Project Reality Forums

I dont know how possible or how complex this would be, But I would like to see if you have a Squad named Tank that only that squad can have access to that asset. Example I want to have a squad that Runs just tanks, then in the start of the game I need to create a tank squad. Or if I want to fly hueys I need to have a squad named huey. No one else can use those assets with out being in that squad. I think there should only be one squad named after an asset. Unless there are enough Tanks or other assets to go around. Example in Keshan there is many tanks in the start and enough tanks throughout the game to run two tank squads with 4 engineers. I think it would eleminate alot of people stealing assets from a squad that has a squad named for that asset.

In our server we enforce this rule that you must have a squad named after that asset in order to use it but we still get people coming in the server and stealing those assets. Just a thought and a suggest comments are welcome.

Thanks,

iirc this is a resuggestion for hardcodedness and also gameplay limitations

e.g. I make a tank squad, my tanks get destroyed, not only is my right to use the asset being questioned because of this, but also my squad needs to switch over to another useful role at least until the tanks respawn. Having an infantry squad called 'tank' is alittle odd, and can present problems later ingame

So, you are playing on a fairly empty server (~ 20-25 people), the map is Qwai. You are an infantry squad that gets raped by tanks. You spawn at main, and take the TOW. You eliminate the tanks, see the TOW as an effective means of transportation, and you use it for a while.

Later, a tard comes in and names his squad "TOW." You get kicked for using the TOW, purely because your squad name does not include the combination of these three letters.


I was once on your server, my friends and I took the TOW and we blew up countless Nanjings as they tried to attack the main. Got an APC too, if I recall correctly. The round ended before the US had the chance to kill us. Other people were on the server complaining that our squad was not named TOW, so we shouldn't have the asset. We left our squad, made a new one with TOW in the name. Complaints stopped. Does that really make sense? Just because you call your squad something means you have infinite admin-enforced dibs on that asset?

waldo_ii wrote:Does that really make sense? Just because you call your squad something means you have infinite admin-enforced dibs on that asset?

No it doesn't.. Some clans just don't think things throught enough before enforcing them, thinking it will increase realism if you call your squad after what asset you're going to use. FORGETTING that it is a game, and that you just CAN'T be as organized as in real life. It really shouldn't matter what name your squad has in this game we play, if the need arises you should allways be able to grab yourself that abrams or huey.
But that's just me...

Sanirius

Yes this is stupid what about the 2-man locked sqwads for tank you cant join, or the 1 mann locked sqwad for jet, id be nice to had at least a spotter on your team, me personally i dont think this should be done.

Its a tough topic because you have some people that really know what they are doing with very expensive assets (helos...tanks...planes) but are not given the opportunity to use these assets to their maximum effectiveness because some tard has a squad already named with a monopoly on that asset.

So what do you do? Wait your turn in line? Ask the commander for help? Its a touchy subject, and I sure don't have the answers, but I understand the frustration.

However, I do think the purpose behind squads having names is important because it gives order to the chaos of the fog of war, but at the same time... how do you stop some nublet from taking the A-10 that in the right hands, with the right Spec Operator on the ground, can single handedly keep control on a map.

Its sad that situations like this are given up to chance, and the only way to really regulate it is to be on a server with either respectable players that know who is good with what, or a good commander and administrator to enforce the commander's decisions. Both which are very rare.

At the end of the day, it's teamwork that really matters. As someone who is a brilliant pilot, it does annoy me when some total div grabs the A10 and lasts 2 mins. I make bets with my squad about how long such assets will last. It's funny when I'm right but also good when I am wrong because if the A10 doesn't get shot down in 2 mins - it means the Pilot is doing an OK job. I don't think I've ever had the chance to fly the A10 on Kashan even though I have waited the full 20 mins for it (well I have when the servers emptied out a bit but then there's no-one to laser for you) I can totally see the point of naming a squad after an asset and at the beginning it's fine and will work very well... but as a game pans out, it won't always work.

As I say, it's the teamwork that really matters. Squads should actually communicate with each other more. For e.g Squad 1 'will do this', then squad 2 replies 'Ok we'll do that'... BUT then actually stick to it. Make it your goal. I have lost count of the amount of times I've seen a squad somewhere totally irrelevant on the map and I've requested reinforcements and been ignored. Other times a fellow squad has responded and we've gotten the flag.

It's all about communication. That - and people NOT being greedy for assets.

But there will always be greedy noobs on servers tbh.

I like squads named after assets, but I don't really like squads reserving their right to assets by naming themselves after it. You can end up with 3 littlebird squads hanging around at main, and at that point it's no different from the usual 30% of the team camping back for assets.

