Some ideas to chew on.....

wildcat2000 · 06-25-2006, 07:29 PM

Just some ideas, I think the members in each squad needs to be mixed for BF2. I know most people don't like working with other people you don't know. For example two of the 7th, two of the roughnecks and others mixed in each squad. I think if the affiliated groups lock themselves out it will become too stacked. I don't think squads should be able to lock out players. I also think if you are doing a rally week, you do need to give the SL's time to learn the new maps. I do think there needs to be a rotation of SL's. So every new map a new SL is in the squad. The same thing with the commanders. I have seen some instances where no one takes the commander position. Those who have already played the map other than being an SL or CO needs to help the CO or SL tell them some ideas of what to do. I think it would be nice like COD2 if the game would automatically release everyone so everyone starts on a new side and in a new squad. So its a different situation everytime. So squads and sides don't stay the same every map.

Don't take these ideas too personal, just some things to think about.

DrunkenSoul · 06-25-2006, 07:37 PM

As much as I try to play with a bunch of people; I tend to fine it more enjoyable to play with 1stMIP and I am sure the 12th, 33rd, 7th etc enjoy playing amongst themselves. But you are right, maybe at times we can all disperse mixing and matching. But one of the advantages of playing in an in-house squad is the ability to play with each other and help each other become better bf2 players.

I dont think the stacking problem lies if one team has a 7th squad in it. I think the problems lies when one team has multiple in house squads when the other side has none. I believe all in house squads should agree upon spliting up evenly in a given game. Instead of having the 33rd on PLA and having 1st, 7th, and 12th on USMC it should be 33rd and 1st on PLA with 7th and 12th on USMC to balance it out. Everytime I see one team dominate the other it is usually because the winning side has 2 in house squads when the other has none.

I think it is the responsibility of all in house squads and admins to disperse all inhouse squads on seperate sides before, during, and after a round.

Drizzid · 06-25-2006, 07:49 PM

I agree with Drunkensoul that there should be balance with the number of inhouse squads on each side. I don't agree with making them disperse themselves amoung the server. What is the point of being in a inhouse squad if we have to disperse through out the team.

The 7th, 33rd, 1st Mip and the 12th all allow anyone in their respective squads. Have there been times we have asked for people to leave to make room for one of our squadmates to join yes of course as has every other squad. The only time I might agree to the inhouse squads splitting themselves up is if there is an odd number of inhouse squads in the game example is 3. But who has to disperse to where and how are you going to manage it to be absolutely fair. The inhouse squads are not the problem. I have seen the 33rd move their entire squad to the other side to try and balance things out but I never see anyone give them credit for it. The 7th rarely has a full 7th squad but no one gives them any credit but, they will bitch when they have a full 7th squad for a night. Everyone is quick to blame the inhouse squads for the inbalance in the game but no one wants to give the inhouse squads any cudos for when they do try and even the game out.

Lucky Shot · 06-25-2006, 08:19 PM

There are too many good people at TG who can combat most in house squads on an equal footing. You take a Sausage Maker Man and give him 5 TG regulars, that squad will be able to take on most objectives including in house squads. Smoking Tarpan would do the same. This is just a couple of determined, dependable squad leaders who can turn the course of battle that have no affiliation with an in house squad. Yes, we need to police ourselves. No, there is no problem with in house squadmates forming their own squad. Heck, I ramp up against an in house squad as I know that's the highest form of competition. Wildcat's thread serves as a solid reminder that in order for TG to continue to grow, we do need to police ourselves in order to deliver fun for everyone. Sometimes it's fun to take an underdog side against what should be stronger competition.

I think we zoomed past a couple of Wildcat's points. Rotating CO's is a good thing as I don't like to CO that often and prefer to SL. However, I am committing to CO several times a week in order to take some pressure off the guys who CO all the time. In terms of rotating SL's through a squad, I don't think that most people enjoy SL'ing. Alhtough it doesn't happen as much, it used to be pretty common that after an SL drops, you start to notice that people start exiting and joining the squad in order to avoid being an SL.

One of my struggles is to play under an SL who is still very new in the role. The SL is the backbone of the squad and is the key to whether prolonged attacks or defenses succeed. Most times I will form my own squads and try to make my own luck.

In terms of swapping players every round, I don't have a problem with that. However, I do prefer to build a team through having the same players from round to round though.

