Jump to content
Deadduck

Locked squads Good Idea or bad idea?

Squad locking   

392 members have voted

  1. 1. Locked squads will be good for the game

    • Yes
      273
    • No
      115
    • I am going to comment anyway!
      11


Recommended Posts

1. They can simply rejoin.

2. Locking is more convenient as it shows that you don't want or need more players in your squad.

1. If that is true they should fix it.

2. This is that BF mentality I hoped wouldn't be present in Squad. Good SLs know how to split their resources if the squad is larger than a particular mission requires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be important for things like tank crews. You don't want some random guy joining your squad who can't actually do anything to assist you and would be better doing something else. At the moment there's no real need for it since there are no specific roles for squads to take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Decide I don't like the kid"? If I am squad leader and this kid is crapping up comms, shooting friendlies etc. I want the option to mute and keep him out thanks.

If I'm being a douche then by all means lock me out, I`ll deserve it! That's the whole point. Why you trying to spin this around?

Why you getting so defensive about this? You're typing in capital letters, you're saying I could be the idiot. Can we not talk civilised and discuss pros and cons? lol wow...

Something bad must have really happened to you if you think everyone in the game is going to lock the squad. As I said look at other games that have this feature implemented, it's not over utilized but nice for those that need/want it. I've had 54 people adding me to steam for being a fun, but objectively focused squad leader. I encouraged and help new players. So you're barking up the wrong tree mate. I just want the option to mute and lock when it's required.

I am confused by your response

 

Crapping up comms and shooting friendlies (your phrase) isn't going to change because you can lock your squad 

Douche and lock outs were your terms of phrase and not my attempt to spin anything?

Defensive ? I asked a question so that I may make an informed decision ...that's called investigative enquiry

The capital letters were for emphasis and used to question what YOU would do if YOU were locked from all squads ?

The you is not YOU personally it is a you in response to a poster on this forum thread

Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean everyone is going to agree that's life and as far as I can tell fairly civilised 

I am unsure why you felt the need to tell me you have lots of friends? (but I am happy for you anyway)

I have never questioned your ability as a player or a squad leader (but I am happy that you feel you qualify on both counts)

Not sure what tree you sit in as I hadn't positioned myself under any single one.......... that was (after all) the point of the post to ASK (emphasis capitals ok with you there I hope)?

so that I could CHOOSE what tree to sit under.

 

When you decide to kick the "kid" from your squad for "crapping up comms" are you applying your rules or the servers?

and how does kicking him and locking him enhance "anyone's" ability of further recommendation or to add to their  friend count and dissuade him from team killing/

I use the descriptor "him" because I am too lazy to type "or her" I appreciate that there are some female and transgender  players out there 

 

I asked the question because I, like lots and lots of current players have never played PR and, like lots and lots of people on here (and loads to come) constant references to PR don't advance the discussion as they have no point of reference,indeed they sometimes drive a wedge and can be viewed as divisive

 

IF (for example) all the transport squads are locked by seasoned/organised  players how are new players to learn ?

that is my fear Squad is about communication without it its just a shooter

To a degree this happens already when a non English speaking squad is formed (on an English server) and proceeds to run all communication in their native language 

rendering all squad comms dead..are we to kick these people? are we to enforce foreign players on home grown servers? are we to all learn new languages?

you will note these are questions not statements (and require no response as they are rhetorical) but some SL talk and talk and talk other sl's are more frugal (not less effective) with their chatter making the decision to lock out the... "chatty" SL  cos he is messing up comms.....well that's gonna end in a fight........

 

Ani,    Starting now.......This is my first personal response to you...... as ALL other responses have been to a forum post and not an individual statement

 

As I have a number of years on you Yes lots of things have happened in my life some great some tragic some sad  some momentous some good some bad

and they will continue to happen with what's left of my life because that's what happens when you live...... stuff happens..

what I have never done though, is to use a forum to try to disparage the character of a poster by suggesting that the post is related to a happening...... that in its self is just sad.

please find another way to personally attack people as you may find that a comment like that is said to someone who IS grieving or mentally unstable because of something that HAS happened in their life and that my friend in any walk of life is called insensitive and if done on purpose  bullying....... and yes the capitals were aimed at you in that part..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. If that is true they should fix it.

2. This is that BF mentality I hoped wouldn't be present in Squad. Good SLs know how to split their resources if the squad is larger than a particular mission requires.

