Page 13 of 52 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 1035
  1. #241
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Jesus_Phish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    4,155
    Quote Originally Posted by RIDEBIRD View Post
    Then you say you you and you move there. Fixed 4 people fireteams will never work. It will just cause a lot of confusion.
    That's fair enough, you've more experience leading. But I really don't see how difficult it would be to tell numbers 1-4 to stick together, especially if they were free to select whatever class they wanted. I can see how it would be difficult if they were limited to only being allowed play a single class though now.

  2. #242
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus RIDEBIRD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,020
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesus_Phish View Post
    That's fair enough, you've more experience leading. But I really don't see how difficult it would be to tell numbers 1-4 to stick together, especially if they were free to select whatever class they wanted. I can see how it would be difficult if they were limited to only being allowed play a single class though now.
    Manage a squad and a platoon at the same time. Hell, even manage a single squad. We will get worse decisions since the SL is trying to keep 4 in each team and trying to sort out classes.

    Micromanaging in this game is bad. Everything has showed us this. It's simple too much for one person to deal with, even with a single squad.

    SLs need to be involved in decision making and splits on a platoon level - not on a squad level. Your suggestion would create four platoon leaders that would have way too much to do to coordinate on a micro managing level. The amount of people does not matter -the amount of decisions are still the same.

    Therefore I let people handle such micro things. I deal with macro as both PL and SL, and let people find their own way and grow into responsibility for themselves.

    That way we have individuals thinking for themselves so that kind of stoff gets sorted on it's own.

  3. #243
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Jesus_Phish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    4,155
    I'm not following.

    My suggestion earlier that the squads have fire teams would, in my opinion, serve to lessen the amount of orders the SL has to give out. Lets just say we go with two six man fire team. A is 1-6 and B 7-12. "A take and hold the capture point, B secure the parameter and spawn room". Done. If it's a bigger place, lets say a bio-lab, the PL can assign his squads tasks, "Alpha take the shields out, bravo take the teleport rooms, charlie and delta capture points". The SLs of those can then tell their fireteams which to go for. If only alpha are on shields, then only alpha guys show up at them. If half of charlie go to A and B and half of delta do the same, thats effectively the same as one of them doing it, but with the people in the squads already knowing based on their number what one to go to.

    This I think would also reduce the platoon leaders burden as he wouldn't have to manage as many people.

    Your idea of "stuff gets sorted on its own", sounds very vague and "well it'll work or it wont and if it doesn't we'll just fall back to somewhere else". Of course people should think for themselves, no question about it, but there should also be (I think) a bit more structure in it.

  4. #244
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus EsotericReverie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Sweden (Göteborg)
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Cooper View Post
    One thing that can help is to put somene on 'point'.
    Yeah, I like this too!

  5. #245
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    193
    Cooper's Point point is worth developing; even in non-strat sessions I often find myself latching onto the shoulder of someone and following them for a spell. It's easier to react quickly when not thinking about path choice, and the lead's reactions (or unfortunate sudden death) gives you that much more situational info before rounding a corner, charging a stairway etc.

    For whole squad movement on strat nights it might be worth considering nominating both point and rearguard. The former leads and chooses path to the objective, the latter holds tail-end position and scans for longer distance and flank / rear threats. The other 10 then just have to concentrate on staying ahead of one, behind the other, and focused on the objective itself rather than peripheral stuff.

  6. #246
    Network Hub Grible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Edinburgh,Scotland
    Posts
    350
    I like the idea of having someone to follow!

    With regard to the "fireteams" stuff (opened in another thread and imported to here by jesus) - I didn't mean in my comment to have fixed role fire teams just a sort of buddy (trio) system. So if the situation changes so does the team role. but it means that if the situation requires AA maxs then we know that two guys will be AA maxes but me - having no useful certs in AA am better being an engie to keep them topped up and in ammo. But then the situation changes so I have to pull my certed up lib and they gun for it, then again we all end up sniping for a bit - the key being that as a little group we support each other, playing to our strengths as players and as certed characters. This means that if a SL needs AA then he just says "team one go AA".