I agree that In House Squads should probably be split evenly between teams. Having said that, don't force them to have 6 guys from the 187th, 4th or 2nd on 6 different squads. Give me and other SL's a chance to push them off their objectives at full strength as I want to play against the best at their best.

Lucky Shot

Santa · 06-26-2006, 03:15 AM

The only thing i hate seeing is a in house squad locking their squad without even having 6 people in it. Sure, i can understand if you are locking it because you know for a fact that someone in your in house team is joining. But often, youll see in house squads locking for an entire game with just 3, 4, or 5 people with no intention of filling the last spot with another of their own. Once you have all your in house squad mates together and your squad isnt full, unlock it and let anyone in. Otherwise, it smells of elitism and arrogance. This is a community after all. The in house squads have to respect the community and let others in, and i think the community needs to respect the in house squads as well and understand that they may get kicked (politely) from a squad to let in a late arriving in house member.

To touch on the concept of in house squads unbalancing games, it could be possible. If you have the 7th and 12th on one side, or 12th and 33rd on one side, they are undoubtadly gonna win and probably by a blowout. Its up to the leaders of the squads to notice if one side is stacked with in house squads, and either adjust yourselfs or get an admin to adjust it. Heck, even if you arent in a in house squad and you notice 2 of them on one team, pipe up on TS and try to get an admin to intervene because they might not notice the unbalance.

**BigGaayAl** · 06-26-2006, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drizzid

Everyone is quick to blame the inhouse squads for the inbalance in the game but no one wants to give the inhouse squads any cudos for when they do try and even the game out.

I do not feel that is a fair comment. Hardly any people will realize that an inhouse squad has switched teams to balance the teams. It is not right i feel to conclude that people do not appreciate the move; they just don't see it. I surely appreciate such things for one, and the attitude they show is one of the reasons I play at TG.

I believe in house-squads stacking can be a problem can be an issue. The in-house squads locking their squad is not a problem for me, and I'd rather not play in a squad that would prefer to have someone else in a position in stead of me. However if it was like that all the time, it would alienate some of the freelancers on the server.

Coridon · 06-26-2006, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Santa

The in house squads have to respect the community and let others in, and i think the community needs to respect the in house squads as well and understand that they may get kicked (politely) from a squad to let in a late arriving in house member.

That's my personal rule of thumb. I don't play that often, but if I'm SL'ing a squad with three 1stMIP I inform them that it's "loose" which means basically that we're working together but it's more or less a "free for all" and people will change kits, etc. If it's four 1stMIP I make the three MIP guys fireteam Alpha and any pickup guys fireteam Bravo. I'm always surprised how quickly people pick up on the fireteam concept...it's just..."hey, Joe-Bob over there is your fireteam leader; follow him wherever he goes" and people usually understand immediately. It's the "don't change kits unless you clear it with me first" that sometimes is an issue, but not often...

I only lock the squad when there's 6+ 1stMIP playing on one side and I'm going to rotate members in-and-out.

There's little reason to have in-house squads and SOPs unless you actually plan on squadding up together exclusively on occasion...

JMJ · 06-26-2006, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigGaayAl

I do not feel that is a fair comment. Hardly any people will realize that an inhouse squad has switched teams to balance the teams. It is not right i feel to conclude that people do not appreciate the move; they just don't see it. I surely appreciate such things for one, and the attitude they show is one of the reasons I play at TG.

I believe in house-squads stacking can be a problem can be an issue. The in-house squads locking their squad is not a problem for me, and I'd rather not play in a squad that would prefer to have someone else in a position in stead of me. However if it was like that all the time, it would alienate some of the freelancers on the server.

On the occassion that we have a full 7th squad we will lock it for a few reasons:

1. Other 7th members wanting to be a part of the squad and are willing to wait
2. We usually have a handful of players who have trouble with connections and get booted. By us locking the squad it saves their spot.

It's not that we don't "want to play with you", it's just the fact that every once in a while we like to take advantage of the reason we even have our in-house squad.

thebleakaffinity · 06-26-2006, 04:21 PM

The biggest thing that bothers me is when someone who's a member of an in-house creates a single man locked squad because their in-house is full or they're stuck on the other team than their in-house. I understand that they're waiting to get in, but it won't kill you to play with some other people while you wait to get in.