 

1. Dunno whether that's easier to code. But it's unnecessary if you can lock your squad already.

2. I have a hard time grasping as to why you'd say that. If I need 6 players for task X, the 3 leftover players either lack a medic or my fireteam does. Non bueno. So I would argue that these 3 players should make a squad of their own, since I'm not going to guide them after all plus they clutter my comms with their comms just as much as we clutter their comms with ours. That way we also have another team placing down FOBs or rallies, that not good? I don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Dunno whether that's easier to code. But it's unnecessary if you can lock your squad already.

2. I have a hard time grasping as to why you'd say that. If I need 6 players for task X, the 3 leftover players either lack a medic or my fireteam does. Non bueno. So I would argue that these 3 players should make a squad of their own, since I'm not going to guide them after all plus they clutter my comms with their comms just as much as we clutter their comms with ours. That way we also have another team placing down FOBs or rallies, that not good? I don't get it.

1. The kick player option is there already. Making it last to end of round has got to be easier than coding a lock/unlock function.

2. Then you must still have a lot to learn in resource management playing SL. I can think of so many reasons you can split your squad and regroup when required. Can't you? As a small squad though you can become ineffective very quickly. That's what this game has taught me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is. If people want a private squad  they will currently kick anybody that joins anyway. So adding the option won't make a difference.. except it doesn't waste the time of the SL that has to manually kick peolpe now, and the time of the people joining to then be kicked. 

 

So yes, add it. It will save people to much hassle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. I have a hard time grasping as to why you'd say that. If I need 6 players for task X, the 3 leftover players either lack a medic or my fireteam does. Non bueno. So I would argue that these 3 players should make a squad of their own, since I'm not going to guide them after all plus they clutter my comms with their comms just as much as we clutter their comms with ours. That way we also have another team placing down FOBs or rallies, that not good? I don't get it.

2. Then you must still have a lot to learn in resource management playing SL. I can think of so many reasons you can split your squad and regroup when required. Can't you? As a small squad though you can become ineffective very quickly. That's what this game has taught me. 

 

 

1 squad 2 fire teams  medic in each proves very effective if used with comms and other squads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is. If people want a private squad they will currently kick anybody that joins anyway. So adding the option won't make a difference.. except it doesn't waste the time of the SL that has to manually kick peolpe now, and the time of the people joining to then be kicked.

So yes, add it. It will save people to much hassle.

What happens is you join a small squad and find they're not communicationg because they want to do their own thing and are on TeamSpeak anyway so just ignore you. You'll end up leaving to join another squad in the end. Happens all the time. By locking squads you're adding tools to facilitate lack of team play just like BF. That's my fear.

I find it a little funny you make the comment about wasting a SLs time kicking players to run a smaller squad as it's generally the smaller squads SL who is wasting the rest of the teams time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens is you join a small squad and find they're not communicationg because they want to do their own thing and are on TeamSpeak anyway so just ignore you. You'll end up leaving to join another squad in the end. Happens all the time. By locking squads you're adding tools to facilitate lack of team play just like BF. That's my fear.

 

Good point well made :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

""In the military, a squad leader is a non-commissioned officer who leads a squad of typically 9 soldiers (US Army: squad leader and two fireteams of 4 men each) or 13 Marines (US Marine Corps: squad leader and three fireteams of 4 men each) in a rifle squad, or 3 to 8 men in a crew-served weapons squad. In the United States Army the TO&E rank of a rifle squad leader is staff sergeant (E-6, or OR-6) and in the United States Marine Corps the TO rank is sergeant (E-5, or OR-5), though a corporal may also act as a squad leader in the absence of sufficient numbers of sergeants. Squad leaders of crew-served weapons squads range from corporal through staff sergeant, depending upon the branch of service and type of squad. In some armies, notably those of the British Commonwealth, in which the term section is used for units of this size, the NCO in charge, which in the British Army and Royal Marines is normally a Corporal (OR-4), is termed a section commander""

 

Seeing as so many want to keep things real.

 

I guess the above is currently what we have in game now and it works just fine. I am all for fire-teams which have a role within the team like tank/hummer etc which have a lower number of players per that squad and perform a role for the whole team although this would need to stay on a first come basis like any other class. 

 

PR had a very low population even at its peak! I find it sad so many want to lock out penitential new friends / team mates and just play a team game in groups of 2s and 3s 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The kick player option is there already. Making it last to end of round has got to be easier than coding a lock/unlock function.

2. Then you must still have a lot to learn in resource management playing SL. I can think of so many reasons you can split your squad and regroup when required. Can't you? As a small squad though you can become ineffective very quickly. That's what this game has taught me.

