Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Morbo513

Asset squad assignment, Asset respawns, SL Mic Enforcement, Squad organisation systems

Recommended Posts

Asset squads:

Rather than relying on the honour system and policing by admins to ensure the right squad gets their pertinent assets, there should be a system by which there are pre-existing asset squads based on the assets available. Players wanting to crew these assets must join the squad, and the squad leader can allow access to their assets to either specific members of other squads, or entire other squads, by clicking and dragging the vehicle's map symbol (Or from a list of assets) to a player or squad's name or their map icon. Having access to these assets would allow you to take the pilot or crewman kit/class (Assuming you're going with this system), with the asset squad ONLY allowed access to the pilot/crewman kit. This would both prevent players in asset squads from neglecting their assets, but also allow for Mechanised Infantry squads and whatnot.

 

Pros:

Named asset squads enforced by game instead of admins

Prevents theft of assets

Allows non-asset-specific squads to use assets with no confusion or argument

Enforces use of asset when in pertinent squad

 

Neutral:

"First-come, first-serve" basis

 

 

Asset spawns:

"Pool" system:

This somewhat ties in with the assets squads thread I made, please read it: http://forums.joinsquad.com/topic/72-vehicle-assignment-to-squads-sl-mic-enforcement-squad-mutinyreorganisation/

 

Basically, a given asset squad will have a pool of available vehicles that the SL can call in at any time, with a reasonable delay between calling them in and them appearing on the map. Once this pool is depleted, no more of that type of vehicle or asset can be called in, so it's up to the squad leader as to what they commit to the battle at what time.

There would be restrictions; At lower playercounts, certain assets and numbers of them would be off-limits. There would be a default value which could be customised by server admins (Applied to all maps). This would prevent tanks rolling around when there are 16 players on the server.

The SL would not be allowed to requisition any more vehicles than the current number of members in the squad can crew (Rounded down).

Infantry squads would have a pool of utility/transport vehicles at their disposal

This could be added to with a time or flag-cap delay system sort of like those of PR.

I'd like to go a lot more in depth with this, which will probably happen as discussion goes on, if there even is one :v

 

Pros:

Gives the asset squad more control over their assets

Mitigates the damage possible by griefing and baserape

Allows for lower playercounts on heavier asset enabled/larger maps without them being unbalanced

No need for ticket cost: The loss of the vehicle is a loss enough.

 

Neutral:

Emphasises importance of asset conservation

More realistic

 

 

Cons:

Hard to implement?

Less experienced players may "waste" assets

 

"Points" system:

This is sort of an extension of the pool system - It would function the same, but there are two additional parts:

 

1: The asset squad would have to earn teamwork points to "purchase" assets beyond their most basic ones (All of which there would still be a limited number)

Eg. an APC squad is able to acquire BRDMs, BTR-60s and BTR-90s. At the start of the round, they can only call in their BRDMs, until they have collectively acquired a certain number of teamwork points, at which stage they'd be able to call in their heavier assets.

 

Pros:

Encourages effective use of initial assets, as well as non-combat support roles such as transporting teammates and building FOBs, setting the team up for later-game

 

Neutral:

Diminishes viability of rushing

Escalation of force throughout the round - More infantry focused in the beginning, assets more common mid-game

 

Cons:

Could be exploited or unbalanced depending on how teamwork points are awarded and how it ties in to the maps and assets in question.

 

2: Think Warhammer; Each asset is assigned a value. Depending on the playercount, and if applicable, as defined by the server owner(s), each team would have a maximum number of assets they can field at one time determined by these values. It should be balanced so that every squad can have at least one of their assets in-play.

 

Pros:

Prevents the use of overwhelming numbers of assets

 

Neutral:

Requires more inter-squad communication, cooperation and planning

 

Cons:

If asset squads are allowed only crewman/pilot kits, this would cause problems if the cap is reached

 

Traditional system:

A certain number of each asset are spawned on the map initially, with more potentially awarded by capture of certain flags, or time-delayed spawns. When a certain asset from this pool is destroyed, it respawns after a certain amount of time. Certain assets do not respawn at all.

 

Pros:

Probably something supported by default

 

Neutral:

Practically infinite numbers of assets except in the case of those which do not respawn.

Not very realistic

 

Cons:

Vulnerable to stealing (Linked thread above proposes fix for this) and griefing

 

Balance:

Now it's down to the nitty-gritty. There is a pretty fine line between the number and types of assets being fun and being down-right tiring to fight against.

