Project Reality Forums

question: making a rule where sqd. leads need to follow commander order or face admin actions (force resign, w/k)....would you consider that to be to much interference?

my apologies if this was already discussed in some other threads. just wondering what the thoughts would be

I can see how that can be very hard to admin and a lot of backlash would be expected, but would it make game play more better, more realistic, more enjoyable?

Some servers have this - and I think it's good.

2.5 Any squad leader that doesn't follow the Administrators orders, will be warned and kicked.
2.6 Any squad member who does not follow his SLs orders can be warned and then kicked.
2.7 Follow orders. Grunts, must follow squadleader orders. Squadleaders must follow Commanders orders.

[Rules] - PRTA Server Rules | PRTA - Project Reality Teamwork Alliance

We belive teamwork needs an inherent idea of team cohesion to work. And to do that, we need to enforce it on the squadleaders.

If that is too much, just stay away from those servers.

I agree with that rule, it really is already enforced in some servers. Problem is when your commander shouldn't be commanding. It's a very demanding and difficult task, being CO.

The problem is that most people suck balls and it's hard to follow the orders of a ballsucker.

I've had admins tell the CO to F off then state. "its not in the rules you have to follow the CO, its just a suggestion."

That attitude has made the slot useless.

saXoni wrote:The problem is that most people suck balls and it's hard to follow the orders of a ballsucker.

And then there's jafar. Holy shit, the man can command a team.

Portable.Cougar wrote:I've had admins tell the CO to F off then state. "its not in the rules you have to follow the CO, its just a suggestion."

That attitude has made the slot useless.

I refute the opinion that is because admins tell the CO his opinions and orders are not welcome that the slot is useless. It is my opinion it is because the position is useless that has caused many to view the position as a waste of a player slot. The CO(mmander)'s role of Command and Control simply isn't needed in a PR where Mumble means every SL, and all too often every SM, can be in the same channel and converse with each other. SLs now come to consensus on the overall battleplan, if such discussion is even needed with the unchanging nature of PR's maps.

'[R-CON wrote:Wicca;1863160'][Rules] - PRTA Server Rules | PRTA - Project Reality Teamwork Alliance

We belive teamwork needs an inherent idea of team cohesion to work. And to do that, we need to enforce it on the squadleaders.

If that is too much, just stay away from those servers.

unfortunately, due to time diff. i never played on PRTA server. would like to try though, as i think that bring out PR's full gameplay as it was intended.
yea, it would suck to have bad CO but isn't there a resign vote for CO...

can players (not admins) give input as far as how they feel playing on such server.
any NA players input.......

We had a discussion about this some time ago.

While it is in the discretion of server administration with regard to rules the naked truth is that the commander role died long ago.

Were starting to see the same thing happen to Squad Leader. Some servers dont require you to be in a squad. So it's up to the server admin and the community to WANT to have some sort of standard to promote gameplay. Seems like now it's get the numbers up in the server and lolololol who cares.

So far what has annoyed me so much is the locked squads of 2-3 people even if they are an infantry sqd and are using mumble, and because of that tehre is also alot of 1man squads as well. Communication is the biggy in PR, its too bad people dont want to do that but instead do the lone wolf

Is it possible to disable squad locking ?

I see myself as a pretty good commander, but it really does come down to squad leaders following you commands. What people don't realize is that the commander has the overall plan in his/her head, but the grunts fail to realize this :/

This is especially so on maps which REALLY need coordination, like Normandy, Ia Drang, or many insurgency maps, and it really grinds my gears when squad leaders don't like to follow their orders -.-

mangeface wrote:And then there's jafar. Holy shit, the man can command a team.

And then there's AFsoccer.

I'll be honest in the few servers i've played I havn't seen a commander being assigned. Only once was there a name in the slot and I didn't see it having an impact on the game. Maybe because I was only a SM but still.

Commanders work in organized events where squad leaders(pos. platoonleads) know their thing. Good example of this is Operation Rusty bayonet which had over 100 players and working command chain.

In public servers commanders usually suck and squad leaders dont listen to them. The most usefull things even a good commander can do are area attacks and UAV flights.

DDS wrote:We had a discussion about this some time ago.

While it is in the discretion of server administration with regard to rules the naked truth is that the commander role died long ago.

Were starting to see the same thing happen to Squad Leader. Some servers dont require you to be in a squad. So it's up to the server admin and the community to WANT to have some sort of standard to promote gameplay. Seems like now it's get the numbers up in the server and lolololol who cares.

So true that it hurts.
But PR should take a stop to this

zombie-yellow wrote:Is it possible to disable squad locking ?

Not sure, but it's definitely possible to ask for an invite.

When people lock their squads it's usually because they know they'll do better without smurfs. If a person isn't even competent enough to ask the squad leader to unlock the squad he's definitely not competent enough to play PR.

saXoni wrote:If a person isn't even competent enough to ask the squad leader to unlock the squad he's definitely NOT competent enough to play PR.

Fixed it for you (I guess that is what you wanted to say) and I just quoted this for truth!

KiloJules wrote:Fixed it for you (I guess that is what you wanted to say) and I just quoted this for truth!

Oh, didn't notice; thanks