 

1. I don't code and thus I don't assume something to be easier. There's a lot more to it than just a single line. And with functionality comes the bugs. 

2. Maybe I have learned that you don't need to go at full force for every task, freeing up some (human) resources? Let's go with this on a team scale, why don't we?: 6 Squads compared to 4 allow for more ground being covered, more FOBs being built, more medics for revives. It's a trade-off at worst, in my opinion. There are very few times in which I wish I had more people in my squad as opposed to calling a nearby squad over before or during the assault rather than just before the last squadmates go down because I underestimated the defenders(or their ability to spawn back in quickly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I don't code and thus I don't assume something to be easier. There's a lot more to it than just a single line. And with functionality comes the bugs. 

2. Maybe I have learned that you don't need to go at full force for every task, freeing up some (human) resources? Let's go with this on a team scale, why don't we?: 6 Squads compared to 4 allow for more ground being covered, more FOBs being built, more medics for revives. It's a trade-off at worst, in my opinion. There are very few times in which I wish I had more people in my squad as opposed to calling a nearby squad over before or during the assault rather than just before the last squadmates go down because I underestimated the defenders(or their ability to spawn back in quickly).

What you are proposing can already be done in Squads as they are: If I am not mistaken fireteams within squads are going to be a thing.

 

You're arguing the wrong point here. The point is not necessarily in efficiency because  neither as it is nor when the squads can be hard locked aren't effected in the same circumstances. What does happen is, when people start locking themselves in it is preventing other players to prove their worth and it is promoting selfish, rude, lonewolf behavior.

 

When you address the issue of better efficiency with divided assets it is something that can already be done given a competent SL, no locking required. Locking is a seperate issue and it affects public, less organised environments. In latter, the developers should strive to attain better cooperation, not less.

 

Where cooperation and teamwork is on the level which you propose neither kicking nor locking is even required. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I don't code and thus I don't assume something to be easier. There's a lot more to it than just a single line. And with functionality comes the bugs. 

2. Maybe I have learned that you don't need to go at full force for every task, freeing up some (human) resources? Let's go with this on a team scale, why don't we?: 6 Squads compared to 4 allow for more ground being covered, more FOBs being built, more medics for revives. It's a trade-off at worst, in my opinion. There are very few times in which I wish I had more people in my squad as opposed to calling a nearby squad over before or during the assault rather than just before the last squadmates go down because I underestimated the defenders(or their ability to spawn back in quickly).

 

1. I don't code either but have dabbled in programming so I am pretty confident it's easier. If it's easier then there is less chance of it being buggy. Anyway the devs are doing stuff that is far more complex so adding either a kick/lock or locked squads should be childs play to them.

2. I could pick holes in this line especially when it comes to medic roles and the need to build lots of FOBs but I hope you at least SL a large squad, split managing your resource, or join one being run efficiently to understand where my reasoning is coming from.

 

It's a very difficult task managing a large squad and I accept not everyone is up to it. Latter those people might be able to take a fire team leader role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see your reasoning. I just don't think it applies everytime and that it's the only way you can go(hence why I'm arguing). Full-size squad don't necessary have only benefits compared to half-size(4-6) squads, and I personally like the flexibility and stealth that I get from a small group more than I like raw firepower. It also means a full wipe is cheaper on tickets, it lessens regrouping times and so on. Personal preference. "But you could just leave them in your Squad" I hear you say. And I say, what's wrong with people making their own squad? Their comms, their objectives, their kits, their rallies. I don't get it.

I, uhm, appreciate your concerns regarding my ability to lead, but I just prefer small ones over large ones if I have the option. PR gives me the option and Squad hopefully does as well at one point(without me having to kick people over and over).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Frontliner. It's a good discussion with a lot of good points on both sides. I have never played PR (missed out) so can only base my experience from when I find locked squads with BF games. It may be bad to base an understanding on how it will work from a different style of game but that's all I have to go by. I have since pretty much stopped playing BF4 and uninstalled it because of the way it's generally played by the community. Squad to me is the kind of game I have been looking for but didn't realize I wanted, with proper team work. Promoting that element is very important to the game and also in building the community so the game can flourish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of time I had to kick some dude out of the squad to make room for mates and in return received bullets in my back.. 

