Project Reality Forums

I feel moved to reengage in the discussion...

Not that going CO will solve the problem, but it will define the context of the problem. Since the CO has command of the battlefield, a strategy, etc., an insubordinate SL who won't follow CO orders is clearly in breach of the chain of command.

In the context of an admin commanding the team, which admin do I take orders from? If a CO is in place, is he really in charge, or is it the admin? Which admin specifically? In case of a conflict with multiple admins, which one do I listen to? Should I assume that an admin has a plan for the team, or should I just assume that it's to attack/defend a flag? Which flag? etc. There is no clear chain of command in this case. It's arbitrary.

I will agree, that an individual with admin power has the ability to kick and ban, but that's about the extent of it.

I don't even know what server we're talking about, to be honest, and this argument generally doesn't apply to me. I do my best to lead my squads, have a good time, and help my team. People generally don't complain about my play style, but I don't care for mini-fiefdoms, whether I am an admin or not. Thus, I make my case here.

I couldn't tell you how many games I've won or lost, because it honestly doesn't matter to me. I like to play the game fore the aforementioned reasons. I do agree that people that ruin the game for the majority of people on the server by TKing, driving vehicles into rivers, etc. should be removed. I would also add stat-padders, glitchers, and exploiters to that list.

But kicking people that might be new to the game, not using mumble (or if mumble is down), not reading the scroll (especially with the drivel that often spews forth from it), learning a new skill, or at least trying to contribute to the team seems counterproductive to growing our community. Our community needs growth, not weeding.

It's your railroad, and you can run it however you like, and if the majority of people on your server like the way it's run, then good on you. I was just raised to not worry about what other people are doing and to focus on what I'm doing and make sure that I'm doing right by me, and in this case, my squad and my team. It works for me 99.99% of the time, and I will continue to do so.

doop-de-doo wrote:COs are underpowered and are only there as a figure-head when push comes to shove.

The same can be said for SLs. SLs cannot force squads to do their bidding. They cannot make them follow. They can only lead.

CR8Z wrote:The same can be said for SLs. SLs cannot force squads to do their bidding. They cannot make them follow. They can only lead.

SLs can remove unwanted players from their squad. COs do not have that luxury. Most of the time there isn't a CO anyway. Even if there was a CO, who is going to enforce a CO's desires? Admins.

A few days ago we had a free kits squad in our team with the players spread out all over the map that IMHO is a waste particularly as all 9 squads were taken.

doop-de-doo wrote:Recon and ambush squads have their well deserved place. I've seen teams win because of efficiency outside the objectives.

Like I've been saying, it's not about how people like to play, but that admins shouldn't feel ashamed to act if it's obviously a case of lost squad.

This is absolutely what I think. There is a huge difference between doing something that indirect aids your team and doing something that's more or less pointless and moronic.

doop-de-doo wrote:who is going to enforce a CO's desires? Admins.

On this we can agree, but it's done in the context of the game and the command structure. My point is that squad leaders should squad lead, commanders should command, and admins should admin. What appears to be advocated here is that the admin do all three, when it suits him.

PLODDITHANLEY wrote:A few days ago we had a free kits squad in our team with the players spread out all over the map that IMHO is a waste particularly as all 9 squads were taken.

On this I would also agree, but I don't know that I would still kick those players. Those players joined that squad, perhaps because it was the only one available, perhaps because there were several locked squads with only 3 or 4 players in them, or some other reason. And maybe that's what they all wanted to do.


This kind of argument goes right up there with teamstacking, locked squads, etc. I'm not here to win hearts and minds or change any opinions, but just defend the good SLs that don't appreciate this kind of overreaching. Surely, there has to be more of me out there somewhere, but I've often marched to the beat of my own drummer, and I'm at peace with that.

I wouldn't kick them just resign the SL to get an effective squad.

doop-de-doo wrote:I agree with Wicca on this one.

