No more team play? - Page 3

Lagomorph · 07-12-2005, 09:30 AM

I've been following this thread sporadically over the last few days so I'm not sure if my opinion has already been covered in some form but even if it has I feel like re-expressing it anyway.

I too have found a "decline" in team cohesiveness or "good" squad play and whatever else we all claim to love. However, I also notice that this is only a problem when I'm just jumping on and *hoping* to get an enjoyable squad experience. The problem is that by joining in this way I have totally relinquished any control I had over the situation. I now have to settle for what I find.

Last night I was on the USMC side for a bit. We were playing on the "Clean Sweep" map and to be honest we looked pretty shoddy starting out. No suprise, we had no commander. I've only practiced a bit at this position during LANs with friends and never with all that many people, so I hesitated for a bit. (I do have a fair amount of experience as SL so I think that helped allot.) Now, not saying I was all that amazing or anything but once I started making even an attempt to communicate and lead most squads responded really well. (Granted there are always a few that just won't do what you ask but the vast majority did the best they could to help)

Before I get too deep into a story let me just bring my point back into focus...

What my experience made me realize was that for a great game even with your "average pubbies" all you really need are about 10-12 enthusiastic team players spread across both sides. Heck, you don't even have to be good at shooting...just decent with the tactics/strategy of the game. If you're fairly experienced with the game and how we play then don't just go looking for a "good" squad to join, *make* one.

Now before someone gets on me about how not everyone is "cut out" to be a SL or CO I have to say that that is perfectly alright. So you don't think you're a good SL, ok, but when you can't find one to play under either form your own squad and just try to emulate the best SL you've ever played with. Most "pubbies" will sit there like mute sheep just as if we were another smacktard server until a little leadership shows up. As for the CO position, yes maybe you find it boring or in some other way "not for you" but please just take your turn. If there isn't anyone stepping up to command on your side then, please just take that one round and do the best you can. Think of all the people benifiting because of your leadership, all the SLs I know will tell you; any CO with vocal chords is better than none at all.

The best thing about following this is that it is self perpetuating. I learned how to be a SL by playing under one, and I got at least a decent idea of how to command by playing under good COs. Every time you command a team or a squad really well is a time in that at least one other person could have learned how to do the same. Want good leaders? Than be one, even if it only happens once.

Remember, the easiest way to get people to do what you want is to first do it yourself.

*edit* 0_o ... that turned out allot bigger than I intended. My thanks to those who slog through the whole thing. ;P

bhav2k1 · 07-12-2005, 10:50 AM

Soon after the release of the retail version of BF2, i heard about TG from one of the battlefield forums. I was amazed how much more enjoyable the game is with teamplay and everyone working together. The first few weeks were a blast and really made the game worth while despite its bugs. But recently over the past week or so, I noticed that the quality of teamwork has reduced drastically as only one or two squads actually send issues to attack or defend etc compared to all of them upon the release of the game. As others have already said I would also think that a semipassworded server would be best for all parties involved.

Another thing I thought of was that if a script could be written (like the kick for no squad) that only allows for a certain amount of squads. For instance if there are already 4 squads with 4 members in each. If a person joins, they are forced to join the squad and cannot just create one. This might help reduce the number of 1 person squads for pubbies who want to lonewolf. Maybe like the max no. of squads could be the number of players on the team divided by 4. Just a suggestion if it would be possible to do.

BTW...I would like to thank TG for providing such a great server(s) that truly made this game worthwhile for me.

**Pokerface** · 07-12-2005, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhav2k1

Another thing I thought of was that if a script could be written (like the kick for no squad) that only allows for a certain amount of squads. For instance if there are already 4 squads with 4 members in each. If a person joins, they are forced to join the squad and cannot just create one. This might help reduce the number of 1 person squads for pubbies who want to lonewolf. Maybe like the max no. of squads could be the number of players on the team divided by 4. Just a suggestion if it would be possible to do.

Possible yes, but wholly impractical. 1-man squads are not the issue; the issue is a teammate not following orders. They may avoid the auto-kick by making a lonewolf squad, but they won't evade the admin kicking them.

Telorn · 07-12-2005, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

Possible yes, but wholly impractical. 1-man squads are not the issue; the issue is a teammate not following orders. They may avoid the auto-kick by making a lonewolf squad, but they won't evade the admin kicking them.