    I think it might be a bit beyond both us (since the outfit generally is very loose and free and I like it that way!) and the interface (which is dreadful) at the moment - but having a buddying system between members of a squad should be possible - and with the new comms (nice one Cooper!) inter squad chatter is reasonable. However firm, precise orders and having people following them without too much debate (or at least following them while having the debate!) is probably the key for SL's.

    The single greatest improvement to our killing power tho would be teaming up. Not running as a constant stream of singles into the enemy but spawning and finding cover till there are a few of us to go forward.

  7. #247
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus RIDEBIRD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,020
    Squadleads already do that on their own as far as I know, and I don't care about how a squad takes an objective as PL. Fireteams are hard to coordinate and the one time we did try them we found the totally useless. There's just really nothing 6 people can do unless it's a ghost cap. 12 is mostly stretching it, 24 gets every job done.

    Stuff get's sorted = it's done with communication, is flexible, and get's called when needed. Fixed teams sticking together hardly ever work. Even getting squads to stick together is a constant battle of reminding people to stick together.

    I think we could try fireteams if we force people to go all infantry for a longer while, and in the future. Right now I'd be very happy to just get people working as well together as they did last thursday. It was a battle of trial and error on my part to get there, and finally we made something work.

    Starting to deconstruct that and already develop it is a bit early. I suggest we let people get used to playing together and making that flow naturally. Fireteams already develop organically when people play together, as they did last thursday.

    Again, communication solves everything and flexibility - for example changing to vehicles or switching classes if needed - is what works in PS2. Sticking people in to fixed teams and such is a hassle and means we need to switch people in to subchannels in squadchannels on mumble for them to stick together (meshing dudes up and saying "follow your fireteam leader" doesn't work - I've tried it at least five times with squads - making them communicate does).

    Regarding point guard, that should be the SL. I try to lead the charge at least. Rear guard could be useful as well.

  8. #248
    Lesser Hivemind Node NickWhite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    East Sussex, UK
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesus_Phish View Post
    That's fair enough, you've more experience leading. But I really don't see how difficult it would be to tell numbers 1-4 to stick together, especially if they were free to select whatever class they wanted. I can see how it would be difficult if they were limited to only being allowed play a single class though now.
    I think know exactly where youre coming from Jesus... (wait, what did i just say?)

    And to expand on a few others points raised.

    SL Is Alpha Lead, who then assigns a Fire Team Leader to be able to take over whenever he is busy: in PLchat, mapped up, or otherwise occupied. They would remain in their respective squad channels on mumble, just allowed/expected to be more vocal and leader-like. Switching the emphasis away from the SL having to manage all 12 men, ground tactics, transport, looking at the map, keeping up with ground units. Having this 'FTL' would clearly dissipate that workload further, improving squad efficiency and organisation. But, importantly, keeping that constant level of leadership and squadtogetherness. Just like the PL>SL>Squad mumble blueprint...

    The desired bi-product of this idea as i've hinted at, would be that the SL could then focus a lot more on Platoon-level tactics and coordination. (Something that has proven valuable in past outings) Whilst allowing the FTL to focus on the more pressing and immediate firefight-level issues such as: ground tactics, class designation/priority, Sundie deployment, being "point man", being the main squad feedback to the SL... Basically duties of lesser scale (but still vital) that need to be said/done. It also encourages and allows another member of the outfit to take one step up the tactical ladder and give their opinions on certain situations, if they so desire.

    It is a valid tactic as i have tried it out in late November, back when the outfit was still a baby. I was a fire team leader within BasicPaulie's 12 man squad. As a Platoon (Cooper was PL i believe) we all ran out with that structure and we personally felt it worked. Really well. Esoteric, Mitch and (perhaps?) Rotekian were a part of our squad. The feedback i got was that a better grasp of what was going on outside our squad was desired, to help immerse the squad members more... Which i would argue, is heeded, seeing as the SL would be freed up to relay that if so desired. Now that we have Mumble StratGir comms etiquette it would work easily.

    It wouldnt be mandatory, obviously, but theres no reason why any squad leaders shouldnt try out any ideas if they want to. As long as it wouldnt be an obvious detriment to the platoon...

    At the end of the day, it's how military structure works, isn't it?