I can see someone shooting you in the back for locking yourself in a squad with a mate of yours as well. The outstanding issue here is teamkilling and that is to be addressed separately from locking squads because I do not see these two inherently connected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm leading a squad then I'm in turn taking personal lesponsibilty for everything my squad does on the battlefield. Therefore if I find out someone just doesn't fit in my squad for whatever reason, be it lack of experience, trolling, not communicating or just lonewolfing on his own with a kit somebody else might have put to good use, I am within my rights as a SL to kick said person and keep him from rejoining my squad by all means necessary. People often assume they have the right to be in every squad, which is just wrong.

 

You may not think about it, but squad leaders are doing everybody a huge favor. They are willing to take on a responsible role which vast majority of the people simply don't want to do, because being a sniper or grenadier and killing people is just so much more fun, right? Why are we trying to put more on their (our?) shoulders? Why should every squad be open to newbies? I've led several squads filled with people who were quite new to the game, and I have to tell you, one game with such squad is often enough to drive me to the edge of my self-control and drain me of will to live. I'm sure there are still plenty of squad leaders out there who don't mind having a newbie squad and are willing to teach people, but why should every SL automatically have to do it? I'm sorry but there are squads which simply require experienced players whom the SL knows and can rely on. If I want to go FOB-hunting and flanking, I will not take a dude who will probably shoot at everything that moves with me. I also wouldn't take a full squad, because it's unnecessary and the people I take with me would be missing at the control points.

 

Squad leaders should be able to decide how large their squad will be, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can be a good idea but then it wont because people will take advantage of it. like assholes! But I even cant think about vehicles since the new update looks great but things here and there need to be fixed I want to see it strictly SQUAD GROUND FORCES!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Squad leaders should be able to decide how large their squad will be, period.

No, squad leaders are a cog in the machine too. Squad leaders will do their job, which is to lead a squad of 9 people (?) and if they for any reason cannot handle that, then they will be demoted. No special snowflakes in a objective-oriented, team-based game.

 

To use your own reasoning: people should not have the right to do as they please, as this is not Minecraft. The game dictates the pace, not you. At least that's what I expect from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ITT: People who have never had the responsibility of managing a mortar team.

I'll bet that the Army lets squad leaders customize their squads. :D

 

Edit to your edit: that's not a squad structure/ management issue. It's the game's responsibility to teach the player how to use the tools given and the player's responsibility to learn. This has nothing to do with squad locking. If you want people to do exactly as you please you might as well find people who will and form a squad beforehand. If you choose to lead a pub squad, a pub squad you will lead, end of. If you can't, you can't squad lead. Besides, you can always kick.

 

Yes, there is a possibility of a guy trolling your squad but locking doesn't prevent that. What it may do is it will provoke said person to find other ways of trolling you. You may lock a guy who is learning and will prove to be an excellent asset to your squad out, and that may make them angry and retaliate. Locking is not the solution here by any stretch of the imagination. What it does prevent is the person on the public server to learn to play the role. In fact, locking a squad makes you a detriment to the community in the bigger picture.

 

Weighing the pros and cons I think we've established that while it may be stressful to you it's not good for the game. And IF it is stressful to you then don't do it. You're not the admin of everyone's game and since you're taking part in it just as the guy next to you, you will abide by the same rules as all of us do.

 

 

Mortar team, lol! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll bet that the Army lets squad leaders customize their squads. :D

 

Edit to your edit: that's not a squad structure/ management issue. It's the game's responsibility to teach the player how to use the tools given and the player's responsibility to learn. This has nothing to do with squad locking. If you want people to do exactly as you please you might as well find people who will and form a squad beforehand. If you choose to lead a pub squad, a pub squad you will lead, end of. If you can't, you can't squad lead. Besides, you can always kick.

 

Yes, there is a possibility of a guy trolling your squad but locking doesn't prevent that. What it may do is it will provoke said person to find other ways of trolling you. You may lock a guy who is learning and will prove to be an excellent asset to your squad out, and that may make them angry and retaliate. Locking is not the solution here by any stretch of the imagination. What it does prevent is the person on the public server to learn to play the role. In fact, locking a squad makes you a detriment to the community in the bigger picture.

 

Weighing the pros and cons I think we've established that while it may be stressful to you it's not good for the game. And IF it is stressful to you then don't do it. You're not the admin of everyone's game and since you're taking part in it just as the guy next to you, you will abide by the same rules as all of us do.

 

 

Mortar team, lol! :D

The thing youre failing to understand is that Squadleaders ARENT taking part in the game the same as anyone. He is leading 9 people. He has more responsibility than all the rest. You can choose to join him and follow his orders if you wish, but he is a dictator in his own squad, thats just the way it is. Its his squad and its 100% up to him what he wants to do, who he wants to play with and especially how many people he wants in his squad. And like Multisquid said, SL's are doing everyone else a HUGE favour, its due to people stepping up and leading that Squad is what it is.