And you want to allow two-man squads for air/helo squads.

|TG| B · 07-12-2005, 11:17 AM

I agree with you Lagomorph. Make one yourself...

If u join a squad and the squad leader is not doing squat ask him if u can take over. if not let their soldiers know u r gonna create a new squad.

I know it can be frustrating being a SL. Some squaddies do not agree with the decision and tries to argue and some squaddies think and show that they are better than u... Do not give up... I know a lot of great SL s who lately avoid being SL s. So it is all coming down to this. Once we convert them pubbies they will never go back.

I also would like to vote YES for semi passworded server.

Mateo · 07-12-2005, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telorn

I've noticed a steady decline in the team work on our servers since release. When this game first came out, teamplay was found everywhere, just about any hour. I think our problem is that too many pubbies are choosing this server because of our awesome ping times.

Man, I thought that was just my observation. I've basically decided that if it isn't on the passworded night (which has also declined, but is still acceptable), I'm out.

Quote:

So many pubbies are joining that our regulars (non-supporting) are not able to get in to the server as they once did. So now, rather than team oriented non-supporting members we're getting just random pubbies who, I believe, are ruining our whole experience.

Random pubbies always do. Get on the mic, and tell the admin on watch to kick the offenders. The rules we play by are quite clear. Join a team, act as a team, and read the G-D SOPs!

Quote:

I just remember I could join the server in the evening around 6-9 PM EST and always find a good squad. Now I always seem to be searching for an hour or so to find a good squad, sometimes never finding one. Yes. I could start my own squad. But that isn't the point! The point is, we didn't used to have this issue. We did not have an issue with so many pubbies joining our server and ruining our gameplay!

See above. Also, CMs and SMs have a duty to play their best game, and teach others. I've seen alot of sloppy gameplay from players that say they are TG-core. Walk the talk, and the pubbies will follow or get kicked.

Quote:

I truely believe we need to lock out pubbies from our servers. Don't allow them in. We have enough player base to maintain the population on our server. I'd rather be down to one 64 player server with no pubblies allowed than 2 public servers with pubbies mixed in, ruining the experience.

We have a passworded server that noone is using...hint...hint.....why don't we all agree to play there? Seems to me that is the best solution. We got a big spike in membership from the game, so I'd be loathe to lock out pubbies altogether.

Quote:

I'd rather be down to one server with this kind of gameplay rather than 2 servers for the public to enjoy on the behalf of our loss.

Agreed.

warcriminal2 · 07-12-2005, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lagomorph

don't just go looking for a "good" squad to join, *make* one.

I agree, sometimes it takes a while to build a good squad that is willing to listen and CONQUER.

I've found that one MAJOR barrior to creating my own "quality" squads has been the constant kicking. By the time i start get a good squad going, some ******* TK-KICKS me for runnin in front of my TANK or some other BS. Yesterday some retard in a loaded blackhawk landed on top of my tank...we all died and I got kicked cause it went down as a team kill.....ABSOLUTE CRAP

Telorn · 07-12-2005, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TG_Mateo

We have a passworded server that noone is using...hint...hint.....why don't we all agree to play there? Seems to me that is the best solution. We got a big spike in membership from the game, so I'd be loathe to lock out pubbies altogether.

This server isn't populated because it is for supporting members only. We don't have enough supporting members to get a good flood of people in here to 'jump start' it. Now, if we made the private server available to all forum members - problem solved.

**Pokerface** · 07-12-2005, 11:40 AM

Quote:

I truely believe we need to lock out pubbies from our servers. Don't allow them in. We have enough player base to maintain the population on our server. I'd rather be down to one 64 player server with no pubblies allowed than 2 public servers with pubbies mixed in, ruining the experience.

This game is not yet a month old. The community is still exploding. Some two-thirds(-ish) of the players on the BF2 servers were "pubbies" -- at least in the eyes of TG people who have been around for months/years -- a mere four weeks ago.

Everyone was wayward once, and the more opportunity random "Others" have to experience the game at its fullest potential -- particularly at this stage in the BF2 lifecycle -- the better.

