Jump to content
Shadow_

Looking to the future: Asset Squads.

Recommended Posts

Hey all!

 

So a couple days me and a friend of mine were having an interesting conversation about the upcoming heavy assets such as MBT's as well as air assets like Transport helicopters and how they will be implemented. Now this suggestion is not a "Is X going to be implemented" suggestion, for this thread we will just assume that Tanks, Transport helicopters, IFV's and all that business will be deployed at some point in the future. The real idea of this thread is how they will be implemented into the squad framework.

 

What's wrong with the current system?

 

Currently in Squad, once a vehicle is claimed by a squad, any random player who joins in the squad is able to jump in, gun and drive around the asset without any issues. Whilst this works with techies, humvees and trucks, this simply will become problematic when heavier and much more valuable assets are implemented. This is because heavier assets often come with a larger and much more different required skillset than your average infantry squad, this applies even more so to helicopters and other air assets where a good level of skill will be required in order to fly the vehicle. 

 

Tanks, IFV's and Air assets require an incredibly high level of communication and teamwork in order to work together well. A disorganized and fractured tank element of a team will find itself cornered and destroyed piecemeal very quickly and will end up being a waste to the team overall. Often the team that wins in PR is the team that has its assets in order and working together and not off doing their own thing. Allowing any squad to claim a valuable asset like a helicopter or IFV simply will dilute the team-play and make these potent vehicles job a lot harder to have some meaningful impact on the match.

 

Currently in PR it is 10 tickets, add the crew and that is 12 tickets overall for a tank destroyed in combat. Add a 20 minute respawn time and you have a significant setback for the team in terms of heavy fire support and the loss of tanks can often condemn a team to defeat. 

 

 

So what is the solution?

 

Here's where the idea comes in. I propose the creation of a drop down menu when creating a squad, the options for this drop down menu could be: 

 

- Infantry Squad

- Mechanized Infantry Squad

- IFV Squad

- Tank Squad 

- Flight Crew

 

Each squad will have kits that will reflect their role on the battlefield. Furthermore each asset squad will only be able to claim assets within their designated role, for example the Tank Squad are the only squad that can claim MBT's. The IFV Squad will be the only squad able to claim IFV's etc etc. This would encourage teamwork amongst the assets and make them work together, this is because heavy assets such as tanks and helicopters will have specific objectives that will not necessarily be in line with the standard infantry squads objective.

 

For example, the tank squad in PR's primary objective is to destroy the enemy teams tanks, this requires strong co-ordination and inter squad communications. Once their primary objective has been achieved the tanks can move on to complete their secondary objective which is to provide heavy fire-support for the infantry. The same applies to transport helicopters, their job is to ferry infantry and supplies around the map quickly and effectively. Often enough a well dropped infantry squad at a pressure point during the match can mean the difference between victory and defeat. 

 

Then comes the final reason for this system, administrating. When heavy assets and air assets come into play on Squad, administrating is going to become a much more involved process than it already is. Administrating currently is a fairly simple process at the moment with only the odd teamkill to deal with, however when heavy assets are eventually implemented, a lot more time is going to be involved in making sure players are not asset stealing, asset wasting and ruining the game for everybody else. As someone who has done extensive administrating on PR I can tell you that this will be an issue literally the moment these assets come out as everybody will want to have a go in the tank. This system could almost eliminate the whole issue of asset stealing through a first come first serve basis. You could even create a limit on the amount of squads, for example only one tank squad, one flight squad and two mechanized infantry squads. 

The Breakdown of Kits:

Infantry Squad  

No changes

 

Mechanized Infantry Squad  

Two Crewman kits - armed with an assault rifle, Binoculars and Smoke grenades, the rest of the Squad will be standard infantry layout.

 

IFV Squad 

Crew Chief - Armed with an assault rifle, sidearm, advanced binoculars (GTLD?) and smoke grenades.

Rest of the squad will be crewman kits armed with an M4, binocs and smoke grenades.

 

Tank Squad

Crew chief (Squad Leader) - Assault rifle, sidearm, GTLD and Smoke Grenades.

Crew member kits - Assault Rifle, Binoculars and Smoke Grenades.

 

Flight Crew

Squadron Chief (Squad Leader) - Armed with a sidearm, binoculars and smoke grenades. 