RocketPunch · 06-26-2006, 04:57 PM

My 2 cents.

I can see how its natural for in-house squad members to play together as, umm.., an in-house squad; and I've also witness people from in-house squads actively switching sides to try to balance the game out. Either way, I am alright with that.

As for locking or unlocking squads. It is just that sometimes its kind of counter productive, strategywise, to see 2 non in-housers or even non TG regulars forced to form a squad (and try to make themself useful for the team), cause they have no where else to go.

Drizzid · 06-26-2006, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thebleakaffinity

The biggest thing that bothers me is when someone who's a member of an in-house creates a single man locked squad because their in-house is full or they're stuck on the other team than their in-house. I understand that they're waiting to get in, but it won't kill you to play with some other people while you wait to get in.

Totally agree with this. That sort of behavior is unacceptable.

**WhiskeySix** · 06-26-2006, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thebleakaffinity

The biggest thing that bothers me is when someone who's a member of an in-house creates a single man locked squad because their in-house is full or they're stuck on the other team than their in-house. I understand that they're waiting to get in, but it won't kill you to play with some other people while you wait to get in.

hey bleak, sorry it bothers you - I do this sometimes and it never occured to me that it'd bug anyone. I usually do this when I drop off and then rejoin the game and want to get back into my old squad.... I create a temporary squad, but it's usually only there for about a minute or so, and is used for a couple reasons... (hopefully this explanation will make it a little less bothersome?)

1) Creating a temp. squad appeases the squadless-kick script until I get my old SL's attention.

2) I only lock the temp squad to save everyone time: if a couple people suddenly join just as I'm leaving, I'd have to explain what's going on, appologize, and then leave them high and dry.. which I don't want to do. (I suppose I could join another squad for 30 seconds, but I always figured that was kinda rude and it takes a slot that someone else might be looking for)

3) As SL of the temp squad (usually called "invite"), I send an invite to the SL of my original squad to get his attention: the invite text is colorful and stays on the bottom of the screen for 30 seconds (as opposed to the in-game chat which only appears for 5-8 seconds).

hope that helps!!

thebleakaffinity · 06-26-2006, 05:59 PM

I'm not calling anyone out, and I think it's fine if it's truly temporary, say a minute or two until your old SL invites you back. In fact, in that case I think it's preferable to joining another squad half-heartedly and abandoning them instantly. But I've seen people set up single-man locked squads that last for half a round. If it's actually a temp squad then it's totally gravy, but anyone who lone-wolfs for an extended period of time, for any reason really, just comes across to me as kind of dickish, for lack of a better word.

**Dick Blonov** · 06-26-2006, 07:33 PM

My 2 CDN ¢.

I ended up having to create a one man squad a few times. When you join up and there are 18 players in 3 squads, not much else you can do. However, I find it annoying when I have to do this and I see two or more 3-4 player locked squads. I'd rather play in an in house squad for a bit and be asked to leave than to be a «DefaultOneManShow».

DB

wildcat2000 · 06-27-2006, 02:19 PM

Seems like some of you got to scrap on the subject. It's good to see. Hopefully the battles are doing better.

06-25-2006, 07:29 PM	#1 (permalink)
wildcat2000 Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Pueblo, CO Age: 31 Posts: 517	Some ideas to chew on..... Just some ideas, I think the members in each squad needs to be mixed for BF2. I know most people don't like working with other people you don't know. For example two of the 7th, two of the roughnecks and others mixed in each squad. I think if the affiliated groups lock themselves out it will become too stacked. I don't think squads should be able to lock out players. I also think if you are doing a rally week, you do need to give the SL's time to learn the new maps. I do think there needs to be a rotation of SL's. So every new map a new SL is in the squad. The same thing with the commanders. I have seen some instances where no one takes the commander position. Those who have already played the map other than being an SL or CO needs to help the CO or SL tell them some ideas of what to do. I think it would be nice like COD2 if the game would automatically release everyone so everyone starts on a new side and in a new squad. So its a different situation everytime. So squads and sides don't stay the same every map. Don't take these ideas too personal, just some things to think about. __________________ Wii Friend Code: 2461 3356 1174 7015 SSBB Friend Code: 0774 3919 5622 MK Wii Friend Code: 5026 4824 0011