    The squad is lead on the ground by their Sgt. (FTL)
    Who answers and talks with their Lieutenant. (SL)
    Who in turn answers and talks with Regiment (PL)

    It shouldn't involve micro managing, being redundant, disjointed or any level of confusion. Not if it's done correctly. It's about Good communication, clear role assignment and set responsibilities. Leading to a more immersive and rewarding StratGir experience.

  9. #249
    Moderator QuantaCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    5,825
    I have to add: taking over PL was fun for the first hour or so, but for fucks sake, the last bit was simply annoying. Admittedly, I was already tired, but the TR just kept doing crap. very tiring.

    About the "point", that should be the SL. He should be at the front of whatever the squad is doing, putting down beacons, and generally telling his squad how to form up.

    I was sl of charlie tonight, and I liked that we tried to stick together to take the bio lab satellites. I wanted the heavies to stick close to the engies, and whoever is "left over" (ie. in a class that is available in great numbers and just recently respawned/died) can switch to whatever is needed, usually medic.
    - Tom De Roeck.

    monochrom & verse publications

    "Quantacat's name is still recognised even if he watches on with detached eyes like Peter Molyneux over a cube in 3D space, staring at it with tears in his eyes, softly whispering... Someday they'll get it."

  10. #250
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus RIDEBIRD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,020
    Sorry for not bothering to organize further. I always fear people will leave cause it gets to organized etc..

  11. #251
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,597
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesus_Phish View Post
    Reposted from the other thread as it fits in here more

    I think it'd be great if we could break say squads into unit A (members 1-4), B (members 5-8) and C (8-12), who would then go to those respective points and hold them. So you look at your squad, you look at your number and you know where to go when your SL tells you. That way we can also make sure that in say Alpha B we've got the right combo of a MAX + Engi + Medic + HA or whatever.

    So to summarize:
    -If we could get people to focus on being set to roles. Let them pick up to 2 classes they like and up to 2 vehicles.
    -If we could make groups more organized.
    Being set to roles doesn't work very well - there is a genuine need to be quite fluid, reacting to what is going on. Also, PS2 is a game of quite fast respawn and death - trying to keep the same 4-man group together is going to be nigh on impossible, especially as only the medic needs to go down for it all to go to pot. Equally, squads often fluctuate in size quite a bit throughout the night.

    I love SWAT4 and so. But PS2 is a high-paced battle of attrition and respawn. Not one for slow, steady, precision cooperation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jesus_Phish View Post
    W Also on bigger places, like biolabs, where we would have maybe two squads attacking it, both those squads would be sending 4 people to A which means now 8 people are at A. If we also had a third squad there, we now have 12 people at A.
    Which is quite frankly a tactical disaster. So at each point we have 8-12 people, of whom only 4 of which are in the same comms channel as each other. Meanwhile, people share a comms channel with 8 other people who are at different areas? And the SL only knows what is going on at one of them?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jesus_Phish View Post
    Moving as 12 sounds like too many and it just feels like a zerg and doesn't feel very strategic at all.
    Maybe it sounds like it, but 12 is a small number in Planetside. What we've frequently struggled with on StartGir nights is single squads being dispatched to do something, and simply being overwhelmed. You'd be unlikley to take a generator at a tech plant with only 12 people as well for example.

    Yes, there are things that can be improved. But splitting up more is certainly not the solution. Taking tactical control away from SLs reacting to the current situation isn't a good solution. Getting better at reallocating people however probably is.

  12. #252
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Cooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,000
    Quote Originally Posted by CMaster View Post
    Maybe it sounds like it, but 12 is a small number in Planetside. What we've frequently struggled with on StartGir nights is single squads being dispatched to do something, and simply being overwhelmed. You'd be unlikley to take a generator at a tech plant with only 12 people as well for example.

    Yes, there are things that can be improved. But splitting up more is certainly not the solution. Taking tactical control away from SLs reacting to the current situation isn't a good solution. Getting better at reallocating people however probably is.
    I agree here entirely.

    However. 12 people moving roughly together > 12 people spawning at the sundie, running off on their own, dying and spawning again.