Flight Members - Armed with a sidearm and smoke grenades. 


Final Notes:

 

Whilst I know this idea won't be accepted by many, the point of this suggestion is to try and focus gameplay when Squad expands to PR levels of combined arms warfare where each squad has a designated role to play. Ultimately, the goal is to create a fruitful environment where the communications, tactics and teamwork between the different arms of a team can coalesce into truly great experience and I feel that this system would help achieve that goal. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree with this, though maybe if IFV and tank would be the same squad., though that's just an idea, and that all depends on how many of what asset is on a given map

Edited by Engagedrook8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this idea. I think it'd be best to let admins set up their own claiming system with squad name and assets claimed. this way each server could set it up according to how they see fit. There also needs to be a way to lend and share assets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, CageMatchKimsey said:

So what occurs if the door gunner in my chopper goes down, and I'm not in the dedicated air crew squad?

A door gunner would not be filled by a dedicated crew in the first place. This mostly applies to pilots, and heavy vehicles 

Share this post


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

Here's where the idea comes in. I propose the creation of a drop down menu when creating a squad, the options for this drop down menu could be: 

 

- Infantry Squad

- Mechanized Infantry Squad

- IFV Squad

- Tank Squad 

- Flight Crew

I actually very like this idea. It would be great to have the same rigid drop menu for every server, which would free the players from naming the squads themselves. This means I don't have to learn the naming rules for every server and it will ensure stability.  

Share this post


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

I agree with this idea. I think it'd be best to let admins set up their own claiming system with squad name and assets claimed. this way each server could set it up according to how they see fit.

 

The problem with this is that each server will have specific and very slightly different rules on how to name each squad (as is the case with PR). Why not have a single standard that is enforced across all servers? Furthermore, this suggestion is designed to give administrators a bit more breathing space, allowing them to deal with actual troublemakers instead of dealing with the trivialities of squad names. Another reason for the fixed squad idea is that the game is constantly being translated into new languages and having a client side squad selector is much easier than trying to explain to someone via text chat why their squad name is incorrect especially if they don't have the best grasp of english (or the native language of the administrator).

 

The problem I see with heavy assets in Squad currently is that PR from the get go had nearly all of the heavy assets, such as tanks helicopters IFV's and jets due to BF2. Therefore a standard was implemented by servers very early on when the mini-mod was still small. Squad has much larger community that is constantly growing and implementing this SOP is going to be a nightmare and will honestly vary from server to server.

 

1 hour ago, banOkay said:

There also needs to be a way to lend and share assets.

 

For light vehicles most definitely. Heavier vehicles and air vehicles? I could see that being abused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1,000,000

 

I love the sound of Infantry Squads, Mechanized Infantry Squads (Infantry Squad w/ APCs), IFV Squads, MBT Squads, and Helicopter Squads. You did forget one vehicle type, that being AAVs like the ZSU-23-4; I would rename IFV Squads to AAV/IFV Squads, and make AAVs available to them.

 

This would be sooo much easier for players and admins alike than the DIY rename squad system as in PR, and would ensure that certain vehicles and certain kits are limited to the correct squads.

Share this post


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

Mentioned this a few months ago and all I got was hate. 

Probably because it's a pretty bad idea.

 

Proposed several times, opposed for various reasons. Do the forum searching on your own, guys.

Edited by MultiSquid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it! Should bring back that PR structure that we so badly need. 

 

However, I think that Mechanized Infantry squads need some additional rules set out to work properly with the APC/IFV squad. Mech Inf should only exist if the APC squad allows it to, in my opinion.

 

For this, we need to give APC squad the ability to lend their assets out to other squads. A  couple reasons that they may want to do that:

- Too many assets for number of players in squad

- Tank squad might need a vehicle after tanks are destroyed

- Finally, Mech Inf squads 

With this feature, the APC SL could approve vehicle usage for other squads via a window in the "Squad" tab, or checkboxes for "vehicle permissions" by their squad names. By default,  a squad with permissions can only take one APC (number can be increased, and specific vehicles can be whitelisted/blacklisted by APC SL). As soon as he gives an infantry squad permission they would be promoted to an Mech Inf squad. Tank would still be Tank

 

By default no other squads will be able to drive or gun the APCs. If permission is removed from a squad that is using a vehicle, 

they will lose their Mech Inf status and claim as soon one of two things happen:

-The vehicle is destroyed

-The APC squad members enter the vehicle while the driver and gunner seat are both vacant (if it is abandoned or not in use) 

 

In the case that there is no APC squad to give permissions, any squad (including tank) will be given the ability to give themselves APC privileges but will be limited to one APC each. Once an APC squad is made permissions can be removed by the APC SL if need be and vehicles can be reclaimed once one of the previously mentioned conditions is met. 

