Jump to content
Deadduck

Locked squads Good Idea or bad idea?

Squad locking   

400 members have voted

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

    • Yes
      278
    • No
      118
    • I am going to comment anyway!
      11


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Romby said:

......

I agree with locked squads for vehicles and guess i can see why you want to limit inf squad to 6 players. But that should be the limit and 7 players would better.

I think that would be a bad idea, remember that we will get fire team´s in the future.

 

Inf squad should stay with the 9 slot´s imo.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11. 10. 2016 at 4:45 AM, Sadist_Cain said:

Though being useful in a match they're not helping the health or longevity of the game at all by being in a bubble all the time by themselves.
The majority of the time they only shine through because they are the most concentrated group of experienced players in a sea of mostly ignorant nubbys due to all the clans routinely locking themselves off thus keeping any knowledge & experience in their own little bubble.

Why do you assume that the clans isolate themselves from the community? Most of the clans are actively recruiting all the time, I also haven't seen many clan SL's who would kick people out of squads in public matches just because they aren't in their clan. In some instances the locked clan squads make sense, my own clan is made up of CZ/SK players, some of us don't speak english well, but we always make sure that we have a SL capable of communicating with the rest of the team nonetheless. It's not like we play in a bubble all by ourselves. The same goes for the vast majority of the other primarily non-english clans.

 

A new player can get himself acquainted with the game and play with a bunch of random squads, once he feels the need to get a bit more serious, then he's more than welcome to take his pick of the many clans which are currently recruiting, and there are always at least a few with openings. All the options are there and at everyone's disposal, there's no such thing as an impenetrable wall that the new players get locked behind, and the locked squads won't change that.

 

On 11. 10. 2016 at 4:45 AM, Sadist_Cain said:

A good squad lead will take whatever is available to them at the time and will make it into a very capable fighting force, thats where the real leadership skills come into play. They have no need to cherry pick the people they want for the jobs at hand because they're competent enough at leading people to achieve the task at hand, whatever that task may be.

Some of the very best players who understand everything about the game are the most incapable squad leads because they're unable to relate that knowledge and function with someone they haven't known for years or one who doesn't have clan tags on.

There isn't just one optimal type of a squad leader. I've seen and known quite a few, and even the most welcoming and noob-friendly guys sometimes just didn't want to lead a training squad, and vice versa, some of those you'd call 'elitists' were more than happy to babysit a squad of people who would have difficulty to tell which side of the rifle to point at the enemy, just to get a break from their uptight clan games. You can't just say "This is what a squad leader should be at all times" and consider everything else inferior.

Edited by MultiSquid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he just meant to say this.
 

I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion." - Alexander the Great

Nothing in your post contradicts his post, in that sense, so I don't understand the argument at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is access to the effort of an individual "a right" of that each player should possess?

Or, is it the right of the laborer to disperse his efforts according to his will?

At present, Squad Leading is generally viewed as work by the player-base. The ability to lock a Squad allows the Squad Leader to exercise discrimination with his effort. The current environment is one of entitlement, where players feel as though you're an asshole if you are a squad leader and you dont want them to be a marksman, or to be a medic, or to have a mic, or to make sure there are 2 LAT kits.

I'm already working as it is. When I pick Squad Leader, its because I want to make tactical decisions for a group and to facilitate coordination, communication, and teamwork, not analyze tactical decisions with an ad-hoc committee of transient experts with unwavering opinions on what should be done but insufficient testicular mass to execute it themselves.

 

To be certain, I'm often interested in input from my squad mates, or rather, I rely on it wholly to assist the direction of the tactics, but there are times when action is immediately necessary, and there needs to be a pretext of the agreement that is already put in place by its enforceability, which is to say, a Squad Leader has the authority to declare the actions of the Squad Body, and those who dont follow the Squad Leader are able to be kicked by said Squad Leader. This might sound like I'm some egotripping authoritarian, and if you thought that you'd only be half right. Militaristic order is an authoritarian endeavor, simply because of the time-constraints that military actions are subject to. If we all had time to democratically play a game of chess 9v9 the game would always be strategically sound, but it would also take a week to make a move.

 

I digress from the philosophy, and reiterate that Squad Leaders already have the authority to determine who can be in their squad. Adding locks will simply clarify to both parties that membership in the squad is contingent upon cooperation with the Squad Leader's objectives. However, because the agreement will have been acknowledged by both parties prior to entrance, teamwork in squads will be better. Squad Leaders will have less variables to contend with (since the battlefield is already full of them) which will make it less work, which will make more people interested in doing it.

I would like to see some method for players to "ask to join a squad" to drive this home. This would help negate much of the fear of squad-isolationism, as well as facilitate the acknowledgement of the agreement. It could be a 10 second "voicemail" where a player explains his interest in joining, a separate message-box where a text could be sent, and read at the SL's leisure, or perhaps its a 2-way-radio-hail that can be muted by the SL if it grows too persistent.