I criticise PR a lot and that's not going to change here: The second-biggest problem I had with the changes in 1.0+ was the asset respawn rate and the sheer numbers that could be on the map at one time. It is no fun fighting one BTR less than 2 minutes after you destroyed the last one, which was less than 5 minutes after the previous one.

In my opinion, heavier assets like tanks, heavy AFVs like Bradleys, and Attack helicopters should be rare due to how powerful they are compared to an infantry squad especially when they have thermal imaging. The consequences of destroying them should also be much greater, as in PR it didn't have much effect, only a little breathing room til you were up against the next one.

 

This seems contradictory to the "Pool" system I laid out earlier, but the fact is in PR this would be a perpetual cycle until the end of the round. With the proposed system, you know the enemy only have a limited number of the assets they are using and if you destroy all of them, you won't have to worry about them again.

So, for example, the enemy team have 4 BTRs in their pool. They could employ all four of them at once to break through your team's lines, it'd be an intense shitstorm, but if your team manages to destroy them, that threat is entirely neutralised. Alternatively they could spread them out, using them to supplement their infantry's firepower and mobility, be conservative and try to keep them in play.

 

 

SL mic enforcement:

The purpose of this would basically be to help emphasise the importance of communication. The game would check if a player has a mic and has it enabled, if not they aren't allowed to take any leadership positions. It is possible to lead by text and map markers, but it really doesn't compare to verbal communication. Squad-squad communication also becomes an issue without a mic. This could be an option for server admins, on by default.

 

Squad mutiny/reorganisation:

Mainly for when a squad leader is AFK or is doing a very poor job. A squad member can call a vote which requires a unanimous "yes" to demote the SL. He would still remain in the squad, but cannot return to the SL position until either after a certain period of time has passed, or the new squad leader promotes him back to that position.

As for reorganisation, well, I just said it - The squad leader would be able to assign a member of the squad as SL if they have to go AFK or feel they should step down. This would prompt a yes/no from the squad member in question. Useful for when a previous SL returns from being afk, or having crashed or otherwise being ejected from the squad, without having to empty and refill it again.

If players in the squad do not vote, it requires a unanimous yes from those that have, with a minimum of 49% of the squad's members. Or something. 

Players can also be banned from squads with a vote initiated by the squad leader. Again requires a unanimous decision, except from the player in question. Kicking players from a squad can also be done by the SL and they would not be able to rejoin for another 30 seconds.

Players who haven't been in a squad for a long time (<3-5 minutes) cannot initiate votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a veteran PR player who loves driving assets I think an "asset pool" system if implemented correctly (which ofc will be the hard part) would be a very intresting improvement of the current asset system.

 

It would give the designated squad complete control over their assets minimizing asset stealing/wasting and whatnot.

 

But i do feel that the points in the squads asset pool should refill over time and the map should have a maximum allowed of active assets (or make it a server rule possible to opt in or out from)

 

I.e You start with 3 tanks and the map ruleset only allows for a maximum of 3 active tanks at once. You have 0/300AP (assetpoints) and 0/300 asset pool points. As time goes by your squad will gain asset points over time, the amount you gain depending on how many current assets you are fielding.

 

Still have 3 tanks active? okay, that gives you 1AP(assetpoint) per x amount of time. All tanks destroyed? That gives you 3AP(assetpoints) per x amount of time.

 

Thus if you get steamrolled and get obliterated at the start you will still be able to make a viable comeback and calling in a new fresh tank quicker to help your team or under 1/3 of the time that the enemy team will reach 1 reserve tank you will be able to call in 3 new tanks again. ONce again putting you at an even playfield against the 3 enemy tanks. Making comeback possible.

 

Which i feel should open up for more possible comebacks and less team apathy with players refusing to put in an effort for deeming the game already lost after 5min.

 

So in overall it would make gameplay more balanced and prevent a "richer gets richer" syndrome, more freedom and control to the squadleaders/squad of each designated asset.

 

And if the squad has no asset online nor can afford to call one in. Give them the option to call in a free transport vehicle (truck or jeep) so they can operate as an inf unit and support the team effort.

 

Also give all squads the power to call in a logitruck for X cost. So all squads can support FOB building.

