This needs to stop! - Page 3

kittykatnub · 03-19-2008, 05:19 PM

Yeah, some trash talk can make the game a little better but as long as it's kept under control.

Right now with locked squads I'm seeing far too many of them myself, but with a chopper squad I think you should have it unlocked if all the other squads are full, it can be better for the players if they do not want to have the responsibility of SL. It's better to have some guys with a little coordination compared to lone wolfing.

**FrankManik** · 03-19-2008, 05:54 PM

Is it okay to switch teams if your team is pwning without much resistance and you want to go help the underdog?

**StevieRay** · 03-19-2008, 06:03 PM

Dirtboy is sexy when he types in bold.

I like it, thanks for this post.

Fenian420 · 03-19-2008, 06:22 PM

Can we get a sticky on this?

-Please still disallow people who cant land or even take off to be allowed to fly jets/helicopters though

-Still allow squads to be locked if groups are practicing teamwork (not just messing around and playing like normal teamplay but dedicated advanced teamwork) or if theirs a certain weapon (HAT, SniperRifle) that you and or buddy feel like using against enemy so long as they listen to other SLs and Comm.. (This just lets the weapon users to be more advanced in what theyre doing using markers, clear VOIP and ability to talk and communicate with commander...)

- = Questionable things,

**TheSkudDestroyer** · 03-19-2008, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankManik

Is it okay to switch teams if your team is pwning without much resistance and you want to go help the underdog?

ALWAYS.

**llPANCHOll** · 03-19-2008, 06:50 PM

I am in agreement with Dirt.
I am guilty of hogging the Engi Kit..
Oh wait.. thats not a limited kit.. guess im in the clear.

As far as the squad locking goes..
I remember when I first started playing on TG.. (not very long ago actually)
I would get very frustrated with the locked squads. And even now sometimes its a crapshoot to get into a squad with my IHS because they generally are opened up and not locked.. (luckily ive got a good ping) but sometimes I just dont make the click fast enough.

Im happy loosing, as long as Im loosing with my Buds, and its not against the 6th!!

**Dirtboy** · 03-19-2008, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tweaky

Hopefully can be answered soon:

I already answered it in my original post.

Quote:

4. Asset Hogs

Yes...we all know who they are. But I am not calling them out. All I am saying is share them. Who cares if you are an ub3r 1337 A-10 pilot. You don't have to fly them every single time Kashan comes on. Yesterday was the first time that I flew one, and I tell you what....I suck at them. But I learned alot of new things and had alot of fun. Just because you wear the |TG| tag does not meant that you get dibs on them. Just because you loaded in first made and locked a squad does not mean you get dibs on them. What I am trying to get at is that SHARE THEM. If a different clan wants them, let them have it. There is no use to throw a world class hissy fit if you don't get them. But at the same time the CO has the final say. What I am suggesting is try letting some NON-TG guys get these assets once in awhile.

**MarineSeaknight** · 03-19-2008, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenian420

-Please still disallow people who cant land or even take off to be allowed to fly jets/helicopters though

It's up to the commander. I've played with a commander once who did a fantastic job and controlled which squad used which assets (so that we would lose less assets through more unexperienced playing). I've also played with a commander that let any squad use any asset. Again, fantastic job, won the round.

If you see a player crashing a Huey everytime it spawns, I would just talk to the guy and tell him to learn to fly on a local server. Other than that, just give people a chance, man.

Amen on Dirtboy's Asset Hogging section. What's been happening reminds me of early vBF2 when clans would reserve aircraft and armor for only their clan members, which was before the ROE was in play/listened to of course.

JCTango · 03-19-2008, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirtboy

I already answered it in my original post.

With all due respect, the quoted portion of your post regarding asset hogging doesn't really answer what Tweaky was trying to ask, Dirt. I bolded the parts that puts the jist of what he wanted to say

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tweaky

Hopefully can be answered soon:

I have a question regarding specific squads when locking them.... and actually, I think this is part of the reason this whole thread has been posted, as CWSwitch seemed to believe otherwise with this matter, and I suppose sparked a lot of talk last night.