 

I think that this system would be a good balance between giving APC squad control and preventing trolls/newbies from hogging up and misusing the APCs. 

 

Tell me what you guys think! It may sound complex but the entire feature could exist as just a small window with some checkboxes and sliders, or however else is most accessible. 

 

Share this post


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

Probably it's a pretty bad idea.

 

Proposed several times, opposed for various reasons. Do the forum searching on your own, guys.

Why is it a bad idea? OP's (and whoever else has already proposed it) system worked perfectly to maximize teamwork and organization in PR, and that was an entirely community enforced system. With proper mechanics and streamlining it could do wonders for organization in public servers. 

 

What alternative would you propose? The current system will not be viable once heavy assets are introduced. Tanks being split between squads means there is unnecessary infantry chatter and that the tanks cannot communicate efficiently. The game will quickly become a cluster****. As of right now BTRs are used carelessly. Once you add a squad which has the sole purpose of operating those vehicles, they will be much more careful with them and more likely to do something useful with them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we really need is cooperation between squads. Sad is that many times we see that squad with BTR or Transport truck dont use this vehicles to help other squads. This is something what we all can improve. Not using vehicles just like one time ticket to go on front line but use it in better way. When I lead my squad and have Transport or BTR in my unit i order to pick up other squads if needed. Its pretty fun for drivers and for other squads as well. Because they fell some team cooperation on higher level. 

 

 

Anyway back to your topic. This was there mentioned many many times. Not once even twice. But 20x. During one and half year even myself I suggested that. What a idealistick. Then I realize that much more itneresting is keep total freedom. You know we dont have to just paly a game but learn how to respect each other. If sombody create Mech Inf squad. Other squads should learn respect that this squad reserve their BTR defaultly. Its team game. we have mounths and mics. and so on. Its nice to have automatic reservations but this is someting more. This is also education to become much better and respectfull human. I see at this freedom (chaos) concept biig plus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, elerik said:

What we really need is cooperation between squads. Sad is that many times we see that squad with BTR or Transport truck dont use this vehicles to help other squads. This is something what we all can improve. Not using vehicles just like one time ticket to go on front line but use it in better way. When I lead my squad and have Transport or BTR in my unit i order to pick up other squads if needed. Its pretty fun for drivers and for other squads as well. Because they fell some team cooperation on higher level. 

 

 

Anyway back to your topic. This was there mentioned many many times. Not once even twice. But 20x. During one and half year even myself I suggested that. What a idealistick. Then I realize that much more itneresting is keep total freedom. You know we dont have to just paly a game but learn how to respect each other. If sombody create Mech Inf squad. Other squads should learn respect that this squad reserve their BTR defaultly. Its team game. we have mounths and mics. and so on. Its nice to have automatic reservations but this is someting more. This is also education to become much better and respectfull human. I see at this freedom (chaos) concept biig plus. 

That would work if we lived in a perfect world, but unfortunately we don't. An environment of chaos does not breed tactical gameplay, just look at Battlefield. People just aren't ready for total freedom, and may never be. That's why we have governments and laws, and why Squad and PR have admins and gameplay mechanics to keep things organized. Have you seen PR after a couple hours without admins? That game has the most ideal player public playerbase that you can find out there and the servers still go to shit as soon as the threat of being banned for a week is gone. 

 

I'm sorry, but I do not feel that you have really given any real thought to what you just typed out there *in the second paragraph

 

EDIT: Finished my sentence ^

Edited by Flat896

Share this post


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

Probably because it's a pretty bad idea.

 

Proposed several times, opposed for various reasons. Do the forum searching on your own, guys.


Care to expand why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Flat896 said:

Why is it a bad idea? OP's (and whoever else has already proposed it) system worked perfectly to maximize teamwork and organization in PR, and that was an entirely community enforced system. With proper mechanics and streamlining it could do wonders for organization in public servers.