COs are underpowered and are only there as a figure-head when push comes to shove. They're almost like a co-pilot's pacenotes or the woman's voice in fighter jets: "Pull up. Pull up." Unfortunately, the resign function never made it to where the commander had access to it, to really instate his authority.

Unless COs are allowed close admin support, they are usually just wind in the breeze and UAV support.

CR8Z wrote: Not that going CO will solve the problem, but it will define the context of the problem. Since the CO has command of the battlefield, a strategy, etc., an insubordinate SL who won't follow CO orders is clearly in breach of the chain of command.

I thought that Pfunk explained the CO role quite well. Which talks about CO's micro managing squads. If we didn't like how some people command just ponder the obvious issues micro managing of admins. Thankfully some servers don't do that.

In re-reading my post, would it be acceptable to have an individual without admin, to command a server by influencing an admin that might not be in game. I.e., Have someone chatting an admin in xfire, and saying, "Kick this guy because I say so.".

Would this be acceptable?

If so, how can I get this?

DDS wrote:If we didn't like how some people command just ponder the obvious issues micro managing of admins.

This thread is not about anyone micro-managing players and their squads. It's about giving admins the green light for stepping in when there's an obviously sour situation because of one or maybe even more squads.

I'll repeat what I've been saying that kicks and bans are not what is needed. The resign function is heavy enough of it's own accord to drive the point home. If used on squads that are obviously failing their team hard hopefully with a warning of some sort, they'll know better next time. This is not micro-managing, but solving for problem players. Same as when someone solos a tank, or can't fly but is in your CAS vehicle, etc. Admin stuff, right?

I also don't think many admins really want to micro-manage anything. It's too time consuming. And if they did, I dont think many people would want to play there.

doop-de-doo wrote:This thread is not about anyone micro-managing players and their squads. It's about giving admins the green light for stepping in when there's an obviously sour situation because of one or maybe even more squads.
The resign function is heavy enough of it's own accord to drive the point home. If used on squads that are obviously failing their team hard

Could you define failing the team hard?

Failing a rule.. is that what you mean?

doop-de-doo wrote:hopefully with a warning of some sort, they'll know better next time. This is not micro-managing, but solving for problem players. Same as when someone solos a tank, or can't fly but is in your CAS vehicle, etc. Admin stuff, right?

I also don't think many admins really want to micro-manage anything. It's too time consuming. And if they did, I dont think many people would want to play there.

If you want an admin to disband, kick, fling or ban a squad leader or player then I think it should be based on stated rules or it is arbitrary. And in my most humble opinion, I wholeheartedly disagree. Micro managing by admins happens all the time. Just read the server feedback forums.

CR8Z wrote:It's your railroad, and you can run it however you like, and if the majority of people on your server like the way it's run, then good on you. I was just raised to not worry about what other people are doing and to focus on what I'm doing and make sure that I'm doing right by me, and in this case, my squad and my team. It works for me 99.99% of the time, and I will continue to do so.

I agree with this Cr8z. Servers can and will do what they please. And my give-o-shit-meter is broken.

Maybe the offenders are new to PR who are just doing the standard COD BF3 stuff politely pointing out that isn't what PR is all about might be enough.

Wakes up from dream....

What if the majority of a team is guilty of not being helpful then? Will you resign 16 players until finally someone forces themselves to be a SL? That isn't how you make people like your server. And that's what it's all about. The admins main job isn't to ensure proper gameplay, that job comes to the players, all of them. The admins job is first to enforce gameplay ruining rules like, baserape, teamkilling etc. First you make sure your server is populated, then check that no one is breaking any rules. And last maybe you can make some resignations. Keep in mind that admins are players just like you and want to play PR as much.

There is so much twisting of words and lacking of comprehension that it makes obvious for people that debate coherently why they have to drop off from conversations such as this.

They keep confusing apples with oranges and drag in grapes to make an irrelevant point about the matter.