Regarding a specific locked squad... say a transport helo squad, is it perfectly fine to lock the squad once it is filled up and you will occupy all the equipment? I had created the squad last night on Jabal, hoping to get some invites going, and we certainly filled it up with THREE slots required to fly the helos. Now, I don't want to run this to the floor, but CWSwitch believed it should have been unlocked, and started giving us a hard time. However, it is my belief that there shouldn't be extra infantry in the helo/transport squad simply because that infantry can be put to better use elsewhere in an actual infantry squad. Not to mention, as per commander orders (fuzzhead), we were to coordinate helo transports with ground infantry squads. So my question is, if the squad is to be locked once it meets its cap/requirement of players to get the job done, is that OK? I mean, after all we are coordinating with troops and providing teamwork all around.... so I don't see what we did wrong.

I later unlocked it and soon had a 6/6 squad, and there were extra players in our helos that want to STAY in the helos and shoot at people and cover them... They did nothing the whole time, and while they wanted to go into battle with the helo to have a go at some shooting, they'd get shot down. Just a stupid tactic IMO. This also just led to having fewer seats in the helo for the mass amount of people we needed to transport, and just caused more problems/confusion than we really should have had.

Anyways, I agree on all the other points. Recently I've been taking a break here and there, like in your example, with the A10/SU and letting people fly it the whole round while I choose something else. It's nice to try other things for a change.

I've seen too many people switching teams when they are on the losing side. Though, it is funny when they do that, and the losing team has a huge comeback

.

Basically what I think he's trying to say is that since the infantry would be more effective in a different squad where they can set down rallies and such, shouldn't it make sense for people that are specialized in things like helo transport to lock their squads?

Unless, you're suggesting 6 man helo transport squads so that everyone in the squad has a chance at flying the chopper?

**YourMom.com** · 03-19-2008, 10:50 PM

i am fairly new here, so i don't want to steal your spotlight dirtboy. Just wanted to add one more thing. Usually, after a real one sided round, most of the people on the loosing team either leave the server, or switch teams, the teams then get even more stacked/one sided. I tend to usually be on the loosing side, or switch to it to even the teams out. but in most cases, i think more of the "better" players should switch to the team with less people because if/when the publics usually join, all the skilled players are left on the elite team that won the round before.

thanks for listening.

~ BMXer4life

P.S. my name is BMX.. not BOX.. i dont know why ppl in voip call me BOXer.. u can also just call me X. (onemanwrecking started that and it seems to be catching on) = )

**Dick Blonov** · 03-19-2008, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSkudDestroyer

AFAIK, the threshold for auto balance can be adjusted to example, 2 players or 4 players....

Gentleman, you may have seen in the past nights that alot of 10th and 6th have been on that I have challenged them to go to the opposite team as us in an attempt to make some newer players feel more welcome on each team.

I cannot deny that having lots of IHS' present on one team can be somewhat intimidating. But let it be known right now: we are nothing special. There are nights where none of us, (especially the 10th [in jest!]), cannot accomplish anything in game. There are nights where none of the Devils can even point a gun straight without killing our SL.

Tags did not make me or anyone else in the TG community a better player than any random player on our server. Dedication to communication and teamplay DID.

You are all capable of playing with the same amount of communication and teamplay that any IHS or fellow TG'er can put out in game.

So why would any of you ever switch to a side with more E1st, 6th, or 10th?

Someone, please +rep this man for me.

DB

Tweaky · 03-19-2008, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCTango

With all due respect, the quoted portion of your post regarding asset hogging doesn't really answer what Tweaky was trying to ask, Dirt. I bolded the parts that puts the jist of what he wanted to say

Basically what I think he's trying to say is that since the infantry would be more effective in a different squad where they can set down rallies and such, shouldn't it make sense for people that are specialized in things like helo transport to lock their squads?

