Results 1,021 to 1,040 of 1385
09-04-2013, 10:05 AM #1021
What did we settle on? My interpretation - we said doublesquads was the goto. We can split if more then 40 or loud or such. Maybe we only settled on doublesquads? If so I understand the reaction last night and I won't do it again.
09-04-2013, 10:08 AM #1022
09-04-2013, 10:09 AM #1023
So, a Purple Giraffe to RPS as a whole for the excellent time I've had with them to date:
09-04-2013, 10:40 AM #1024
You have to play FTL. It's awesome.
09-04-2013, 10:42 AM #1025
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
Also, didnt we agree on this already? I am getting confused over this being brought up all the time. The discussion now seems to run through multiple threads(not your fault Ridebird).
09-04-2013, 10:44 AM #1026
So, split wherever and whenever (outside of Silly Mondays) by "Xing up", assign leaders first, move them out to set up command structure, then move people over to fill out squads, to minimize the impact on the main group.
09-04-2013, 10:50 AM #1027
Yeah sure, yesterdays procedure was good, but after the no to split I really didn't want any more attention/cause more delays/be more troublesome. Your proposed process a la xing up and just setting up so people can hop on if they want to seems pretty much perfect.
09-04-2013, 11:32 AM #1028
And I know we all feel this way, but I'm just going to state it for emphasis: we cater to the members of this community. So we provide a framework where they can play whichever way they feel like, within the greater framework, facilities and restrictions of Planetside 2. Doing stunts with scythes and swagriders, shooting lasers, driving or piloting about in their sundys and gals. Leaders actually give priority to that, compared to their style and preferences.
But having some clear guidelines doesn't restrict that. It facilitates it. The leaders don't have to get frustrated and exhausted trying to reinvent the wheel. Members don't have to sacrifice their game time trying to go through that. I believe it is you who had posted about group evolution and dynamics. We are in a transition period, and I for one welcome this friction. It shows we care, and I believe that it will bear results.
But only if we stick to the solutions we come up with, not having to go over them over and over again. I do not wish to discuss comms again. We have progressed to discussing tactics and operational methods, because we came up with a working framework. Our gameplay and appreciation of this game is evolving and deepening. Going back to previously solved matters hinders this evolution and frustrates a lot of our members, as responses to this discussion have shown. There are still issues and debates, but these are constructive, about new things. For instance we progressed to discussing strategy and operations. Also sharing experience and tips regarding leadership. How to do some coordinated squad and multi-squad play, like leapfrogging or breaching a building or a tower.
As for myself, I am actually a reluctant leader. I don't have the skills (this is my first FPS, and only during the last couple of months I've stopped sucking and progressed to just plain bad -went from a daily 0.3 KDR to a daily 1.5-2 - still my overall is 0.88), the confidence or the energy. But I feel that it is a way to contribute to this extremely supportive and welcoming community. And it is also a commentary on how I want to be lead. I'm bad (but getting better), so I need the support of the rest of the group, and want to do the same for the group. I'm fascinated by the large scale potential, so I want to experience it.
And as a conclusion and a disclaimer: I am not unhappy with our outfit or its operation. I just wish to further the discussion, and also be honest about what I perceive (probably wrongly most of the time) to be some of our shortcomings. You are all awesome, and I'm just trying to contribute by furthering the debate and the gameplay. Apologies if I appear too critical some times, but a certain negative mentality and over-thinking things (incoherently too!) are two of my many flaws (they make for a good analytical flaws spotter and implementation bugs hunter in software projects though). I'm trying to work them out
09-04-2013, 12:29 PM #1029
09-04-2013, 12:39 PM #1030
But this is why I'm being so vocal about these things. Because I've been the quintessential first player experience (total noob!). So I appreciate all the help I've received, and have some idea where we can do even better.
Last edited by MrEclectic; 09-04-2013 at 12:43 PM.
09-04-2013, 12:40 PM #1031
Instead of discussing split again seeing how that has effectively gotten us nowhere, how about being serious about making this a place both for people that want to play and sit in a big chat and such and people that want to play more tactically? This goes for every night except monday, wednesday and thursday of course, which are set. On both tuesdays so far I have had to come in and ask that we split like we should, so the interest for that seems small, and with this system it's not needed at all.
Our standard setup in this is a given, namely one 24 player channel consisting of A+B and then C and D in seperate channels/squads that backup the main force and do more targeted attacks and generally are the supportive strike force of the main force. Or generally that these two squads focus on 100% tight teamplay and tactics and that's that. They can of course also be the air squad for example or an armor squad. Think of this as the main force is the army and the others are the special forces or cavalry of some sort.
If no one is interested in tactical play then by all means all be in the same channel - nothing forced. 24 is large enough for it to be very chatty but new players should still be able to speak = perfect for that purpose, no? If this is not agreeable and you need more for it to be chatty enough then I guess only one squad can go tactical, so 36+12 instead of 24+12+12.
But again, this seems like the best compromise, no? I thought doublesquads would work well but I found it very frustrating for the half hour or so I tried it yesterday, and friday was in a similar vein even though we did work together for a while.
09-04-2013, 01:07 PM #1032
Agreed. One squad is a perfect amount of people for many tasks. A sizeable force, yet nimble and manageable. A+B / C / D for comms sounds good to me!
I'd say we split as soon as we have 6-8 people up for squad-play (X in /os) and about as many left. That's enough to be effective as a group. No reason to split until we can reasonably field about two squads, yeah?
09-04-2013, 01:14 PM #1033
Quick - can we make A+B / C / D 'official' before we get too bogged down in discussion about it? Hopefully it will just become the norm.
As a newcomer, it's not the most welcoming thing to be greeted with when threads are mired with detailed/lengthy debates around the perfect comms strategy...
09-04-2013, 01:16 PM #1034
09-04-2013, 01:16 PM #1035
A + B /C/D sounds perfect as it's the best of both worlds and it's flexible.
09-04-2013, 01:37 PM #1036
A three-squad platoon of DWG is holding Perris Amp against almost the whole of the TR zerg for 2 1/2 hours (this is before the recent WG rotation). Note the clearly designated squad roles, the fluidity of response, and the use of tactics: a thing of beauty!
Last edited by MrEclectic; 09-04-2013 at 01:42 PM.
09-04-2013, 01:59 PM #1037
Wow, that was incredible. My respect for DWG just skyrocketed.
09-04-2013, 02:02 PM #1038
That was well done! We could probably do something similar, if we focused like that, though we probably have far from their level of skill, individually, if what I hear about DWg is correct. The clearly designated squad roles are clearly very important for this to work, though I can imagine it can get a bit boring holding the SW gate for 4 hours straight...
09-04-2013, 02:04 PM #1039
I think we're too open to all comers and don't have the right level of power structure in place to pull that off.
09-04-2013, 02:06 PM #1040
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
they're pretty damn good. creative tactics + squadplay. they've been suffering from member drain though (and the lack of new recruits replacing people that leave).