A player has a right to leave any squad he chooses. I don't think fostering the idea that a player has a right to join a Squad will serve the game's playerbase  in the long run. The game entirely rides upon Squad Leaders, and if you don't allow them to tailor their commitment to their capacity, they will be perpetually overworked, and the game will be perpetually understaffed.

 

Exhausted Squad Leaders = a bad game for everyone.

 

I encourage those who think they can do better, to do better. The game needs it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Works great in PR, so long as you have an admin. Typically you just report locked squads of lone wolfs, or inf squads, while keeping the trans and apc/tank squads locked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me there is no question here - SL should be able: lock the squad, invite or kick people, move people between the roles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8. 2. 2016 at 3:01 PM, Dubs said:

Just like most things they come with positives and negatives.

Positives
- Play with mates without the hassle of a mic-less, lone wolf random joining
- You can reserve slots for mates without the hassle of having to kick someone and them getting salty
- Will be useful when more roles are in place such as crew and pilots etc

Negatives
- Multiple small squads
- Entices experienced players stacking into squads and new guys left to figure things out themselves
- Secondary effect of noobs being left to fend for themselves, chaos with SL communication and team co-ordination due to experienced players being in their own squads and noobs be like "WHAT DO I DOOOOO?"

I didn't vote, split between it being both good & bad.


I would argue this is a good thing and will regulate itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2016 at 11:27 PM, Peerun said:


I would argue this is a good thing and will regulate itself.

Early on in PR same thing was said, same with ArmA, all you get is experienced players staying in their own groups, while the rest run wild. I rather have a good SL in each Squad with a few experienced players, than one Squad with a good SL and full of experienced players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 50-50 to this locked squads, but im leaning towards to a NO. Tactical battlefied (ARMA3) supports locked squads in their server and it only resulted into more lonewolves and very small fire teams around the map, and that is not what I wanted in Squad. I expected squad as a full scale infantry firefight, not guerilla warfare sort of thing where firefights will end in just 3 to 5 shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Garensterz said:

I'm 50-50 to this locked squads, but im leaning towards to a NO. Tactical battlefied (ARMA3) supports locked squads in their server and it only resulted into more lonewolves and very small fire teams around the map, and that is not what I wanted in Squad. I expected squad as a full scale infantry firefight, not guerilla warfare sort of thing where firefights will end in just 3 to 5 shots.


You have a point. Maybe a better idea would be to ship Squad with a microphone and a dose of teamwork juice.

Edited by Peerun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Garensterz said:

I'm 50-50 to this locked squads, but im leaning towards to a NO. Tactical battlefied (ARMA3) supports locked squads in their server and it only resulted into more lonewolves and very small fire teams around the map, and that is not what I wanted in Squad. I expected squad as a full scale infantry firefight, not guerilla warfare sort of thing where firefights will end in just 3 to 5 shots.

 

That has nothing to do with locked squads or squad sizes. It has to do with scaling, engagement distances, and the fact that it isn't real life.

 

I don't understand how people think the logistics of squad locking will work to think that it's just going to end up with all the experienced players in a few locked squads. Are you guys thinking that by locking your squad you somehow suck all experienced players into your squad and keep them there or something?

 

People have to join your squad before there's any point in locking it. There's no way of seeing how experienced players are, and adding squad locking does not magically change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tartantyco said:

 

That has nothing to do with locked squads or squad sizes. It has to do with scaling, engagement distances, and the fact that it isn't real life.

 

I don't understand how people think the logistics of squad locking will work to think that it's just going to end up with all the experienced players in a few locked squads. Are you guys thinking that by locking your squad you somehow suck all experienced players into your squad and keep them there or something?

 

People have to join your squad before there's any point in locking it. There's no way of seeing how experienced players are, and adding squad locking does not magically change that.

The thing with Tac Bf is most players are playing with clans and friends. Therefore, these clans tend to lock their squads and new players and others (who doesn't want to be Squad Lead) will be forced to do his own thing instead of cooperating with experienced players. Hey, at the end of the day this is just based on my experience from playing ARMA 3. I just don't want to see squad become a clanbased game, I want every player would have the opportunity to cooperate with everyone. 

 

But locked squads isn't all that bad, I'd also like to see it work on more important fireteams such as artillery team, support team, or air support team (if aircraft will be implemented) some thing like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, can't wait to have 2 SL kits in a squad, will change the pace dramatically. Especially, if you can have 2 rallies, aswell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asset squads should be independent squads, not fireteams. Not only would that obscure information about your squad's capabilities, responsibilities, and organization to the rest of the team; it would also hamper confuse communication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Tartantyco said:

Asset squads should be independent squads, not fireteams. Not only would that obscure information about your squad's capabilities, responsibilities, and organization to the rest of the team; it would also hamper confuse communication.


