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

10 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. :)


What? They'd all lose their kit and would need to make sure there's a FOB + the now increased spawn times. Noone does this. 
Also Squid has a valid point. This is a team oriented game and there's TONS of clans for you to choose from, if you're tired of playing all those pub matches over and over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Locking should definitely be an option and its use regulated by server admins, since different types of squads (inf, armor, logi, trans) will require a different set of rules.

 

This is why there needs to be a "Message of the day" UI dialogue window when you join in that gives you all of the server rules up front, and you have to click "Accept".

 

Another way of doing it would be only have specializations when you create a squad, but that would only limit the meta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2016 at 2:36 PM, Tartantyco said:

 

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).

Either way I think it's bad. Whether limiting squad sizes or making them private will mean there will be tons more squads on the field and that would mean more squad leaders to coordinate efforts with over the radio.

Edited by Waldo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2016 at 5:27 AM, cribbaaa said:

This is why there needs to be a "Message of the day" UI dialogue window when you join in that gives you all of the server rules up front, and you have to click "Accept".

I like that idea a lot.  I feel it will neccesary in the future where high ticket assets that need specialized kits to man and operate. For a competitive or hardcore server. this would insure competency and remove any issues with claiming assets after the start of the match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Waldo said:

Either way I think it's bad. Whether limiting squad sizes or making them private will mean there will be tons more squads on the field and that would mean more squad leaders to coordinate efforts with over the radio.

As far as I know OWI has stated that there will be nine squads max, "tons more" is just an inaccurate statement.

 

Communication won't be a problem because there will be SL specific voice using the numpad. When Squad  features 50 player teams and full on combined arms warfare there are going to be many more squads than the three or four infantry squads you see in the game now, when that time comes players are going to have to adapt whether they like to or not. You can't have squad leaders use the Command channel when looking for a specific SL, it will just clutter the comms and annoy people.

 

The system worked well in PR, and that game had only 8 man squads.

 

Without locked squads you will have lonewolfs joining the transport and APC squads just to grab their favorite marksman kit and sit on a hill. Nobody wants to constantly keep an eye out and kick randoms who join your squad, and the people who do get kicked will just be annoyed.

Share this post


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

As far as I know OWI has stated that there will be nine squads max, "tons more" is just an inaccurate statement.

 

I really hope you are incorrect... nothing I hated more than having to beg the 2-man locked CAS squad to merge with the two-man locked sniper squad and two-man locked IFV squad while there are 5 unassigned because a few clan squads locked their squad at 5 men etc and now there are 9 squads with the only open one being "mortards LOL" and me being unable to open up a new squad to lead the unassigned. >:(

Share this post


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

As far as I know OWI has stated that there will be nine squads max, "tons more" is just an inaccurate statement.

While I agree with the rest of your post, I've never heard of this before. Project Reality had maximum of 9 squads simply because this was hardcoded into the game  engine and couldn't have been modified. On the contrary, I distinctly remember one of the devs stating that we are not restricted by the old engine anymore and there's no reason why we couldn't have more than 9 squads on the battlefield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MultiSquid said:

While I agree with the rest of your post, I've never heard of this before. Project Reality had maximum of 9 squads simply because this was hardcoded into the game  engine and couldn't have been modified. On the contrary, I distinctly remember one of the devs stating that we are not restricted by the old engine anymore and there's no reason why we couldn't have more than 9 squads on the battlefield.

 

I believe I heard this on the Battlefield podcast, which admittedly was well over a year ago, and the reason for the nine squads was because of control / UI layout and gameplay (teamwork / payer count balance) reasons.

 

If they're still sticking to that configuration I guess they can still use numpad 0 for squad 10.

 

Still, even if they were to do away with the numpad limitation and use some other control scheme, having more than 10 squads will most likely encourage players to create more "recon" squads and what-not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mechanized infantry squad IRL is referred to as Section each platoon has two sections each consisting of 6 people, two drivers two gunners and two Bradley commanders. So 36 people per platoon because 6 dismounts in the back of each Bradley. There are only 9 in each dismount squad. Now add a medic that rolls with the platoon sergeant, and a RTO that rolls with the PL. we're only at 39 people per platoon you could maybe add a 13F to the platoon and that's a solid 40 a platoon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, TactiTaco said:

Mechanized infantry squad IRL is referred to as Section each platoon has two sections each consisting of 6 people, two drivers two gunners and two Bradley commanders. So 36 people per platoon because 6 dismounts in the back of each Bradley. There are only 9 in each dismount squad. Now add a medic that rolls with the platoon sergeant, and a RTO that rolls with the PL. we're only at 39 people per platoon you could maybe add a 13F to the platoon and that's a solid 40 a platoon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This isn't really relevant to the discussion, you'd need a whole more players if you want to approach real world equivalents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I meant to sum it up with is full squad depending on the task can be different sizes so locked squads would make sense for varying roles in the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming there are 100 player servers.