06-25-2006, 07:37 PM	#2 (permalink)
DrunkenSoul Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: NJ/NYC Age: 22 Posts: 1,106	Re: Some ideas to chew on..... As much as I try to play with a bunch of people; I tend to fine it more enjoyable to play with 1stMIP and I am sure the 12th, 33rd, 7th etc enjoy playing amongst themselves. But you are right, maybe at times we can all disperse mixing and matching. But one of the advantages of playing in an in-house squad is the ability to play with each other and help each other become better bf2 players. I dont think the stacking problem lies if one team has a 7th squad in it. I think the problems lies when one team has multiple in house squads when the other side has none. I believe all in house squads should agree upon spliting up evenly in a given game. Instead of having the 33rd on PLA and having 1st, 7th, and 12th on USMC it should be 33rd and 1st on PLA with 7th and 12th on USMC to balance it out. Everytime I see one team dominate the other it is usually because the winning side has 2 in house squads when the other has none. I think it is the responsibility of all in house squads and admins to disperse all inhouse squads on seperate sides before, during, and after a round. __________________ \|TG-1stMIP\|DrunknSoul 1st Mechanized Infantry Platoon (C-Team) [medic][conduct][combat][defense] [tog-c1][ma-c1][tpf-c1][ma-c2]

06-25-2006, 07:49 PM	#3 (permalink)
Drizzid Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Glendale, AZ Age: 37 Posts: 2,914	Re: Some ideas to chew on..... I agree with Drunkensoul that there should be balance with the number of inhouse squads on each side. I don't agree with making them disperse themselves amoung the server. What is the point of being in a inhouse squad if we have to disperse through out the team. The 7th, 33rd, 1st Mip and the 12th all allow anyone in their respective squads. Have there been times we have asked for people to leave to make room for one of our squadmates to join yes of course as has every other squad. The only time I might agree to the inhouse squads splitting themselves up is if there is an odd number of inhouse squads in the game example is 3. But who has to disperse to where and how are you going to manage it to be absolutely fair. The inhouse squads are not the problem. I have seen the 33rd move their entire squad to the other side to try and balance things out but I never see anyone give them credit for it. The 7th rarely has a full 7th squad but no one gives them any credit but, they will bitch when they have a full 7th squad for a night. Everyone is quick to blame the inhouse squads for the inbalance in the game but no one wants to give the inhouse squads any cudos for when they do try and even the game out. __________________ TG-Drizzid Yifios Phoenix (87:55) Marble colony Danetia Menzo (86:55) Wine ColonyII Rayiatia Paradise (87:54) Sulfur

06-25-2006, 08:19 PM	#4 (permalink)
Lucky Shot Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,636	Re: Some ideas to chew on..... There are too many good people at TG who can combat most in house squads on an equal footing. You take a Sausage Maker Man and give him 5 TG regulars, that squad will be able to take on most objectives including in house squads. Smoking Tarpan would do the same. This is just a couple of determined, dependable squad leaders who can turn the course of battle that have no affiliation with an in house squad. Yes, we need to police ourselves. No, there is no problem with in house squadmates forming their own squad. Heck, I ramp up against an in house squad as I know that's the highest form of competition. Wildcat's thread serves as a solid reminder that in order for TG to continue to grow, we do need to police ourselves in order to deliver fun for everyone. Sometimes it's fun to take an underdog side against what should be stronger competition. I think we zoomed past a couple of Wildcat's points. Rotating CO's is a good thing as I don't like to CO that often and prefer to SL. However, I am committing to CO several times a week in order to take some pressure off the guys who CO all the time. In terms of rotating SL's through a squad, I don't think that most people enjoy SL'ing. Alhtough it doesn't happen as much, it used to be pretty common that after an SL drops, you start to notice that people start exiting and joining the squad in order to avoid being an SL. One of my struggles is to play under an SL who is still very new in the role. The SL is the backbone of the squad and is the key to whether prolonged attacks or defenses succeed. Most times I will form my own squads and try to make my own luck. In terms of swapping players every round, I don't have a problem with that. However, I do prefer to build a team through having the same players from round to round though. I agree that In House Squads should probably be split evenly between teams. Having said that, don't force them to have 6 guys from the 187th, 4th or 2nd on 6 different squads. Give me and other SL's a chance to push them off their objectives at full strength as I want to play against the best at their best. Lucky Shot