 

First of all, PR did not have such a system. As you say, it was community enforced, and that's a huge difference. If a server's vehicle rules don't work out, they can change them in a day. If the game itself enforces these rules through game mechanics, any change is slow and possibly never happens.

 

Asset squads are bad because they restrict strategic, tactical, and organizational options in the game, affecting gameplay variety. Further, it introduces all kinds of balancing issues in terms of what kits and equipment is available to different squad types and factions. Lastly, it does nothing to solve the issue.

 

Introducing asset squads does nothing to stop bad players from making an asset squad and being just as wasteful with an asset as they are under the current system. Nothing in the proposed system stops random players from joining an asset squad to grab an asset. There is literally nothing in this suggestion to that in any way affects the issue it is trying to resolve. If anything, it makes the issue worse. You'd end up with a bunch of people making asset squads without there being assets available for them, then you'd just have a bunch of ill-equipped and useless squads running around. 

 

Now, the current system is bad and requires a replacement, but nothing about the proposal made here is in any way an improvement over it.

 

18 minutes ago, Flat896 said:

What alternative would you propose?

 

 

Share this post


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

 

First of all, PR did not have such a system. As you say, it was community enforced, and that's a huge difference. If a server's vehicle rules don't work out, they can change them in a day. If the game itself enforces these rules through game mechanics, any change is slow and possibly never happens.

 

Asset squads are bad because they restrict strategic, tactical, and organizational options in the game, affecting gameplay variety. Further, it introduces all kinds of balancing issues in terms of what kits and equipment is available to different squad types and factions. Lastly, it does nothing to solve the issue.

 

Introducing asset squads does nothing to stop bad players from making an asset squad and being just as wasteful with an asset as they are under the current system. Nothing in the proposed system stops random players from joining an asset squad to grab an asset. There is literally nothing in this suggestion to that in any way affects the issue it is trying to resolve. If anything, it makes the issue worse. You'd end up with a bunch of people making asset squads without there being assets available for them, then you'd just have a bunch of ill-equipped and useless squads running around. 

 

Now, the current system is bad and requires a replacement, but nothing about the proposal made here is in any way an improvement over it.

 

 

 

Yes it may restrict some gameplay variety options, but we already know that this method of organizing squads is the best! It has been tried and tested for a decade through another game already. We know that by splitting assets into dedicated Squads the game will be much better.

 

Plus, what strategies would this really prevent? The only strategies I see this system preventing are strategies that are stupid and wouldn't work anyways. Helicopters should only be accessible for those in the helicopter squad, armored vehicles only for those in the armored vehicle squad, and etc...Those basics should never change no matter what strategy you implement!

 

I think this idea is great, I have brought it up many times in the past. I am glad to hear more people agree with it.

The only suggestion I have is that maybe allow the IFV and Tank squad to use the same vehicles. On smaller maps it more efficient to have one armor squad with both tanks and IFVs than to have it split. 

Edited by dolmaface

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dolmaface said:

Yes it may restrict some gameplay variety options, but we already know that this method of organizing squads is the best! It has been tried and tested for a decade through another game already. We know that by splitting assets into dedicated Squads the game will be much better.

 

The proposed system already excludes the most popular CAS setup in PR, which includes recon infantry on the ground integrated into the squad. You also have AT integrated into Armor, Armor with Logistics support, etc. And Squad will likely provide players with a much wider variety of available combinations.

 

8 minutes ago, dolmaface said:

Plus, what strategies would this really prevent? The only strategies I see this system preventing are strategies that are stupid and wouldn't work anyways. Helicopters should only be accessible for those in the helicopter squad, armored vehicles only for those in the armored vehicle squad, and etc...Those basics should never change no matter what strategy you implement!

 

Thankfully, we aren't limited only to strategies that you can think up.

 

9 minutes ago, dolmaface said:

I think this idea is great, I have brought it up many times in the past. I am glad to hear more people agree with it.

 

Then tell me how it solves any of the issues it promises to. You can already have Armor only, Air only, Infantry only squads in the game. The system doesn't in any way stop bad or random players from accessing assets.