 

A poolsystem could also open up for intresting and hard decision for a commander to make. Should he save up for 100 points and call in an Artillery strike or keep saving to 150 for a more accurate/quicker JDAM strike? Which i feel would be a GIGANTIC improvement to the current timed area attack system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starting from the bottom up

A poolsystem could also open up for intresting and hard decision for a commander to make. Should he save up for 100 points and call in an Artillery strike or keep saving to 150 for a more accurate/quicker JDAM strike? Which i feel would be a GIGANTIC improvement to the current timed area attack system.

 

Also give all squads the power to call in a logitruck for X cost. So all squads can support FOB building.

 

And if the squad has no asset online nor can afford to call one in. Give them the option to call in a free transport vehicle (truck or jeep) so they can operate as an inf unit and support the team effort

Agreed on all of these

 


I.e You start with 3 tanks and the map ruleset only allows for a maximum of 3 active tanks at once. You have 0/300AP (assetpoints) and 0/300 asset pool points. As time goes by your squad will gain asset points over time, the amount you gain depending on how many current assets you are fielding.

 

Still have 3 tanks active? okay, that gives you 1AP(assetpoint) per x amount of time. All tanks destroyed? That gives you 3AP(assetpoints) per x amount of time.

 

Thus if you get steamrolled and get obliterated at the start you will still be able to make a viable comeback and calling in a new fresh tank quicker to help your team or under 1/3 of the time that the enemy team will reach 1 reserve tank you will be able to call in 3 new tanks again. ONce again putting you at an even playfield against the 3 enemy tanks.

 

Which i feel should open up for more possible comebacks and less team apathy with players refusing to put in an effort for deeming the game already lost after 5min.

 

So in overall it would make gameplay more balanced and prevent a "richer gets richer" syndrome, more freedom and control to the squadleaders/squad of each designated asset.

Good points. It's a very jammy problem, because if assets are perpetually available it'll just be the same meat grinder, but if there are no respawns available this will, as you said, demoralise the team and maybe give the team who still has their assets a bigger advantage. This, however, can be mitigated by plenty of AT kits (Maybe more diversity between them than PR had too) and/or simply less heavy assets in general - Even on say a 4x4km map, 1 tank tops, a couple APCs tops etc. My point is, having too many heavy assets at too high a rate will take a lot of fun away from the infantry players who will comprise the majority of each team. It's why I don't enjoy Project Reality anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Condensed another suggestion thread into this once since they were dealing with roughly the same topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game should do as little as possible to dictate team organization, so I cannot see that a system that imposes squad structures and restricts asset access based on anything other than the server rules and team population would do anything good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game should do as little as possible to dictate team organization, so I cannot see that a system that imposes squad structures and restricts asset access based on anything other than the server rules and team population would do anything good.

Care to elaborate? Your post basically amounts to "This thing shouldn't happen, cos it's bad".

What I'm suggesting here is basically the named asset squad rule that so many PR servers have and making it a part of the game rather than something that must be actively enforced (And sometimes exploited). It'd remove any argument associated with asset squads ("I made the squad first", "X is stealing assets") and take a whole load of work off the admins' hands. It'd also be clear as to who gets what. 

 

On a side note, it would be prudent to have a vehicle voice channel, allowing communication between the crew members rather than cluttering the squad channel or relying on local which can easily be drowned out by the engines and other noises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Care to elaborate?

 

Ok.

 

Asset squads: If you're dictating certain squad structures, then you're restricting the community's ability to evolve better organizational methods, and strategic and tactical utilization of assets and equipment. Maybe for one match, having vehicle assets evenly distributed among many squads is a good idea, whereas in another match it is better to have them concentrated. If the game dictates squad composition, then there is only ever one answer, and that answer may be far from optimal.

 

Asset spawns: You are again dictating squad compositions, with the same result as above. Saying "Infantry squads would have a pool of utility/transport vehicles at their disposal" means you now have to mechanically define what an Infantry squad is, meaning you have to dictate squad compositions.

 

"Points" system: Once again, you have to mechanically define something, dictating behavior and organization. How do you intend to quantify "teamwork" into an accurate representation of player behavior? You are also defining squad composition again.

 

There are kernels of good ideas in there. Having purchasable vehicle assets, so that the map doesn't dictate and provide the same vehicle loadout every time, warrants thought. Having vehicle asset losses count more is also a good idea. However, your other ideas and implementations are convoluted, unintuitive, and restrict gameplay.

 

There are other, less invasive methods of solving the issues you discuss. Here's part of another thread I made:

 

Organizational restrictions:

 

I would suggest that customization be restricted on a variety of levels. Namely, game restrictions, server restrictions, CO restrictions, and SL restrictions.