Can you elaborate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Peerun said:


Can you elaborate?

 

I'll help: you would be sharing one radio channel, even it if only concerns communication between two vehicles. Also, the vehicle commander(driver) is not present in the Squad Leader radio channel, and so is left out from requests of support or reports. If god forbids the vehicle commander IS the squad leader, then the infantry members of his squad will be left more or less without guidance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Peerun said:


Can you elaborate?

 

If you have a 9-man squad that acts as Infantry and also has the Missile Artillery Techie(Marty), then anybody requesting artillery support will have to go through you on the comms. Additionally, as the asset is in your squad, you're more likely to prioritize its use to your squad's benefit instead of the team as a whole. And it's unable to act independently in your squad, meaning that your ability, and that of the team, to deploy assets for maximum efficiency is negatively affected. Furthermore, you'll have additional communication going on within your squad that confuses and drowns out lines of communication. If the SL is engaged in infantry combat and has SMs calling out contacts, it's unlikely that any clean communication from other SLs asking for artillery support will make it all the way down to the respective squad members with any frequency.

 

Additionally, it obscures information about the current capabilities of your squad and team. To an outside eye, your squad looks like an infantry squad. Event if you name it "Infantry/Artillery", I can't be sure what your current capabilities are. If Artillery is a separate squad, I can see on the map if they're active, I can contact them directly, and they are independent of your chain of command.

 

It also leads to effort duplication, where one squad takes on a role that another squad currently has because it's not apparent that the role is filled in any way.

 

As a potential squad member, I have no idea of knowing what role I will fill when joining your squad. I join your squad to play as Infantry, but you need people for Artillery. Or vice versa. With dedicated and locked/size restricted squads, it's easy for a player to see what is currently available to them to a greater degree.

 

There's just a bunch of these issues that arise from multi-disciplinary squads. It's apparent right now with all the asset waste/abandonment, and it was apparent in PR, where squad limits made it impossible to have dedicated squads for everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure if i already commented.. but please.. hell nah. no locked squads. theres already a kick function... locking squads would be pointless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Waldo said:

not sure if i already commented.. but please.. hell nah. no locked squads. theres already a kick function... locking squads would be pointless

 

Squad Locking and Kicking do not serve the same function. Squad locking allows you to restrict the size of your squad to an appropriate level. If you're running a Tank squad with two tanks, you don't want 9 people in that squad. You want 4-6 people.

 

Or maybe your friend dropped, and you're holding his place in the squad until he gets back on. You don't want someone to join your squad, use up a RP spawn, and then TK you when you kick them(Which kicked players do frequently).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather have it that Squads stay together on next round. If you do enable a lock system, must have a minimum # of players (no 1 or 2 player squads), maybe 4 players?

I do like this as mentioned by Mad Ani:
 

Quote

TK more than 3 people in 1 round = kick. TK more than 5 in 1 round = temp ban for the day. Additional rule such as TK 5 or more in less than 5 minutes = temp ban. If a server can keep track of TK'ers that'd be great too, then any active admins can look at the log and see some idiots simply doing it for fun.


Especially since you do not always know who killed you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2016 at 10:28 AM, Garensterz said:

The thing with Tac Bf is most players are playing with clans and friends. Therefore, these clans tend to lock their squads and new players and others (who doesn't want to be Squad Lead) will be forced to do his own thing instead of cooperating with experienced players. Hey, at the end of the day this is just based on my experience from playing ARMA 3. I just don't want to see squad become a clanbased game, I want every player would have the opportunity to cooperate with everyone. 

 

But locked squads isn't all that bad, I'd also like to see it work on more important fireteams such as artillery team, support team, or air support team (if aircraft will be implemented) some thing like that.

Currently, they try to do this in Squad.

If there is a Clan and you join their squad, they will (using TS or other communicate with each other) all leave that squad and create another Squad. Now you're SL in the middle of nowhere with new people joining, and you can't set a rally or build anything because you have the wrong kit. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TumanWK said:

Currently, they try to do this in Squad.

If there is a Clan and you join their squad, they will (using TS or other communicate with each other) all leave that squad and create another Squad. Now you're SL in the middle of nowhere with new people joining, and you can't set a rally or build anything because you have the wrong kit. :)

Why would they leave? They'd simply kick you if they didn't want you in their squad. Now, if the clan could lock their squad then it would save both parties some time, simple. If you'd perhaps want to play with that specific clan, there is usually nothing stopping you from applying to join them. The "clans would lock their squads and nobody would be able to play with them" argument is null.

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

×