 

This suggestion does nothing but restrict gameplay potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

57 minutes ago, Tartantyco said:

 

First of all, PR did not have such a system. As you say, it was community enforced, and that's a huge difference. If a server's vehicle rules don't work out, they can change them in a day. If the game itself enforces these rules through game mechanics, any change is slow and possibly never happens.

 

 

PR enforced this from the beginning because it had assets from the get go. You are assuming that the moment major assets come out, all of the servers will update their rule sets to reflect this. I guarantee that if we are to rely on the community, it will take months to see any real movement on asset rules, furthermore some servers may not even introduce any asset rules whatsoever.

 

We've had APC's for months now and hardly any servers have any rules pertaining to mechanized infantry or the usage of APC's.

 

57 minutes ago, Tartantyco said:

 

Asset squads are bad because they restrict strategic, tactical, and organizational options in the game, affecting gameplay variety. Further, it introduces all kinds of balancing issues in terms of what kits and equipment is available to different squad types and factions. Lastly, it does nothing to solve the issue.

 


I would argue the opposite. Assets such as tanks, helicopters and IFV's require large amounts of communication with each other and Asset squads are the easiest solution to this. Having tanks and IFV's randomly peppered around the team is in fact going to cause even more disorganization within the match. And finally the kits are supposed to be basic. If you are implying that Asset squads are going to be armed with the full plethora of equipment offered to infantry squads then you haven't read the original post.

 

57 minutes ago, Tartantyco said:

 

Introducing asset squads does nothing to stop bad players from making an asset squad and being just as wasteful with an asset as they are under the current system. Nothing in the proposed system stops random players from joining an asset squad to grab an asset.

 

You've completely missed the point. There will never be a 100% fool-proof system to drive away trolls, however this systems aims to at least try to contain it. Squad leaders can easily kick troublesome players and administrators can deal with abusive Squad Leaders. It eliminates the middle man of trying to explain to someone why they can't just take an asset, and administrators constantly having to deal with the same issue over and over again. As someone who has a lot of experience in administrating PR, I can tell you for a fact that it is a constant issue. As mentioned before we don't live in a perfect world.

 

 

57 minutes ago, Tartantyco said:

You'd end up with a bunch of people making asset squads without there being assets available for them, then you'd just have a bunch of ill-equipped and useless squads running around. 

 

Now, the current system is bad and requires a replacement, but nothing about the proposal made here is in any way an improvement over it.

 

 

See:

 

8 hours ago, Shadow_ said:

You could even create a limit on the amount of asset squads, for example only one tank squad, one flight squad and two mechanized infantry squads. 

 

 

Expanding on this, this could easily be map specific as well. 

 

3 Tanks: One Tank Squad

6 IFV's: Two IFV squads

 

And so on...

 

9 minutes ago, Tartantyco said:

 

The proposed system already excludes the most popular CAS setup in PR, which includes recon infantry on the ground integrated into the squad. 

 

 

I specifically didn't mention CAS simply because we don't have any solid information on CAS right now, however you do have a point, I would say then to expand the flight crew squad to have an equivalent spotter kit then.

Edit: Also generally why CAS squads have this set up in PR nowadays is because the infantry rarely communicates with CAS. On top of that the infantry element is often used when a member of the CAS squad has gone down.

 

9 minutes ago, Tartantyco said:

You can already have Armor only, Air only, Infantry only squads in the game. 

 

You can't even lock a Squad yet.

 

9 minutes ago, Tartantyco said:

This suggestion does nothing but restrict gameplay potential.

 

You are arguing against tried and tested methods, please expand!

 

 

Edited by Shadow_
Expansion of CAS reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler

It's a classic case of posters refusing to think about their idea in depth before they propose it in public forums. Either you guys think you're so original that nobody has ever thought about this before, or you're just lazy, and you just don't want to do any prior research. This topic has been discussed - several times, actually - as I stated in my first post in this thread. I'm not going to do the work for you, I'm not going to elaborate, everything that we needed to say about this has already been said. Refer to @Tartantyco for further details, because he apparently still possesses the strength to educate you. In the future, consider reviving an old thread before making a new one with the exact same content.

 

I am at the very end of my rope.

 

May I suggest /locking this thread for duplicity?

Share this post


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

 

The proposed system already excludes the most popular CAS setup in PR, which includes recon infantry on the ground integrated into the squad. You also have AT integrated into Armor, Armor with Logistics support, etc. And Squad will likely provide players with a much wider variety of available combinations.

