doesnt matter, we can work together as a squad+.
But read up on the guides I linked in the stratgir thread and you should be good to go. I'll link them in here too, in OP.
I think ROing can and should be more than just a mouthpiece, personally. It comes into play when you're giving sitreps that are useful to the PL and SL, first off knowing how to administer the information, but also understanding the situation well enough to have some form of autonomy and deciding what bits to relay without constantly bugging either party for what to say.
And in my case, I tend to try to act in an occasional advisory capacity as I tend to be more privy to the greater picture than the SL who is focused on more immediate concerns. But also, depending on the PL, the ROs may some times become an ad-hoc strategic council.
Edit: also, if nothing else comes up, I'd gladly be RO again on thursday :)
On a related note, i think we should already think about SL/RO pairs, so that we can ensure that if the SL is a newbie, the RO will be able to assist. When i ended up SL in split coms mode, my RO MrEclectic was a great help. He made me focus on what I needed to do, provided moral support and generally helped me not messing up without being intrusive. I'm very grateful to him.
Yes, this is an idea I have too. Pair rookie SLs with veteran ROs and vice versa, to ensure better teamwork and knowledge transfer. Minimises the risk that some squads get to draw the really short sticks with unexperienced leadership on both ends.
I updated the original post, linking the guides I wrote in the strategic giraffes thread, and listing the people who have so far volunteered to do something. I've taken the freedom to start pairing people up, let me know if there's something you disagree with.
Sinomatic, time for you to try RO, maybe? :)
Guess it's about time I stepped up for proper SL/RO duty. Sign me up!
Hopefully get some practice in this week as well, running TacGir as much as possible sounds good
Proposition: each platoon should operate almost independently. What?! That's stupid! That's contrary to everything CtA has been up to now. Why would you suggest that?
- So the PL doesn't have a fucking aneurysm
- Because PlanetSide as a game shines at 10-100 people a side. Below that there's little to do, above that renderculling becomes a thing and instadeath from HE happens far too often.
- Because it increases the number of fights we can find, and how long those fights last. I've said this before, but large PS2 battles are only fun if you've got at least ~40% of the territory's pop, and they only last if you haven't got more than ~60%
- Because rolling in a 200-man blob means we attract the entire of TRAM and whatever the NC alliance is. Cue renderculling, instadeath and continent poplock. The last bit is the worst because we're trying to entertain newbies who will not stick through a 20 min queue.
- If platoons operate independently doesn't mean they can't call for reinforcements through outfit chat, or pop over into other platoon's channels and ask for help.
Yes, it'll mean we're less effective. But due to the suffusion of newbies, we're never effective on CtA nights anyway, and our focus shouldn't be on winning territory (a stupid goal in PS2 anyway), it should be on player retention. Show them where the game shines, don't show them what a miserable meatgrinder it can be.
And then meet up at the end of the night for the obligatory mass galdrop and armour column.
Im on board.
Proposition #2: One channel and one leader per platoon, with 24-36 people each. That's about the sweet spot in terms of comms chatter when it's not a pile of noisy veterans, and it'll drastically reduce the number of ROs and SLs we need.
e: I can't SL though because the girlfriend is back Thursday night :)/:(
so essentially, no strategic play. because thats what that means. (#2 I mean)
I wouldn't say "no tactical play" (which I think is what you mean? 24-36 people has no effect on strategy) but I would say "casual wednesdays rather than strategic thursdays".
I know you don't like squadplay, but this would mean that we'd have to treat a whole platoon as a squad, i.e., always having the all giraffes in the same place, working on the same order. This would be mandatory for this to not degrade into a complete clusterfuck. Also, a majority of the people would be required to shut up, which might not be the best thing as new people should be able to ask questions.
We could maybe pull this off with having platoons limited to a maximum of 18-24 players and keeping those together.
e: Actually two squads of mostly-newbies is probably in-line in terms of effectiveness with a single squad of vets.
I created a quick Google form for people to fill out with position choices, if that would be any use?
The casual style we use in [RPS] works because of who we are. It works because many of us thrive in that style. It falls to pieces very fast once we get a lot of newer / less regular players in and numbers go over one platoon.
Trying to organise 200+ people without the strict organisational framework of the strategic / TACGIR setup will be a nightmare.
Also: We need to add "Feeder" to the list of roles.
At least 2 people need to be online from about 5:30 to 8pm to organise people with outfit invites, get them into the game & introduced to basics and then allocated a squad. Squad recruitment makes this much easier than the first time, but it is still a fulltime job someone needs to do.