**Pokerface** · 07-12-2005, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telorn

This server isn't populated because it is for supporting members only. We don't have enough supporting members to get a good flood of people in here to 'jump start' it. Now, if we made the private server available to all forum members - problem solved.

As a counterpoint, I offer TacticalGamer.com Counter-Strike:Source Server #2.

Muld · 07-12-2005, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

As a counterpoint, I offer TacticalGamer.com Counter-Strike:Source Server #2.

I'm not sure how similar the two cases (CSS and BF2) are. I don't know if we have enough people to support 3 BF2 servers right now. For CSS right now there are many times where there aren't even 14 people. I can imagine no more than 20 people at any one time wanting to play CSS with TG. This equates to a 7v7 and a 3v3. No one wants to play 3v3 really (compared to 7v7).

The BF2 servers are mostly full though. So would enough people join a 3rd server to make it populated enough to have even more join? Maybe. I do notice the 64 player server is usually maxed and a few spots on the 48 are open. If people were waiting in line for TG I would expect both to be full to the brim. So are there 48 more people that are waiting to populate a 48 player server? Doesn't seem like it at this time.

The only problem I see is all the good squad leaders and commanders would leave atleast one public server to the masses as they accumlate on the semi password one. I would imagine the tactical gameplay of that TG server to drop dramatically.

TG_Rizzo · 07-12-2005, 11:56 AM

Abandoning the public servers is the wrong way to deal with the influx of newbies. asch laid out the right solution in his EDUCATE thread. That's what we need to do.

I'm willing to bet most of the non-teamwork people on the TG servers right now are just plain NEW to BF2 (and teamwork). They just need guidance. They need a decent SL that reigns them in and tells them what to do and most of them will do it and they'll love you for it and they will *become* team players. BINGO!, new TG recruit!

Telorn · 07-12-2005, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

This game is not yet a month old. The community is still exploding. Some two-thirds(-ish) of the players on the BF2 servers were "pubbies" -- at least in the eyes of TG people who have been around for months/years -- a mere four weeks ago.

Everyone was wayward once, and the more opportunity random "Others" have to experience the game at its fullest potential -- particularly at this stage in the BF2 lifecycle -- the better.

Which is why I agreed that only 1 public server could be forum locked and not both. I see no issue with locking one of the public servers. I don't see it preventing new 'pubbies' from finding us and joining our ranks. How? Well, the one locked server will always fill up at night and TG'ers will be forced to go to the 'pubbie' one, so we will have individuals upholding TG to the pubbies.

But, on the TG banner text for the public server, you say something along the lines of if you think this type of gameplay is fun then check out our forums to gain access to the private TG server. Entice them to check out the website to find something better. I bet you that most of the 'pubbies' that we would want to join our ranks would notice this text, as you're starring at it every time a map loads, and they will come to check it out.

So in no way would this style of play ruin the foundation that new people can find us through the web browser. But at the same time it would give our current TG community a better place to play. What is wrong with helping both ends instead of just one?

**Pokerface** · 07-12-2005, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muld

I'm not sure how similar the two cases (CSS and BF2) are. I don't know if we have enough people to support 3 BF2 servers right now. For CSS right now there are many times where there aren't even 14 people. I can imagine no more than 20 people at any one time wanting to play CSS with TG. This equates to a 7v7 and a 3v3. No one wants to play 3v3 really (compared to 7v7).

I think the cases are more similar than you believe. Activity on both servers was quite high before #2 was passworded. There are FAR more CS players than any other game's players out there... they're like roaches, for every one you see, there are 100 more in the walls.

Wulfyn · 07-12-2005, 12:42 PM

I think the 64 player server is more popular than the 48 player server from casual observation, so maybe try and run some passworded sessions on the 48 player server? (maybe just passworded over weekends or other high-activity times?)

You can put up a set of comments in the BF2 browser screen (as well as your logo), so I believe you could state something like "visit tg.com for password". However I don't think this will get more people in as I think a lot of people filter out passworded servers (assuming they are private), or would expect some sort of clause in access.