 

You can still do that CAS setup, crewman get binoculars and can go spot. Maybe even the flight crew squad could get the spotter kit too for painting targets.

 

19 minutes ago, Tartantyco said:

Then tell me how it solves any of the issues it promises to. You can already have Armor only, Air only, Infantry only squads in the game. The system doesn't in any way stop bad or random players from accessing assets.

 

This system IMO isn't about stopping abuse. No matter what, if a group of players want to **** up the game, they will find a way to. This system is about enforcing organization. When aircraft, tanks, IFVs, are all implemented into the game, most servers will be a complete cluster ****. There will be no organization and no cohesion, it must be enforced. The only reason why it works in Project Reality is because the community is really small, and everyone knows how to organize themselves.

 

Yes I guess you wouldn't be able to do some combos like AT with armor, but its more important to enforce organization than it is to have such freedoms.

Edited by dolmaface

Share this post


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

-snip-

 

You need to reread his post, because he didn't say PR itself has such a system.

 

Now, if heavy assets and crewman kits were implemented tomorrow, consider what could happen:

 

1. Any squad with an open vehicle slot could claim a heavy asset.

2. With the above point in mind, any player in a squad that's claimed a heavy asset could request a crewman kit and operate said heavy asset.

3. Any player could join a squad that's dedicated to using heavy assets and lone wolf with a kit of their choice.

 

All three of these points are prevented in the proposed system.

 

Restricts strategic, tactical, and organizational structure? Those are some big words that really come down to nothing. I can't imagine what kind of "gameplay variety" you're looking for if you want any squad to be able to grab a heavy asset.

 

There is nothing, nothing, to stop a player from using any kind of asset wastefully, or to stop a random player from joining a squad using assets and grabbing an asset. How would only dedicated squads being able to operate heavy assets versus any squad being able to operate heavy assets make the issue worse?

 

18 minutes ago, Tartantyco said:

The proposed system already excludes the most popular CAS setup in PR, which includes recon infantry on the ground integrated into the squad. You also have AT integrated into Armor, Armor with Logistics support, etc. And Squad will likely provide players with a much wider variety of available combinations.

 

Regardless of the fact that it's overwhelmingly more common in PR for CAS to rely on SLs rather than integrated recon elements to laze targets, if that's something that turns out to be truly worth implementing, it would be dead easy to allow CAS Squads a spotter role.

 

Do you think it's better to have AT in an armor squad that's already more than capable of dealing with enemy armor, or to have AT in an infantry squad that isn't?

 

Logies in Squad don't have repair stations like logies in PR, but regardless, I don't see why there'd be anything to stop for example a Tank Squad from requesting a logie.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Tartantyco said:

Thankfully, we aren't limited only to strategies that you can think up.

 

That's not an answer, give a few examples of strategies where someone who's not in a heavy asset squad should be able to use a heavy asset. You do realize that that's something people get banned for in PR, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so happy to see everyone supporting this idea. I really think its the perfect implementation into the game because not only does it organize everyone, it gets rid of the annoying vehicle claim system in the game. Everyone will automatically have access to the assets they need and only the assets they need.

 

To further expand on the details of this system, general basic vehicles such as motorcycles, trucks, humvees, and Logis would be available to everyone. In PR these vehicles are only worth 2 tickets, so there is no need for any restrictions or vehicle claiming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dolmaface said:

I am so happy to see everyone supporting this idea. I really think its the perfect implementation into the game because not only does it organize everyone, it gets rid of the annoying vehicle claim system in the game. Everyone will automatically have access to the assets they need and only the assets they need.

 

To further expand on the details of this system, general basic vehicles such as motorcycles, trucks, humvees, and Logis would be available to everyone. In PR these vehicles are only worth 2 tickets, so there is no need for any restrictions or vehicle claiming.

 

In Squad right now, the vehicle claim system does exactly what is was designed to do; stop any player from just grabbing a vehicle and driving off. While I agree that vehicle claiming wouldn't be necessary for heavy asset squads, I think it absolutely needs to be kept in place for Infantry Squads. The only reason randoms lone wolfing a vehicle is Squad right now is rare is because of the vehicle claim system, even if it can be annoying at times.

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

×