Unless, you're suggesting 6 man helo transport squads so that everyone in the squad has a chance at flying the chopper?

Yeah that is basically the idea. It is the idea of having a locked squad with only a few people in the squad. Certainly not a one-man locked squad, but a squad that will serve specific role together, and needs no more than 2-4 people usually.

For example, these kinds of locked squads are:

Helo Transport squads = [2-4 players] Usually capped at how many helos are made available on the map, 1 player per helo.

Sniper squads = [2-4 players] Possibly 2 snipers, several marksman, spotters. Usually want a few people in the squad to not reveal the location.

Single tank/apc squad = [3 players] Driver, Gunner, Engineer -- maybe an extra player as a spotter or 4th engineer.

Demo/HAT squad = [2-3 players] C4, mines, etc... to have a specific role of destroying something.

By having these squads kept to the maximum required, it helps keeps comms direct and to a minimum, keeps useless extra infantry out of the squad and serving other roles they should fit in (e.g. fighting on the ground or whatnot). From personal experience, I don't mind keeping an infantry squad unlocked and letting people join in... the more the better I say. But when it comes down to specific roles, locking squads and coordinating as a small group where there need not be excess infantry, that should be OK I imagine.

From experience, having a group of 2 guys doing helo transport, and having the squad unlocked, you get a lot of extra infantry willing to join that don't necessarily want to fly, but just want to tag along in the helo or god knows what. Such infantry should be used to cap flags and fight on the ground... or else all you'll see on the map are small squads fighting for flags and struggling, that is not how it's done, clearly.

If other people want to fly a helo or plane, I have no problem with it. I used to try and get things right away in the beginning of the round, but now I'll wait, or even come to an agreement with other players that we take turns. Works out just fine that way. Sometimes they wont even be in our squad, so I ask that they join the specific squad we have running, to help with coordination with the commander.

Every now and then I'll be in a small squad like these, sometimes leading, and I see people complain that we won't let them in the squad. I'd then have to explain that we already have enough (than preferred) for whatever role we have. Some don't agree, but then again, those are the ones joining the server (late usually) with their hopes set on doing something right from the start.

Personally, I don't think it comes into question whether or not [TG] players should be reserving such roles (like your posts shows Dirtboy), because I don't see too much [TG] whoring to be honest. There usually is an equal amount of distribution for everyone, and if people don't get what they want, there isn't always a problem. I'd say, lately I've seen more people that AREN'T [TG] players using specific equipment while in the server. Could be anyone really.

**BigGaayAl** · 03-20-2008, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenian420

Can we get a sticky on this?

Might be a good idea.

Good post Dirtboy.

On the autobalancing; some of it is as much a problem of pr then TG. The imbalance often occurs because a losing team can have such a boring game, that they quit. This is understandable, as if your extrememly bored and frustrated experience shows that you do stupid things!

This is basically a problem TG can do nothing about, without leaving your own team everytime to switch to the losing team.

**YourMom.com** · 03-20-2008, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigGaayAl

This is basically a problem TG can do nothing about, without leaving your own team everytime to switch to the losing team.

this is exactly my point bigGaayAl.. I think some of the more veteran players should switch teams, not so much if the balance is only 1-2 guys, but late night, sometimes the teams get 6+ ppl off.. it would be nice to get a good veteran squad to the other team to even out the teams, as well as unstack them(cause usually, if one team is winning so much that the 6+ ppl leave, the teams are stacked).

~ BMXer4l1fe

**thegreatnardini** · 03-20-2008, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YourMom.com

this is exactly my point big.. I think some of the more veteran players should switch teams, not so much if the balance is only 1-2 guys, but late night, sometimes the teams get 6+ ppl off.. it would be nice to get a good veteran team to the other team to even out the teams, as well as unstack them(cause usually, if one team is winning so much that the 6+ ppl leave, the teams are stacked).

~ BMXer4l1fe

I remember you getting pretty upset that the teams were "stacked" on Jabal this evening. Who won that round again?

Teams can't be even 100% of the time, one side has to win and one side has to lose. Otherwise the game wouldn't be any fun, now would it?

03-19-2008, 05:19 PM	#31 (permalink)
kittykatnub Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 467	Re: This needs to stop! Yeah, some trash talk can make the game a little better but as long as it's kept under control. Right now with locked squads I'm seeing far too many of them myself, but with a chopper squad I think you should have it unlocked if all the other squads are full, it can be better for the players if they do not want to have the responsibility of SL. It's better to have some guys with a little coordination compared to lone wolfing. __________________ unlocks_r_emo / Pistolfied ~ xfire = pistolfied ~ PSN = Pistolfied ~ RED VS BLUE IS BACK. CHECK ROOSTER TEETH. WEWT!!!! ~ MGS 4 FTW

03-19-2008, 05:54 PM	#32 (permalink)
FrankManik Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 217	Re: This needs to stop! Is it okay to switch teams if your team is pwning without much resistance and you want to go help the underdog?

03-19-2008, 06:03 PM	#33 (permalink)
StevieRay Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: CT, USA Posts: 384	Re: This needs to stop! Dirtboy is sexy when he types in bold. I like it, thanks for this post. __________________

03-19-2008, 06:22 PM	#34 (permalink)
Fenian420 Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Seattle Posts: 853	Re: This needs to stop! Can we get a sticky on this? -Please still disallow people who cant land or even take off to be allowed to fly jets/helicopters though -Still allow squads to be locked if groups are practicing teamwork (not just messing around and playing like normal teamplay but dedicated advanced teamwork) or if theirs a certain weapon (HAT, SniperRifle) that you and or buddy feel like using against enemy so long as they listen to other SLs and Comm.. (This just lets the weapon users to be more advanced in what theyre doing using markers, clear VOIP and ability to talk and communicate with commander...) - = Questionable things, Last edited by Fenian420; 03-19-2008 at 06:23 PM. Reason: Clarifying

03-19-2008, 06:50 PM	#36 (permalink)
llPANCHOll Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Oklahoma City, Ok Age: 37 Posts: 883	Re: This needs to stop! I am in agreement with Dirt. I am guilty of hogging the Engi Kit.. Oh wait.. thats not a limited kit.. guess im in the clear. As far as the squad locking goes.. I remember when I first started playing on TG.. (not very long ago actually) I would get very frustrated with the locked squads. And even now sometimes its a crapshoot to get into a squad with my IHS because they generally are opened up and not locked.. (luckily ive got a good ping) but sometimes I just dont make the click fast enough. Im happy loosing, as long as Im loosing with my Buds, and its not against the 6th!! __________________ THE PICKENS PLAN - DO IT FOR THE HOTTIES 10th Tactical Guard Server Rules and SOP \| Kicked? Banned? READ THIS FIRST! \| Contact an Admin Expand your gaming horizons-TGU \| Nominate your teammates for a ribbon ¡IM WATCHING YOU ON BFR!

03-19-2008, 10:50 PM	#40 (permalink)
YourMom.com Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 9	Re: This needs to stop! i am fairly new here, so i don't want to steal your spotlight dirtboy. Just wanted to add one more thing. Usually, after a real one sided round, most of the people on the loosing team either leave the server, or switch teams, the teams then get even more stacked/one sided. I tend to usually be on the loosing side, or switch to it to even the teams out. but in most cases, i think more of the "better" players should switch to the team with less people because if/when the publics usually join, all the skilled players are left on the elite team that won the round before. thanks for listening. ~ BMXer4life P.S. my name is BMX.. not BOX.. i dont know why ppl in voip call me BOXer.. u can also just call me X. (onemanwrecking started that and it seems to be catching on) = )

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links