Overall I think the idea is worth a try, but I think that I am more inclined to asch's concept of education. If the passworded nights were more regular then we could "invite" good members to the forum (I have done this before, for example with CymBa, although he had already joined). It is a fine balance, and one that is tricky to predict:

On the one hand we wouldn't want to exclude new people from coming in. I suspect there are a lot of people out there who are looking for a teamplay server but have not found one yet. I found here through a typical 'pubby' like route - that is for Neverwinter Nights, looking for a low ping quiet server running PoA to invite some friends over (AW was just too busy to get anything organised). On there I met Shogun and a few others, then visited the forums. I liked what I saw. When BF2 came out, TG was the first place I played it, and since then have met and played with many of the rest of you.

However education can also be quite tricky. I like to run a 100% ground squad, but if one of my guys grabs a nearby helicopter that has just spawned, well it may not fit into my plans 100%, but if no-one else is around that needs it we might as well use it. It's crazy to bollock the guy for that. That said if someone is being a real idiot then I will happily kick them from the squad (after warning them and then telling them why).

I would further the education idea to getting people on the forums where they can read the guidelines, and have a better idea of what we are aiming for. You can't blame them for not realising that we might be leaving all the air assets alone for an airbourne squad if they are not even used to their own squad sticking together.

On the flip side the person I squad-kick might not get any better at team play anywhere else.

Maybe we should just be trying to get more people into the forums where they can get an even better idea what we are after?

07-12-2005, 09:30 AM	#31 (permalink)
Lagomorph Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Redmond, WA Age: 22 Posts: 277	Re: No more team play? I've been following this thread sporadically over the last few days so I'm not sure if my opinion has already been covered in some form but even if it has I feel like re-expressing it anyway. I too have found a "decline" in team cohesiveness or "good" squad play and whatever else we all claim to love. However, I also notice that this is only a problem when I'm just jumping on and hoping to get an enjoyable squad experience. The problem is that by joining in this way I have totally relinquished any control I had over the situation. I now have to settle for what I find. Last night I was on the USMC side for a bit. We were playing on the "Clean Sweep" map and to be honest we looked pretty shoddy starting out. No suprise, we had no commander. I've only practiced a bit at this position during LANs with friends and never with all that many people, so I hesitated for a bit. (I do have a fair amount of experience as SL so I think that helped allot.) Now, not saying I was all that amazing or anything but once I started making even an attempt to communicate and lead most squads responded really well. (Granted there are always a few that just won't do what you ask but the vast majority did the best they could to help) Before I get too deep into a story let me just bring my point back into focus... What my experience made me realize was that for a great game even with your "average pubbies" all you really need are about 10-12 enthusiastic team players spread across both sides. Heck, you don't even have to be good at shooting...just decent with the tactics/strategy of the game. If you're fairly experienced with the game and how we play then don't just go looking for a "good" squad to join, make one. Now before someone gets on me about how not everyone is "cut out" to be a SL or CO I have to say that that is perfectly alright. So you don't think you're a good SL, ok, but when you can't find one to play under either form your own squad and just try to emulate the best SL you've ever played with. Most "pubbies" will sit there like mute sheep just as if we were another smacktard server until a little leadership shows up. As for the CO position, yes maybe you find it boring or in some other way "not for you" but please just take your turn. If there isn't anyone stepping up to command on your side then, please just take that one round and do the best you can. Think of all the people benifiting because of your leadership, all the SLs I know will tell you; any CO with vocal chords is better than none at all. The best thing about following this is that it is self perpetuating. I learned how to be a SL by playing under one, and I got at least a decent idea of how to command by playing under good COs. Every time you command a team or a squad really well is a time in that at least one other person could have learned how to do the same. Want good leaders? Than be one, even if it only happens once. Remember, the easiest way to get people to do what you want is to first do it yourself. edit 0_o ... that turned out allot bigger than I intended. My thanks to those who slog through the whole thing. ;P __________________ Combat is very simple, there is a first place and a second place. Second place is laying face down in the mud...sometimes, so is first place. [age-c1] [eng][air]