People are too attached to squads, though, I think. I hate seeing pilots inside an infantry squad who won't leave to join an actual air transport squad, even though that's exactly what they are doing. Claiming assets by name can help there as it encourages people to sort squads by asset, but it has all the bad side effects of claiming assets before they spawn.

In tournaments and clan matches where there is a universal consensus on everyone's job/kits/vehicle load-out, then of course squad should be named after their assets .

But in public games, the battle ground is always changing without a commander involved in assigning jobs, usually. Assets aren't always there when you need them, and naming your squad after an asset creates a demand for rigid tactics. Without a commander, SLs need to communicate all the more over team chat, and SLs will then have to make the decision themselves as to what their course of action will be.

A good example of that is, I join the Chicago server with a few clan mates, and we start a new squad (no fancy name or anything, just "Echo" or the like). Anyways, upon entering the game, which was roughly half-way in already, we get to main base where there were several tanks spawning in. Waiting to get completely ready, we spent five minutes waiting for everyone to spawn in with proper kits and secure the two unclaimed tanks and an AA vehicle.

About ten minutes later, we have been butting our vehicles to very efficient use, and were about to move on to the next flag when someone on team chat started accusing us of taking their tanks! It turns out that this person had made a squad named "tank" within the last bit of time and was cussing at us for taking his vehicles! It took us about another 5 minutes to explain our position to the admins, who at first pointed us to their rules giving squads named after assets first class priority,. Thankfully we were able to resolve the problem in our favour.


After a good run we had eventually lost all our vehicles, so we changed tactics to suit the situation: we originally made up for the teams deficit in MBTs on the field, but we later made up for the teams lack of Mechanized Infantry, then well-positioned FOBs, then just all-around infantry. I say this as it applies to the fact that Sls should have the right to perform to the best of their abilities by doing tactics which would aid the team in the battle.

The most unfortunate thing about that whole fiasco earlier was that when the two tank squads finally got their hands on some armour, they waited a good 20 minutes before making any advances out of the MEC outpost, even though we had both bunkers and the infantry there was calling out for armoured help as they were getting killed the second they spawned while trying to defend the bunkers so we could advance. With that delay, they took another 10-15 mins to get to the front line with their 8 tanks and 2 AAvs, and about half of them got owned by a single enemy Bradley. A final argument showing that squads named after assets don't necessarily perform better or use teamwork more or communicate at all than anyone else.

I play on FlyDoggie's server more than any other server, primarily because of the great ping for me (im right next door in Minnesota). Generally speaking the rule works quite well and does improve teamwork. However it would be impossible to hardcode that, because in reality you do need a little flexibility especially when the server starts to depopulate a bit. For example you might have an "ARMOUR" squad and that might mean something a little different on each map. Unfortunately its something a little too human to hardcode in bf2.

The correct way to do it would be to have a system where the commander can hand out rights to each asset. Not sure if that could be done in bf2, I suspect not.

I like Squads being named after the assets they intend to use. When the start timer counts down to 30 seconds and there is a TOW squad, an Eng Inf, a Recon squad, Delta Squad, and Teamwork squad,... then you have an idea of what is going to happen, even on a public server and without a commander. If an asset dedicated squad (Armour) looses its assets and becomes an Infantry squad then it is not a bad idea to disband the squad and rename it accordingly. Bottom line asset dedicated squads solve more problems than they create.

I do not like the idea of changing the code to make assets unavailable to any squad without the correct name. These issues should be worked out through communication and teamwork.

Hey guys, if you dont like it, dont use it. I personally think its just as good at keeping things organized as having free for all assets, because you get just as many people wasting them that way too.

Anyway, I'd bet there might be a way to do such a thing with server scripts, but I dont know if it would give the desired effect. On a side note, keep up the good work Doggie, your server is a blast to play on.

Commander assigned, otherwise its first come first serve. Most squads named after assets end up being incompetent and the worst part is they never learn from their mistakes.

Entelin, That is a good suggestion but one thing im seeing is no one wants to just sit in the command post to be commander. I here that it is way to boring. Now haveng said that I think we should figure ways to make the commanders job more interesting so more people will want to be commander. Since version 8 came out commander lost alot of movement as commander which in some ways I can see that as a good thing but the commanders positions have died done alot. Good Feedback from all of you. Maybe im just asking for to much. I tell you what would be nice is if you had to go through a training process or some way to show that you know how to operate an asset. Then you should be able to join a Jet squad or Huey Sq. I mean this would eliminate some noob person coming in and taking a jet and crashing it into the hanger while reying to taxi to the runway. I do know. Thanks for your input.