 

Game restrictions: Since PR has taught us how giving people increased freedom also increases the frequency of retardation, I believe the developers must have some basic framework, either through class restricted equipment pools, inventory restrictions(Weight, size, etc.), or something else, that will apply universally, and cannot be altered through modifications or server settings.

 

Server restrictions: These should consist of granting COs and SLs the ability to restrict access to equipment for lower-ranked players(Server->CO->SL->SM).

 

CO restrictions: COs should, provided the server allows them, be able to restrict access to combat roles, vehicles, kits, and specific equipment. Additionally, they should be able to dismiss Squad Leaders.

 

SL restrictions: Squad Leaders should be able to, provided the server and CO allows them, restrict Squad Member access to combat roles, vehicles, kits, and specific equipment.

 

Squad members should shut up and do as they're told, damn it! :P

 

Following on from this, players should be able to create squad and kit loadout templates that they can apply in games for quick organization. The game should provide some default ones, as could the server, and then every player can make their own. If these loadouts contradict restrictions on a Server, CO, or SL level, then they would be inaccessible.

 

Here you have a system of permission-based asset and equipment restriction systems. The game itself provides a general framework, and then there are increasing levels of restrictions from server, to CO, to SL, to SM. A system of player-created loadout and squad templates that can be implemented on Server, CO, and SL levels, which also integrates into the kit loadout system, solves all these issues.

 

For instance, a server may disallow certain squad compositions. A CO may do the same. The CO will also have the ability to dismiss any SL. A Squad Leader is able to either disallow some kit loadouts, or he dictates specific kit loadouts. All dependent on the restriction permissions granted by the server.

 

This system works because if you play on a bad server, you can leave that server. If you play with a bad CO, you can mutiny or play on another server. If you play with a bad SL, you can leave and set up a new squad.

 

You can't leave the game and play the game in another game if you don't like the game. Bad game design can't be out-organized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok.

 

Asset squads: If you're dictating certain squad structures, then you're restricting the community's ability to evolve better organizational methods, and strategic and tactical utilization of assets and equipment. Maybe for one match, having vehicle assets evenly distributed among many squads is a good idea, whereas in another match it is better to have them concentrated. If the game dictates squad composition, then there is only ever one answer, and that answer may be far from optimal.

This is what the ability for SLs to allow use by other squads is for.

 

 

Asset spawns: You are again dictating squad compositions, with the same result as above. Saying "Infantry squads would have a pool of utility/transport vehicles at their disposal" means you now have to mechanically define what an Infantry squad is, meaning you have to dictate squad compositions.

An infantry squad would be anything other than a specific asset squad.

 

 

"Points" system: Once again, you have to mechanically define something, dictating behavior and organization. How do you intend to quantify "teamwork" into an accurate representation of player behavior?

I'm not mathematician or statistician, I have no clue. The points system was literally off the top of my head - I was going based off how PR awards teamwork points, which as I said, can be exploited.

 


There are kernels of good ideas in there. Having purchasable vehicle assets, so that the map doesn't dictate and provide the same vehicle loadout every time, warrants thought. Having vehicle asset losses count more is also a good idea. However, your other ideas and implementations are convoluted, unintuitive, and restrict gameplay.

 

There are other, less invasive methods of solving the issues you discuss. Here's part of another thread I made:

 

 

Here you have a system of permission-based asset and equipment restriction systems. The game itself provides a general framework, and then there are increasing levels of restrictions from server, to CO, to SL, to SM. A system of player-created loadout and squad templates that can be implemented on Server, CO, and SL levels, which also integrates into the kit loadout system, solves all these issues.

 

For instance, a server may disallow certain squad compositions. A CO may do the same. The CO will also have the ability to dismiss any SL. A Squad Leader is able to either disallow some kit loadouts, or he dictates specific kit loadouts. All dependent on the restriction permissions granted by the server.

 

This system works because if you play on a bad server, you can leave that server. If you play with a bad CO, you can mutiny or play on another server. If you play with a bad SL, you can leave and set up a new squad.

 

You can't leave the game and play the game in another game if you don't like the game. Bad game design can't be out-organized

Interesting. The only problem I can see with this is the fact that it's vulnerable to abuse of those abilites. Sure, if it's obvious griefing they'd be dealt with quickly, but it'd still be an unpleasant shake-up.