06-26-2006, 03:15 AM	#5 (permalink)
Santa Registered User Join Date: Jul 2005 Age: 18 Posts: 3,355	Re: Some ideas to chew on..... The only thing i hate seeing is a in house squad locking their squad without even having 6 people in it. Sure, i can understand if you are locking it because you know for a fact that someone in your in house team is joining. But often, youll see in house squads locking for an entire game with just 3, 4, or 5 people with no intention of filling the last spot with another of their own. Once you have all your in house squad mates together and your squad isnt full, unlock it and let anyone in. Otherwise, it smells of elitism and arrogance. This is a community after all. The in house squads have to respect the community and let others in, and i think the community needs to respect the in house squads as well and understand that they may get kicked (politely) from a squad to let in a late arriving in house member. To touch on the concept of in house squads unbalancing games, it could be possible. If you have the 7th and 12th on one side, or 12th and 33rd on one side, they are undoubtadly gonna win and probably by a blowout. Its up to the leaders of the squads to notice if one side is stacked with in house squads, and either adjust yourselfs or get an admin to adjust it. Heck, even if you arent in a in house squad and you notice 2 of them on one team, pipe up on TS and try to get an admin to intervene because they might not notice the unbalance.

06-26-2006, 04:21 PM	#9 (permalink)
thebleakaffinity Banned Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Boulder, Colorado Age: 20 Posts: 1,133	Re: Some ideas to chew on..... The biggest thing that bothers me is when someone who's a member of an in-house creates a single man locked squad because their in-house is full or they're stuck on the other team than their in-house. I understand that they're waiting to get in, but it won't kill you to play with some other people while you wait to get in.

06-26-2006, 04:57 PM	#10 (permalink)
RocketPunch Join Date: May 2006 Location: NY, USA Posts: 1,119	Re: Some ideas to chew on..... My 2 cents. I can see how its natural for in-house squad members to play together as, umm.., an in-house squad; and I've also witness people from in-house squads actively switching sides to try to balance the game out. Either way, I am alright with that. As for locking or unlocking squads. It is just that sometimes its kind of counter productive, strategywise, to see 2 non in-housers or even non TG regulars forced to form a squad (and try to make themself useful for the team), cause they have no where else to go. __________________ Slow is Smooth. Smooth is Fast!

06-26-2006, 05:59 PM	#13 (permalink)
thebleakaffinity Banned Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Boulder, Colorado Age: 20 Posts: 1,133	Re: Some ideas to chew on..... I'm not calling anyone out, and I think it's fine if it's truly temporary, say a minute or two until your old SL invites you back. In fact, in that case I think it's preferable to joining another squad half-heartedly and abandoning them instantly. But I've seen people set up single-man locked squads that last for half a round. If it's actually a temp squad then it's totally gravy, but anyone who lone-wolfs for an extended period of time, for any reason really, just comes across to me as kind of dickish, for lack of a better word.

06-26-2006, 07:33 PM	#14 (permalink)
Dick Blonov Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Bedlam! Age: 51 Posts: 3,246	Re: Some ideas to chew on..... My 2 CDN ¢. I ended up having to create a one man squad a few times. When you join up and there are 18 players in 3 squads, not much else you can do. However, I find it annoying when I have to do this and I see two or more 3-4 player locked squads. I'd rather play in an in house squad for a bit and be asked to leave than to be a «DefaultOneManShow». DB __________________ \|TG-6th\|Blonov «... buy a packet of cigarettes and a drink, guess how much they cost £6.66» A.WICKENS BattleField2 SOPs \| Teamspeak \| Server Rules and SOPs \| The 6th Devil's Brigade

06-27-2006, 02:19 PM	#15 (permalink)
wildcat2000 Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Pueblo, CO Age: 31 Posts: 517	Re: Some ideas to chew on..... Seems like some of you got to scrap on the subject. It's good to see. Hopefully the battles are doing better. __________________ Wii Friend Code: 2461 3356 1174 7015 SSBB Friend Code: 0774 3919 5622 MK Wii Friend Code: 5026 4824 0011

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

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
NS Source Ideas	Yer Mom	Natural Selection - General Discussion	38	09-01-2006 07:30 PM
Ideas to get Server #2 Populated	Shiner	Battlefield 2 - General Discussion	37	11-06-2005 11:55 AM

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links