And the few coherent ones that stubbornly stay in the hope of something more, find themselves spending more time explaining the essence of the topic than debating.

Ok, here's my side of things: I'm the type of SL that will be as far away from all you smurfs as possible, and I'm proud of it! I don't care about the flags or if we win or loose, my only concern is my own effectiveness in a given role and how much I can help the team within that role. 90% of you will never get this and I'm fine with it.

A proper "recon/ambush" squad will have a max 3 to 4 members and will often divide into fire-teams to cover more ground or multiple roles. I too am against 6 man squads sitting idle away from the flags as that is a waste of manpower that is needed elsewhere.

My squad focuses on alternative game-play and I have a very simple rule in regards to flags... We do not help assault or defend a flag if we have other plans. We only neutralize or cap a flag if there is almost no opposition and it has just became capable while being somewhat close to our position. We only defend a flag if everyone leaves it undefended and we predict that it will be lost otherwise. 90% of losses are because normal infantry squads can never be bothered to defend even for a short period of time... We only break this rule if our help is requested by a squad that has actually been coordinating with us even when we were doing our own roles.

However, infantry squads quite often blame their failures on lack of manpower when in fact they are loosing a flag against an enemy with the exact same number of soldiers, solely because of impatience or lack of skill. Stop peaking all the time when on defense, let the enemy get close and use a proper defensive perimeter. Coordinate assaults with other squads instead of rushing in! Ask for intel, use smoke mortars (if available) and for god sake, flank/infiltrate more! How about you take down FOB's close to that flag before assaulting it? Perhaps the opposition will be quite reduced, eh? Play it smart!

So all in all, lack of manpower is the most common excuse that is used for failure. If my squad can defend a flag (doesn't mean not be out-numbered and out-capped but rather stay alive within the flag radius) with 3 to 4 guys, than you should be able to do the same or even better with a 6 man squad... but most tend to die quite quickly.

The only type of squad that should be stationary out of flag range is either an ambush squad or the mortars squad, all others will either be on the flags or be constantly mobile supporting where it is needed. Normal Infantry squads should focus only on the flag radius and short proximity, leave the rest of the map to proper recon squads to deal with as they will try and support you in those areas, specially if you actually work with and coordinate with them.

Don't complain about a 4 man squad building your FOB's where they will actually be useful and not overran in less than a minute or ambushing enemy vehicles and reducing the amount of enemy armor and logistics or destroying all enemy FOB's so that the enemy squad you just killed doesn't spawn back and rush you while you're reviving. Destroying enemy mortars so that they don't fall on your head... etc.

If you want to whine about waste of squads, than do it about 1 man sniper squads called "recon". Do it about free kit squads... Do it about 6 man squads with no squad leadership, which is quite common on every public server.

"our whole squad got killed while we were chatting about the weather while Wicca was singing in the background..." -> "lets blame it on those excluded blue dots that didn't come to help us"

Arcturus_Shielder wrote:There is so much twisting of words and lacking of comprehension that it makes obvious for people that debate coherently why they have to drop off from conversations such as this.

They keep confusing apples with oranges and drag in grapes to make an irrelevant point about the matter.

And the few coherent ones that stubbornly stay in the hope of something more, find themselves spending more time explaining the essence of the topic than debating.

Couldn't have put it better myself, so much arguing just for the sake of it.

Honestly, it's not a lack of comprehension. If you resign me from my squad after I put time and effort into putting it together and getting everyone on track, you may as well kick/ban me, because my ego won't allow me to stick around. I'm kind of a prima donna like that.

The only reason I would have a 6 man squad is because I don't like to lock my squads. I hate joining a server and seeing locked squads and nothing to do. I leave my squads open so others have an opportunity for some good team play. Especially the new players. I am always happy to teach new players, which may be yet another reason I'm not responding to requests. However, I almost always respond to requests for help. What I don't respond to is people telling me what to do when they have no apparent authority to do so.