Well, it's up to the devs as to what system they decide to implement, if any. It'd be cool to see both these systems tested to see how they work in practice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We definitely see it in other supposed 'Squad-based' games like Insurgency or RO2 where the squad composition is pre-defined at least on an infantry level, that all it serves to do is restrict organic player organisation and prevents squads from adapting to changing battle conditions. While we're far from a stage where we can consider full combined arms scenarios (as the vehicle system and art assets are in pre-production), but we would be leaning to a more flexible system that we have in PRBF2 with the ability for players in command positions and admins to set restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is a good point

 

I would like to see a similar idea to this. 
 
Awards in battle, mainly to squads that are the lead system. Taking flags, destroying caches and rescuing injured. 
 
These squads may have active best, best rifles, accessories, AT best, better equipped Hummvv and support of advanced artillery etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is a good point

 

I would like to see a similar idea to this. 
 
Awards in battle, mainly to squads that are the lead system. Taking flags, destroying caches and rescuing injured. 
 
These squads may have active best, best rifles, accessories, AT best, better equipped Hummvv and support of advanced artillery etc.

 

You have not understood my idea. I don't want a system where the team who does good, does better. Just a way to avoid the focus shifting from primarily infantry gameplay, to tanks vs apcs vs helicopters, with infantry players (The majority of each team) trying to dodge the bullets in the middle.

 

I understand the concerns about restricting the team composition, but how is this really any different from the asset rules currently employed by most popular PR servers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your position.In this case I just put my ideas from her.A merging of ideas, DEVS can enjoy a little of everything :)

You have not understood my idea. I don't want a system where the team who does good, does better. Just a way to avoid the focus shifting from primarily infantry gameplay, to tanks vs apcs vs helicopters, with infantry players (The majority of each team) trying to dodge the bullets in the middle. I understand the concerns about restricting the team composition, but how is this really any different from the asset rules currently employed by most popular PR servers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the concerns about restricting the team composition, but how is this really any different from the asset rules currently employed by most popular PR servers?

 

There's a huge difference between servers setting up rules, and the game setting explicit limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a huge difference between servers setting up rules, and the game setting explicit limitations.

These server rules were pretty much always explicit limitations. As always, these features can be customisable and turned on/off by the server owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These server rules were pretty much always explicit limitations. As always, these features can be customisable and turned on/off by the server owners.

 

If you change server rules, does the game mechanically change in any way? No. That's the difference. If you want customization, there are better ways of implementing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asset squads:

Rather than relying on the honour system and policing by admins to ensure the right squad gets their pertinent assets, there should be a system by which there are pre-existing asset squads based on the assets available. Players wanting to crew these assets must join the squad, and the squad leader can allow access to their assets to either specific members of other squads, or entire other squads, by clicking and dragging the vehicle's map symbol (Or from a list of assets) to a player or squad's name or their map icon. Having access to these assets would allow you to take the pilot or crewman kit/class (Assuming you're going with this system), with the asset squad ONLY allowed access to the pilot/crewman kit. This would both prevent players in asset squads from neglecting their assets, but also allow for Mechanised Infantry squads and whatnot.

 

Pros:

Named asset squads enforced by game instead of admins

Prevents theft of assets

Allows non-asset-specific squads to use assets with no confusion or argument

Enforces use of asset when in pertinent squad

 

Neutral:

"First-come, first-serve" basis

i would love to see something like this since i had the problem today when i was playing PR with a friend, that some idiots stole our tank and then wasted it -.-

they shouldnt have been able to get into the tanks at all

other then that i would make it so that only the asset specific squads have acces to the driver, gunner and/or Comander seat(if comander will e in the game) and that random players or infantry squads only get acces to the Back seats of a Transport chopper and APCs

basicly a system in which the members of the asset squad get a highe,...lets call it rank so that the game knows, that player A cant get into the tank since hes a lower rank then player B who actualy is in a asset squad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great OP. Thank you for taking the time to describe your ideas in detail.

That said, I feel like we can make a bigger departure from the PR system, which was totally illogical and existed only as a compromise for the horrible BF2 engine.

For example, why do all IFVs need to be in the IFV squad? I don't understand why there should be a central leader for all IFVs if the purpose of the IFV is to support and transport infantry. I think each IFV should be more independent from all the other IFVs, and instead work very closely with INF squads (or even be part of an INF squad).

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
Sign in to follow this  

×