5 squads will leave 5 players from a team unassigned.

4 full squads, will still leave enough players to make 4 three-man squads and 1 two-man squad - we're at 9 squads now

I don't see how that is not enough, especially considering that there'll be fireteams in the future...

So we'll probably end up with 4 full infantry squads, an APC squad of 4 split into 2 fireteams, a mortar squad of 4 and then I guess a vehicle squad of 6 split into 3 and 3 between two vehicles. Now we're at a total squad count of 7. Well below the potential limit of 9.

 

edit: So unless all of the 4 infantry squads are locked at 4 players there's no problem to make another 2 squads and fill them with the rest.


Then there would have to be a rule that you can only lock a squad, if there's enough squads to go around.
So that the requirements to lock a squad would have to be:
- there is a ratio of less than 2:1 locked:unlocked squads on the team
- you have atleast 4 people in the squad you want to lock

 

Personally, I don't see a reason(other than technical) that there should be a squad limit of 9 per team, but even if there is it won't affect many things as long as we get fireteams.
 

Edited by Peerun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2016 at 1:32 AM, cribbaaa said:

As far as I know OWI has stated that there will be nine squads max, "tons more" is just an inaccurate statement.

 

Communication won't be a problem because there will be SL specific voice using the numpad. When Squad  features 50 player teams and full on combined arms warfare there are going to be many more squads than the three or four infantry squads you see in the game now, when that time comes players are going to have to adapt whether they like to or not. You can't have squad leaders use the Command channel when looking for a specific SL, it will just clutter the comms and annoy people.

 

The system worked well in PR, and that game had only 8 man squads.

 

Without locked squads you will have lonewolfs joining the transport and APC squads just to grab their favorite marksman kit and sit on a hill. Nobody wants to constantly keep an eye out and kick randoms who join your squad, and the people who do get kicked will just be annoyed.

 

I did not give any exact numbers, so how can it be inaccurate? My point is that I'm for less squads... 

 

Need sniper? Why have two man sniper team?

Need tank crew? Why make 3-4 man squad?

Do we really need 4 man artillery squad so we can role play? Just grab the vehicle and give the rest of the squad orders... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Locked squad will just create lots of small squads doing their own thing. Can you imagine if they all used global chat? Then you have squad chat and local chat, it'd be insane.

The game is about teamwork.

What I have noticed is when people create squads for their own language, that's OK I guess, but people moan when they are kicked and can't speak that language. Well don't join it in the 1st place. As for the people that cannot speak any English, maybe stick to your native speaking servers. When I go on a German server, I try and speak German with them, even though I'm English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Waldo said:

 

I did not give any exact numbers, so how can it be inaccurate? My point is that I'm for less squads... 

 

Need sniper? Why have two man sniper team?

Need tank crew? Why make 3-4 man squad?

Do we really need 4 man artillery squad so we can role play? Just grab the vehicle and give the rest of the squad orders... 

 

You don't need to give exact numbers to be inaccurate when you write tons.

 

Because when a squad leader gives the rest of the squad secondary objectives and is focused on another task that part of the squad will run around like headless chickens, it is counterproductive to teamwork. If a SL gives a "We're doing X, just help squad # defend that point" order you know you're not a priority and you're less inclined to care.

 

It will also clutter the comms with useless information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mad Ani said:

Locked squad will just create lots of small squads doing their own thing. 

I'm getting really tired of this 'argument'. People like to pretend it is a fact, but it's just a guess, nothing more.

 

Even if we really started to see lots of small squads (which I doubt, people will still want the cool kits, and you can only get those in larger squads of 4 and more), there is no proof that the smaller squads would just become groups of lonewolves. What you see in the game right now are large squads without squad leaders, filled with lonewolves who are only in a squad because they want their kit, does anyone really think that's just gonna fix itself given enough time? Also, you cannot just say "the small squads will just do their thing" - the smaller the squad, the more dependant it is on the rest of the team, because they just lack the firepower to do much on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MultiSquid said:

I'm getting really tired of this 'argument'. People like to pretend it is a fact, but it's just a guess, nothing more.

 

Even if we really started to see lots of small squads (which I doubt, people will still want the cool kits, and you can only get those in larger squads of 4 and more), there is no proof that the smaller squads would just become groups of lonewolves. What you see in the game right now are large squads without squad leaders, filled with lonewolves who are only in a squad because they want their kit, does anyone really think that's just gonna fix itself given enough time? Also, you cannot just say "the small squads will just do their thing" - the smaller the squad, the more dependant it is on the rest of the team, because they just lack the firepower to do much on their own.