CR8Z wrote:Honestly, it's not a lack of comprehension. If you resign me from my squad after I put time and effort into putting it together and getting everyone on track, you may as well kick/ban me, because my ego won't allow me to stick around. I'm kind of a prima donna like that.

The only reason I would have a 6 man squad is because I don't like to lock my squads. I hate joining a server and seeing locked squads and nothing to do. I leave my squads open so others have an opportunity for some good team play. Especially the new players. I am always happy to teach new players, which may be yet another reason I'm not responding to requests. However, I almost always respond to requests for help. What I don't respond to is people telling me what to do when they have no apparent authority to do so.

But aren't you kind of missing the point again. The crux of it is, if a squad is off away from the main body of players and are refusing requests for help from their team then for the sake of the team they should at the very least explain what and why they are doing something, and if they get further requests for help should come back and co-operate with their team.
To do otherwise goes against the spirit of the game.

No one is suggesting that people's game style should be controlled and micro managed just that in a team game acting selflessly sometimes is in the best interests of everyone.

smiley wrote:But aren't you kind of missing the point again.

LOL, No, not really, I just disagree with you.

In a competitive match, I would never go off on my own without first working with the CO, or absent that, the rest of the SLs. But in a public match, where I'm lucky to A) get a squad together at all, B) communicate with other squads, C) have enough time to get a full round in, D) stop what my squad is doing on a moments notice to change my objective, E) have the assets and skill available to help, F) etc. There are a lot of variables in a public match that are beyond my control.

Public matches just aren't that organized. Sometimes they are, and that's great, but most times they simply are not. It's not my job to get everybody in line, unless I opt for the command seat, at least as I see it. My job is to lead my squad to the best of my ability, to make sure they have fun, and to help the team in the best way that my limited intel affords me.

I suppose on some level, that it would be great if I could just tell everyone what to do, and threaten to resign/kick/ban them if they didn't do what I say, but I'm not an admin on every server, and that really isn't my style anyway. I believe in leading by example versus with a stick. Aye, sometimes a stick is necessary, but rarely, at least in my experience.

I'm not saying that an admin should NEVER use the admin tools, but it should ALWAYS be the last resort. As a server admin for many different games over many years, I think I can count on two hands how many people I've kicked/banned. It's just not necessary, and counterproductive to what we're trying to achieve.

I get that we're talking about resigning an SL versus kick/ban, really I do. I just see them as a similar tactic and disapprove. Imagine just using the "kill" command over and over again on someone. While not kick/banning them, you sure are inviting them to leave. I view the "resign SL" command in a similar light.

Consider the argument of NOT defending unknown caches. I think this is ridiculous. Of course you should defend a cache, known or unknown. There are many tools at your disposal to defend a cache, but not defending it is not the best one, imo. While this is my opinion, I know that many in this community disagree.

Likewise, I disagree that every squad must be tasked to whatever other squads or an admin feel they should be tasked to. Whatever your assumptions of what some other "useless" squad is doing, I don't believe that an admin should force them into complying.

If you think that the game is won or lost based on the actions of 6 people, I would ask what the other 26 people are doing? Probably not what they should be.

Most people want to be led, and they want to help, but they also hate being told what to do by somebody they don't know and have never heard of. ESPECIALLY if they disagree.

smiley wrote:No one is suggesting that people's game style should be controlled and micro managed just that in a team game acting selflessly sometimes is in the best interests of everyone.

But some have suggested that an admin step in and disband a squad based on these thus far.

"rogue squads", "goes against the spirit of the game", "SL wasting 6 people to doa 2-3 person job" "griefing by not being assisting the team", "bad SL", "doing something 1 man can do" , "away from the main body of players" and acting selflessly".

How do you define 'the best interests of everyone'. What if as Onil suggests that a squad is building a FOB away from the fight that wont get quickly overrun. Should his squad be disbanded in the "best interests of the team". How about based on stated RULES that are well thought out? This all looks more like group think than sound rational judgement imo.