I saw the same thing being said when it was discussed if we should have a "kick from squad" feature in the game. Many players who havent played PR thought it would lead to tons of problems and abuse, but now i think everyone can agree it is a necessary feature. 

At the end of the day it wouldnt be fun for either of you if you play with a SL that dosent want to play with you. Letting that SL lock his squad means you dont have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, squad leaders are a cog in the machine too. Squad leaders will do their job, which is to lead a squad of 9 people (?) and if they for any reason cannot handle that, then they will be demoted. No special snowflakes in a objective-oriented, team-based game.

 

To use your own reasoning: people should not have the right to do as they please, as this is not Minecraft. The game dictates the pace, not you. At least that's what I expect from it.

I'm sorry but that's just not true. I don't know if you've ever been in a squad where everybody just wants a kit and nobody wants to lead and they keep switching SL from one guy to the next just so they don't have to listen to SL radio. I've seen plenty of those, and they could have actually worked if somebody had stepped up and taken the reins to steer them in the right direction. But whether we like it or not, most of the people don't want to lead squads, most of the people want to have kills and kits. I've mentioned before that I don't like all of the pretentious super-special forces squads, but I recognize their usefulness if and only if they have a good squad leader who can actually motivate and make them to do something beneficial for the team besides racking up kills. There is no rule or 'job description' which says you absolutely have to allow 9 people in your squad, otherwise you don't deserve to be a squad leader.

 

Squad leaders make or break every single one round of squad, so yeah, I actually would say they are kind of 'special snowflakes'. Without squad leaders and their contribution we would have another battlefield hardcore mod.

 

Every player is free to leave his squad if he doesn't like the way it is led. In the same way, a squad leader should be given the tools to remove players if they are not contributing to the squad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have voted for yes, mainly because i don't want to get teamkilled or fool people.

 

I/we name our squads accordingly to what they can expect.

 

''Don't join, thanks''     ''Mutes only''  

 

 

We can easily fill up a squad till the 5th person, 2 more friends already let us know that they might consider getting the game soon aswell. Taking our squad till the 7th person.

We've known each other for over a year and came from Arma 3, we're disciplined as fuck and thats something you'll hardly find.  It's very rarely you find a random that is disciplined.

 

We tried leading squads before, half of the squad simply ignores you. And the other half is just doing what ever.

Told people specificaly to hold fire so we could get up close unnoticed, enemy shows up 50 meters infront of us  NOT EVEN LOOKING IN OUR DIRECTION.   and the next thing  3 people start   ''RATATATAT RTATATA RATATATA RATATA''    sprays a 150 lmg mag into a wall, rpgs, tubes flying everywhere.....

 

Like really, if a enemy hasn't spotted you. It is not a fucking danger to you.

 

Example : 

 

 

Now, 90% of the squads are doing the duckling formation. Where a entire squad just piles up on the leader for no apperant reason, that you have to follow us doesn't mean you're going to have to sit right on top of my face?

You can tell them that multiple times, but they just don't get it and start piling up on you again after you make the next move.

 

Here's a example of a duckling squad  (might be hard to see but its 5-6 people right on top of each other) :

 

 

02b9fef672.jpg

 

 

Guess what happened to them? 

 

cfa4c60fec.jpg

 

 

Gone. 

 

 

At the start of the round people join in late into the game, their problem right?  No we're just going to spam squad leader to put down a rally point.  Instead of waiting for 3-5 more minutes till we're atleast a little bit closer to the enemies. The value of rally points went up last patch and these people simply don't realize it.

 

This is the crap you'll have to put up with,  and i know someones going to say ''just kick them''   believe me, we did that.  And in return squad leader has been teamkilled twice. I am a 100% sure it wouldn't have happened if we just locked the squad. 

 

 

 

 

 

And then you have squad mates, that keep running up to you just to shoot from your location.  (In the video it shows teammates, however the chance of this happening by squaddies is higher).

 

 

 

 

All these general annoyances i don't have with the people ive known for over a year, randoms ruin our experience. 

 

I can list ton more examples of why i don't like playing with randoms, but as you can see this is taking quite some space on the thread and i don't want to fill 15 pages of posts.

 

Incase you're wondering, yes we do communicate with other squad leaders.

 

 

You kick someone, you'll get teamkilled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×