07-12-2005, 10:50 AM	#32 (permalink)
bhav2k1 Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 7	Re: No more team play? Soon after the release of the retail version of BF2, i heard about TG from one of the battlefield forums. I was amazed how much more enjoyable the game is with teamplay and everyone working together. The first few weeks were a blast and really made the game worth while despite its bugs. But recently over the past week or so, I noticed that the quality of teamwork has reduced drastically as only one or two squads actually send issues to attack or defend etc compared to all of them upon the release of the game. As others have already said I would also think that a semipassworded server would be best for all parties involved. Another thing I thought of was that if a script could be written (like the kick for no squad) that only allows for a certain amount of squads. For instance if there are already 4 squads with 4 members in each. If a person joins, they are forced to join the squad and cannot just create one. This might help reduce the number of 1 person squads for pubbies who want to lonewolf. Maybe like the max no. of squads could be the number of players on the team divided by 4. Just a suggestion if it would be possible to do. BTW...I would like to thank TG for providing such a great server(s) that truly made this game worthwhile for me.

07-12-2005, 11:17 AM	#35 (permalink)
\|TG\| B Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Texas, USA Posts: 728	Re: No more team play? I agree with you Lagomorph. Make one yourself... If u join a squad and the squad leader is not doing squat ask him if u can take over. if not let their soldiers know u r gonna create a new squad. I know it can be frustrating being a SL. Some squaddies do not agree with the decision and tries to argue and some squaddies think and show that they are better than u... Do not give up... I know a lot of great SL s who lately avoid being SL s. So it is all coming down to this. Once we convert them pubbies they will never go back. I also would like to vote YES for semi passworded server.

07-12-2005, 11:56 AM	#42 (permalink)
TG_Rizzo Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Rhode Island, USA Posts: 401	Re: No more team play? Abandoning the public servers is the wrong way to deal with the influx of newbies. asch laid out the right solution in his EDUCATE thread. That's what we need to do. I'm willing to bet most of the non-teamwork people on the TG servers right now are just plain NEW to BF2 (and teamwork). They just need guidance. They need a decent SL that reigns them in and tells them what to do and most of them will do it and they'll love you for it and they will become team players. BINGO!, new TG recruit!

07-12-2005, 12:42 PM	#45 (permalink)
Wulfyn Join Date: May 2005 Location: Norwich, UK Age: 29 Posts: 4,236	Re: No more team play? I think the 64 player server is more popular than the 48 player server from casual observation, so maybe try and run some passworded sessions on the 48 player server? (maybe just passworded over weekends or other high-activity times?) You can put up a set of comments in the BF2 browser screen (as well as your logo), so I believe you could state something like "visit tg.com for password". However I don't think this will get more people in as I think a lot of people filter out passworded servers (assuming they are private), or would expect some sort of clause in access. Overall I think the idea is worth a try, but I think that I am more inclined to asch's concept of education. If the passworded nights were more regular then we could "invite" good members to the forum (I have done this before, for example with CymBa, although he had already joined). It is a fine balance, and one that is tricky to predict: On the one hand we wouldn't want to exclude new people from coming in. I suspect there are a lot of people out there who are looking for a teamplay server but have not found one yet. I found here through a typical 'pubby' like route - that is for Neverwinter Nights, looking for a low ping quiet server running PoA to invite some friends over (AW was just too busy to get anything organised). On there I met Shogun and a few others, then visited the forums. I liked what I saw. When BF2 came out, TG was the first place I played it, and since then have met and played with many of the rest of you. However education can also be quite tricky. I like to run a 100% ground squad, but if one of my guys grabs a nearby helicopter that has just spawned, well it may not fit into my plans 100%, but if no-one else is around that needs it we might as well use it. It's crazy to bollock the guy for that. That said if someone is being a real idiot then I will happily kick them from the squad (after warning them and then telling them why). I would further the education idea to getting people on the forums where they can read the guidelines, and have a better idea of what we are aiming for. You can't blame them for not realising that we might be leaving all the air assets alone for an airbourne squad if they are not even used to their own squad sticking together. On the flip side the person I squad-kick might not get any better at team play anywhere else. Maybe we should just be trying to get more people into the forums where they can get an even better idea what we are after? __________________

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
TvT tomorrow night?	leejo	Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter - General Discussion	47	10-10-2006 12:41 AM
America's Army: Past, Present, Future...	Magnum50	Game Reviews	14	12-31-2005 12:20 PM
SOP (Leadership) - S.M.E.A.C.	Badger	Ghost Recon - Official Rules, Announcements and SOP's	0	05-15-2003 02:19 PM

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links