    It's worth getting into the habit of forming-up at a location and moving together. If the target is a Gen, then all 12 of you probably won;t make it; but you only need that one. One is more likely to make it as part of a 12-person group moving at once then a constant drip-drip-drip of purple targets.
    Quote Originally Posted by CROCONOUGHTKEY
    KING GEORGE IS A FROG
    le BANG~__-MICHEAL FUCK OFF~~__-INTERPOL KNOW YOU WELLBIENG~—
    OFF
    NOT RUSHMORE MOUNTAIN
    KILL WESTON KILL MUST KILLTHEWESTERNINMYHEADDOESN’TEXSIST
    TEXASISDEADINPARISHEWASAMAN..BINGBING.TETTOHEAD.SP ACEOK,TIMEDEADANDSTOPPED1920HOKKAIDO.UNDERSTOODAT1 ONE.
    UNDERSTANDTHISANDFUCKOFFPIRATEBAY.TIMEDOESNTEXSIST FORMEASIMPATEKPHILLPE.
    BANG

  13. #253
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus mrpier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,227
    Getting a squad to "form" up as it were at the spawn point/sundy before an attack seems like a very good idea, it also gives the squadleader opportunity to get the squad composition he wants with easy access to an infantry terminal.

    Backside is of course 10-11 players huddled up waiting for the last spawner is a very juicy target for explosive ordnance
    Last edited by mrpier; 16-01-2013 at 08:50 AM.

  14. #254
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,597
    I was considering trying to institute a "Don't respawn until given the order + location" rule for my squad in infantry combat come thursday. So we try and rezz people while possible, then respawn together and move together if needed ( the respawn order needn't always wait until everyone is dead - just until it is more efficient than trying to get everyone up again.

  15. #255
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Jesus_Phish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    4,155
    Quote Originally Posted by CMaster View Post
    Being set to roles doesn't work very well - there is a genuine need to be quite fluid, reacting to what is going on. Also, PS2 is a game of quite fast respawn and death - trying to keep the same 4-man group together is going to be nigh on impossible, especially as only the medic needs to go down for it all to go to pot. Equally, squads often fluctuate in size quite a bit throughout the night.

    I love SWAT4 and so. But PS2 is a high-paced battle of attrition and respawn. Not one for slow, steady, precision cooperation.
    I know 4 players is a small number and I know that if there's only one medic the "whole thing goes down", which is where I feel sometimes medics can be over relied on. I guess the reason I'm looking for, or thinking it would be better to work in smaller groups is because of the times I see too many people swapping over to the same class because the SL or PL calls for it. Yes, it can be needed for everyone to go HA, but not everyone needs to go Inf or Engi and I have seen it happen and I know it'll happen again.

    There are outfits out there that do run with a much more structured approach where everyone has set goals and tasks and those people change as they need to, but only back and forth and within the squad/fire team they are assigned to. As I said, people would have one or two roles to fill. It's not a case of "oh well, we all need to go HA now but we all picked LA and that's all we'll play, guess we'll just roll over".

    Which is quite frankly a tactical disaster. So at each point we have 8-12 people, of whom only 4 of which are in the same comms channel as each other. Meanwhile, people share a comms channel with 8 other people who are at different areas? And the SL only knows what is going on at one of them?
    That does sound bad and I hadn't considered that people at the same point wouldn't have an easy time sending information to each other. As for the second part the SL could easily find out what's going on at different areas because he's in communication with his squad members at those points.

    Maybe it sounds like it, but 12 is a small number in Planetside. What we've frequently struggled with on StartGir nights is single squads being dispatched to do something, and simply being overwhelmed. You'd be unlikley to take a generator at a tech plant with only 12 people as well for example.
    Who said anything about taking a tech plant with just 12 people? A 12 man squad can take a lightly defended one point base and maybe a tech plant if the enemy is absolutely nowhere near and doesn't respond and you ghost cap it.

    Yes, there are things that can be improved. But splitting up more is certainly not the solution. Taking tactical control away from SLs reacting to the current situation isn't a good solution. Getting better at reallocating people however probably is.
    Then people need to start getting relocated better. The call for "more to the point" or "more engineers" sounds so vague and like we're just a smaller version of the zerg. There seems to be no organisation of roles and whose doing what. This might stem from my days raiding in other MMOs where everyone had a role and a job and everyone stuck to it. Yes, that's different in that those fights are all scripted and you rarely need to adapt to a situation mid fight, everything would be in place for the fight before you pulled.