I disagree. Seen plenty of small squads formed on numerous games and they're doing their own thing.

 

I'm getting really tired of being misquoted...you only quoted a small part of my post. The part about different languages, that creates further smaller squads and they definitely do their own thing if they can't speak English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Do we really need 4 man artillery squad so we can role play? Just grab the vehicle and give the rest of the squad orders... 

 

Uhm, have you ever tried doing that? Because you'll find really quickly that it doesn't work. You either end up with a bunch of lonewolves or poorly used assets. Roleplaying has nothing to do with it.

 

You need separate squads because:

 

You need to communicate to the rest of the team what assets are available to them. If your mortar squad is called "Harambe" and is full of Infantry players running around, how is another squad able to know that they have mortar support at their disposal?

 

Separate lines of communication are important for the team to effectively use assets. If you're driving around in an APC while your squad mates are operating mortars and doing infantry duty, how the hell is the rest of the team going to communicate and coordinate with the mortar component of your squad? Are you going to be an intermediate while you're engaging an enemy squad with your BTR?

 

Separate chain of command is necessary to ensure that the assets are available to the team and that they're used effectively. Any asset incorporated into a squad that has a different primary function will eventually only serve that squad's primary function. Infantry squad with mortars? Mortars will prioritize whatever target your infantry component is engaged with. You will frequently ignore other squads' mortar support requests because it would affect its ability to support you. And so on, and so on.

 

Asset- and function-based squads are essential to any strategic and tactical complexity beyond infantry squads haphazardly crashing into each other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mad Ani said:

I disagree. Seen plenty of small squads formed on numerous games and they're doing their own thing.

 

I'm getting really tired of being misquoted...you only quoted a small part of my post.

Because the rest of it had nothing to with the other.

 

Non-english squads will exist whether there are locked squads or not, it's up to server admins how that is handled. Usually non-English language squads are allowed but SL is required to use English on command comms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mad Ani said:

I'm getting really tired of being misquoted...you only quoted a small part of my post. The part about different languages, that creates further smaller squads and they definitely do their own thing if they can't speak English.

I only quoted what was necessary.

 

If people can't speak the same language as the rest of the squad leaders, they would do their own thing regardless of their squad size. That has nothing to do with locked squads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MultiSquid said:

I only quoted what was necessary.

 

If people can't speak the same language as the rest of the squad leaders, they would do their own thing regardless of their squad size. That has nothing to do with locked squads.

I was merely mirroring the level of petulance expressed in the initial quote ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

33 minutes ago, MultiSquid said:

I'm getting really tired of this 'argument'. People like to pretend it is a fact, but it's just a guess, nothing more.

 

You should go play some other games before spewing nonsense like this. It's happened in every BF game and will keep happening.

 

Here's the fact you can't avoid: if your problem is people not listening to SL and not playing together, all you need is the ability to remove individual players. But that's not your goal. You want to make your little 3-man squads with your little buddies and your cute little matching tags and then go out and be completely useless. And then the rest of the team has to cobble together squads led by people without the experience or desire to lead them, and the entire team goes down because of a few people's selfishness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Valdr said:

 

 

You should go play some other games before spewing nonsense like this. It's happened in every BF game and will keep happening.

 

 

In PR the opposite is true, unlocked smaller squads with secondary members just turn in to a free kit mess. Sure, they might try and run alongside another squad but they're never a part of the bigger picture.

 

When the new member gets kicked, they'll cry about it, and since they just spawned near the primary members, maybe even team kill one of them. Now they're also half-way across the map from the next squad they might want to join.

 

The general fear here seem to be that there won't be any squad leaders left to lead the stragglers but this is very seldom the case, and if it is: step up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Valdr, have you played Project Reality?

 

Also, there's no teamwork on a comparable level to PR/Squad in the BF series, with or without squads. Your examples are invalid.

Share this post


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

 

You don't need to give exact numbers to be inaccurate when you write tons.

 

Because when a squad leader gives the rest of the squad secondary objectives and is focused on another task that part of the squad will run around like headless chickens, it is counterproductive to teamwork. If a SL gives a "We're doing X, just help squad # defend that point" order you know you're not a priority and you're less inclined to care.

 

It will also clutter the comms with useless information.

 

Huh? Stop focusing on the word "tons"... something that's used in a broad sense can never used for 100% accuracy... but it doesn't mean that its the wrong assessment. 

 

Facts, if you have smaller squads (as in the number of players per squad), either "locked" or not, there will more squads or as i put it.. tons of squads (in relationship to what we normally see...)

 

If its true, why would they put a limit on the number of squads that can be ceated?

 

I'm for openned unlocked squads in public matches.

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

×