Well, while I'm personally don't like the idea (of asset based squads) too much in public play, I am glad that the there is a server that enforces it. That way we can at least have some variety. My two biggest quips with it are:

• Hard to enforce properly, constant administrating is needed to keep order.
• Detracts in a squads flexibility, which can lower a teams overall performance at times.

The second point isn't so clear cut, though, as it can be seen as both a positive and negative effect on teamwork.

Thankfully, the chicago server always seems to have fair and efficient admins on whenever I've played there. Otherwise the rule would probably be ignored by many, and there would instead be more TKing over assets. While there always seems to be some sort of conflict over the matter (especially on Kashan :roll , good admins always make the difference between teams sitting at main TKing each other and getting into the game and playing for real.

'= wrote:H[=FlyDoggie;859054']Entelin, That is a good suggestion but one thing im seeing is no one wants to just sit in the command post to be commander. I here that it is way to boring.

Just a comment on the commander thing. The commander position certainly isn´t boring, depending on other players of course, it just requires a certain person to do it. For example, I am not the commander kind of guy, but some are good at it and enjoy it.

i hate noobs that say OMG you're not in the tank squad stop taking the tank, all the while i run an infantry squad named Bravo, and we actually need the one tank since none of them are willing to come out of the mountains to get the job done.

i also hate those people who name their squad CAS then fail at doing any sort of close air suport when we ask for it. the worst part is they tend to crash everything while accomplishing nothing.

when my squad needs a tank to a position we need it immediatly. if i die and respawn with a squad mate and we take a tank or transport chopper thats becuase we genuinly need it. if the worthless tank squad or Air squad doesnt accept my reasoning for why i'm taking it, i ignore and proceed as planned, if i am hassled by an admin i explain and if they dont agree, i will proceed untill i have proven that with that asset we have advanced past enemy lines and struck harder than any named squad on the server. I have not yet seen more than once in the time i have played PR, a specialised squad that accomplished anything but lose said assets and waste our time complaining. and the one time i saw that squad succees, i was leading it.

The correct way to do it would be to have a system where the commander can hand out rights to each asset. Not sure if that could be done in bf2, I suspect not.[/QUOTE]



Problem with that is, some commanders could be biast or something, or be dumb, and only assign certain things to certain people, and leave everyone out in the open, with good enough skills to do say piloting, the certain person cant pilot jets, and the person with the skills, can but hes stuck doin grunt work.


(yeah THAT was confusing I know, ill try to make it better.

Regular clans that join our server have a full understanding that if they want to use an asset they must name their squad after it. Often random pubbers on the other hand just can't seem to grasp the concept. Its in our load-in screen twice, on our website and repeated by BF2cc every few minutes.

This is why we enforce this rule so strongly on our server. It has nothing to do with "realism".


1. Creates some order out of the chaos that can be a public server. Schoolyard rules means less TK's and bickering in the mains/carriers for the toys.

2. Cuts down the "hero" mentality where people just start grabbing random asssets and kits for their squad thinking they are going to save the day.

3. Easier for the commander to coordinate when the squads are already designated. Squad members perform better for their squad leader with a common underscored mission. For instance the Tow squad named as such from the start knows their squads #1 goal is tank hunting.

4. Squads are more accountable for their assets. when "A10/F16" squad is dead every 20.5 minutes Gee there is a problem, lets see who was piloting. . . . .

5. Easier on the admins. With a simple glance of the CAPS-LOCK key you can see who "gets it" and who is off on their own personal agenda. The asshats float right to the surface.

6. Further removes Project Reality from its arcade bungling vanilla BF2 roots.



So far on the Chicago PR .809 =]H[= Server our rules are working well. We will continue enforcement, perhaps even tighten the specifics. Two pet peaves I have with our server's system. One is multiple latent squads being named for the same asset. Really this should be capped at two squads, for instance the Kashan tanks. People see them in the hanger and try to defeat the rule by creating 3rd and 4th mid round squads. The other big one that gets my goat is people creating totally vague squad names trying to encompass as many assets as possible. "Pilots, Armor" We may adjust language clarity in the near future regarding the naming of squads rule.


So far we have had great success with forcing players to name their squads appropriately. We are strict in our enforcement but we are also fair, play by the the rules and the admins won't start up. Bend break or ignore the rules and you risk the !w !k !b machine cranked up for you. You don't like it? What does =]H[=Coeman always say? Go pay for your own server and you can make your own rules.

[R-CON]Alex6714 wrote:Just a comment on the commander thing. The commander position certainly isn´t boring, depending on other players of course, it just requires a certain person to do it. For example, I am not the commander kind of guy, but some are good at it and enjoy it.

Yeah Alex I used to love to play commander but it just isnt quite as fun as it used to be. Who knows maybe future versions will give the commander more responablity.