    So I do realize that there is a need for people to be flexible, which is why I said it would be great to have people who have set roles and goals, like being very good at LA or HA or driving the upgraded Sunday or Gal they have. There's very few situations where absolutely everyone needs to go HA or burster MAX and no reason everyone needs to go all out on the other classes, but they do exist and at the times can easily be called for.

    At the moment to me though, the game still feels super zergy. It's less zergy than playing as part of the zerg, but still it feels zergy. Maybe it's just the nature of the game or maybe not all the groups are communicating as much as they need to. I'm not sure how much feedback the PL gets from his SL and how much feedback the SL is getting from all his squad. I just know from experience that if I pull a sundy and start loading it up it

    a) never gets filled
    and
    b) the players not in it for the most part don't answer that they're not in it because they're in a flyer or a tank.

    That's just one example of poor communication that might not be making it's way back up as far as the other SL's and PL.

    Quote Originally Posted by CMaster View Post
    I was considering trying to institute a "Don't respawn until given the order + location" rule for my squad in infantry combat come thursday. So we try and rezz people while possible, then respawn together and move together if needed ( the respawn order needn't always wait until everyone is dead - just until it is more efficient than trying to get everyone up again.
    That is a good idea as too many people just rez and run off alone. I absolutely agree in strength in numbers. My only concern about having 12 people together is that 12 people moving together outside of a sundy is like a Lib bombers wet dream and 12 clumped up in a room together is a grenade or two away from being sent to the respawn screen.
    Last edited by Jesus_Phish; 16-01-2013 at 09:37 AM.

  16. #256
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Cooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,000
    Front post updated. Let me know if there's something that should be on there.
    Quote Originally Posted by CROCONOUGHTKEY
    KING GEORGE IS A FROG
    le BANG~__-MICHEAL FUCK OFF~~__-INTERPOL KNOW YOU WELLBIENG~—
    OFF
    NOT RUSHMORE MOUNTAIN
    KILL WESTON KILL MUST KILLTHEWESTERNINMYHEADDOESN’TEXSIST
    TEXASISDEADINPARISHEWASAMAN..BINGBING.TETTOHEAD.SP ACEOK,TIMEDEADANDSTOPPED1920HOKKAIDO.UNDERSTOODAT1 ONE.
    UNDERSTANDTHISANDFUCKOFFPIRATEBAY.TIMEDOESNTEXSIST FORMEASIMPATEKPHILLPE.
    BANG

  17. #257
    Moderator QuantaCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    5,825
    I, as a PL, dont want to impose any of those "splitting up squad" rules on my SLs, but if they want to go for it, feel free.
    - Tom De Roeck.

    monochrom & verse publications

    "Quantacat's name is still recognised even if he watches on with detached eyes like Peter Molyneux over a cube in 3D space, staring at it with tears in his eyes, softly whispering... Someday they'll get it."

  18. #258
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus RIDEBIRD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,020
    I've already adressed "more AA maxes" etc. For general platoonplay and not strat I rarely use it though. I could try, but when PLing randomly people generally never ever listen anyway and just go to the platoon waypoint.

    Regarding FTL, sure might have worked for you. I lead Alpha or something that night and we never ever had a situation where 6 was viable for anything.

  19. #259
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Jesus_Phish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    4,155
    I don't want to go on about it too much, perhaps I'll try SL one day and see how well two 6 man teams work with semi-set roles in them.

    I like the proposal quanta had in the other thread. I'd like to see squads be more than "you guys go here and you guys go there". I find the game to be a whole lot more fun when the platoon is working closer together and his idea of using delta squad as a dedicated air force is a good one. Nothing feels as great as when you've got two squads pushing on a base or defending a base, with a dedicated tank column and air force protecting them. That's when the game really shines in my eyes.

  20. #260
    Lesser Hivemind Node NickWhite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    East Sussex, UK
    Posts
    912
    Surely the idea of splitting the squad in half should only be a spur of the moment choice? Made by the SL... Not a pre engagement choice. Being less than 12 strong, as mentioned earlier, isnt going to help you achieve anything in PS2. Except perhaps in a flanking manouvre.

    My earlier idea wasnt focussed on dividing up into two groups. If anyone thought that. It's just simply to assign a 2nd in command within the squad. To allow the points i raised in that post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •