, staying alive, and he needs to be constantly using the UAV to find the enemy caches. But in conventional warfare, that kind of recon is fairly useless, because the UAV is slow, has a limited field of view, and keeps the commander from doing more useful things, like setting up spawn points.

Re: Why no inter-squad teamwork?

Posted: 2010-02-10 06:50
by (HUN)Rud3bwoy
A Commander though have the power but should not Command. I know it sound ridiculous, but think about it. Generally a commander sits in his tent kilometers away from the battle. His only eyes is the UAV which might give him a rough insight on what is going on, but not enough(on maps with many buildings it is useless).
A commander siply does not know what the squads are facing on the front, so he cant make a reasonable decision about intersquad coordination. However the SL do have the infos needed for intersquad teamwork, so I think it is up to them. Of course it is hard to manage two squads via teamchat so without mumble AND people who know each other it is a dead concept...

Re: Why no inter-squad teamwork?

Posted: 2010-02-10 07:32
by Psyrus
(HUN)Rud3bwoy wrote:A Commander though have the power but should not Command. I know it sound ridiculous, but think about it. Generally a commander sits in his tent kilometers away from the battle. His only eyes is the UAV which might give him a rough insight on what is going on, but not enough(on maps with many buildings it is useless).
A commander siply does not know what the squads are facing on the front, so he cant make a reasonable decision about intersquad coordination. However the SL do have the infos needed for intersquad teamwork, so I think it is up to them. Of course it is hard to manage two squads via teamchat so without mumble AND people who know each other it is a dead concept...
I completely disagree with your assertion that the commander shouldn't be the one making the decisions. He has way more information than any individual squad. You say "simply does not know what the squads are facing on the front", but why not, when I'm commander I have squad leaders telling me they are pinned down from the east, they need an apc ride, they've spotted some insurgents to the south so a possible cache, all kinds of things. They're not going to bother typing this myriad of information up in blue text, it just takes too long, not to mention it can be 5-6 squad leaders all doing that, you'd be lost in the information.

The commander collates the various incoming squad information and makes a judgment call based on the bigger picture that he has, not the individual squad. Sure you'll get those arrogant squad leaders who decide to blow off what the commander says, assuming they know better than anyone else... but hey you can bring the tard to PR but you can't take the tard out of the player.

Perhaps your commanders have failed but that does not preclude other commanders from fulfilling a vital role on the battlefield.

Re: Why no inter-squad teamwork?

Posted: 2010-02-10 07:51
by Bellator
Training = coop.
Coop has little merit in practice, despite its good theory.

The old training servers were decent in keeping noobs out of the main servers, untill they're ready for the real stuff. This would have been especially important in 0.9.

This is actually one of my few real gripes with 0.9.

Re: Why no inter-squad teamwork?

Posted: 2010-02-10 08:01
by Arquin
Well, i have been trying out commanding for the past 3 days simply because I DO NOT have to sit in my tent and watch the UAV. Field commanding is not as effective as being in a squad, because you are basically either alone, or moving with squad or doing something else useful.

I had a round on Yamalia on T&T yesterday, and i took a personal jeep to drive into the battle, but i was so tied to commanding i couldn't do much. I'm much rather on the field than in my tent, i am able to respond to squads almost immediately if i'm not in a too tight spot, and you can always priorise (??? spelling).

Casual field commanding is the best, it also boosts the morale of your troops to see CO on the field fighting with you. On tourneys tho, i suggest the CO stays in the tent and does his duty, on pubs... Not so much. PR is about fun, and if the CO is not having fun, then it's all wrong.

Re: Why no inter-squad teamwork?

Posted: 2010-02-10 08:10
by Psyrus
Arquin wrote: on pubs... Not so much. PR is about fun, and if the CO is not having fun, then it's all wrong.
Is the commander's "fun" more important than effectively helping the team (and I don't mean to suggest that you were saying that, I was just asking)? I ask because I wonder if the same logic could be applied to APCs, transport helis, airplanes and the like... I believe that scenario would be of detriment to the overall gameplay.

Re: Why no inter-squad teamwork?

Posted: 2010-02-10 08:18
by Teek
edit: woops, ninja'd by almost a page, didnt refresh :(

Re: Why no inter-squad teamwork?

Posted: 2010-02-10 08:46
by offmason
The reason so few people played commander in past versions is because he was tied down to a boring job in a game that's all about fun.
Is it all about fun? Seems like a cardiovascular exercise simulator.

The commander should sit in his little tent and COMMAND. It is highly unlikely that a commander is going to be anywhere near physical proximity to those he commands, because a dead commander is not a very good commander.

For a game that is so bent on reality, I would think it would acknowledge this notion.

Version 1.0 = Busting out the toilets and laundry duty -- all about fun. Make sure to tie your shoes before you enter the battle. It's going to look silly when you trip onto an IED.

In your example, perhaps the team you were facing was made up of rather lackluster players who capitulated to every small inkling of attack. From your "commanding" I can conclude that you aren't so much a commander as you are a foot soldier with some stars on your helmet.

I enjoyed managing the direction of the squads from a far- without taking part in the rough stuff. I would aim to get all the squads to target a particular cache, or to back up a squad that is proactively seeking out caches. I'd try to get APCs in a particular area and set the general strategy of the team. Unfortunately I haven't played as much as I've used to.

Re: Why no inter-squad teamwork?

Posted: 2010-02-10 09:37
by Gunners87
(HUN)Rud3bwoy wrote:A Commander though have the power but should not Command. I know it sound ridiculous, but think about it. Generally a commander sits in his tent kilometers away from the battle. His only eyes is the UAV which might give him a rough insight on what is going on, but not enough(on maps with many buildings it is useless).
A commander siply does not know what the squads are facing on the front, so he cant make a reasonable decision about intersquad coordination. However the SL do have the infos needed for intersquad teamwork, so I think it is up to them. Of course it is hard to manage two squads via teamchat so without mumble AND people who know each other it is a dead concept...

True.
I had a lot of fun in vanilla being a front line commander... why does everyone treat the Commander as some five star general punching orders through the radio? Wouldn't it be more accurate if the Commander was really a Lieutenant or a Captain?


Nothing but frustrating times as Commander in PR... you can't see the frontline and you spend most of the time yelling at squad leaders for status updates, who then yell back and say your disrupting their ability to communicate with squad members. :shock: