Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NCO disscusion

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NCO disscusion

    Hi All

    We were having a discussion in the NCO forum and I wanted to post my thoughts here for all to see. Arrogant I know but I think it would be good for some of the newer players to see. Feel free to discuss and post your thought on the matter.

    I feel too many of us are too quick to go off and fight an alert just because everyone else wants the points. If we have a full platoon going on Friday nights and an alert comes up the only option the PL has is to do it or he loses half his platoon.

    At TG this should not happen!! Playing with like minded TG folks should be more enjoyable for us than running off to play a whack-a-mole alert for 2 hours to get a few points. I think we can play alerts and be effective in our own way. Too many in PL spots find they need to do what the NCFC wants instead of what is good for TG players. I'm all for co-ordination but not at the expense of TG fun. I and many others don't find jumping around the map by redeploying all night fun. I know.I know this is the most effective way to win alerts! We are not here to solely win alerts!!!!!!!

    My 2 cents kind of off topic but meh :-)

    Todd
    Discuss away.....
    sigpic


  • #2
    Re: NCO disscusion

    Are you sure the motivation is points?

    I mean, alerts are only what, a 20% boost for participation? That's nothing, especially considering you'll usually be giving up any population imbalance bonus XP.

    I know that personally it grinds my gears a little when there are outfits calling for reinforcements during an alert and my squad is back-capping some empty continent or sitting on a hill with 4000 resources worth of assets and no targets.

    I like playing as part of the TG team, but when TG isn't being a team player I feel kind of bad. Yes, if it is a prime-time tooth-and-nail alert and we're not doing anything I will often either find another squad or quit the game. That's my right.

    I'm not saying everybody should always do alerts. It's entirely your right as PL to decide whether or not to participate in an alert, but you shouldn't be judging the players who do want to participate in the alert if they leave. It'd be like calling out somebody who leaves a Reaver squad because they don't like flying.
    Teamwork and Tactics are OP


    Strait /strāt/ (Noun) A narrow passage of water connecting two seas or two large areas of water: "the Northumberland Strait".

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: NCO disscusion

      I think alerts lead to some of the best fights in the game. Everyone is playing to win, everyone is bringing their A game, and the fights are big, influential, and meaningful within the context of those two hours. There are exceptions: Bio Lab alerts figure prominently in my list of alerts that I try not to get too caught up in unless we can do the fighting on the outside of those labs, for instance. Alerts, though, bring the quality of play--and the upper level leadership coordination and teamwork--that bring some of the best fights in the game. Negotiating our own fun and own style of play into that is important, but I bring my platoons into alerts not for points or for fear of losing half my guys, but because alerts are the kinds of fights I want to be a part of.

      Also, most of the other continents become ghost caps unless it's a planet-wide alert or the population on the server has spiked, so there's also an element of "during an alert you participate or you ghost cap".



      Comment


      • #4
        Re: NCO disscusion

        I love that alerts bring on some of the biggest fights we see. When we field a platoon, or more, we can really put a hurting on our enemies with our real world tactics, communication, and teamwork.

        The only time I start hating alerts is when we do the 'whack-a-mole redeploy' game. Completely breaks the immersion for me.

        sigpic


        Comment


        • #5
          Re: NCO disscusion

          Originally posted by Strait Raider View Post
          Are you sure the motivation is points?--Not 100% no.

          I mean, alerts are only what, a 20% boost for participation? That's nothing, especially considering you'll usually be giving up any population imbalance bonus XP.

          I know that personally it grinds my gears a little when there are outfits calling for reinforcements during an alert and my squad is back-capping some empty continent or sitting on a hill with 4000 resources worth of assets and no targets.--These same people are often calling for reinforcements in the wrong places. I don't like us being at their beck and call when they sometimes don't know what they are talking about. I also like to team play but I want to make a difference with our assets not just add them to the grind. As for back capping I have been in multiple Platoons where the NCFU have been tasking TG with back capping instead of getting involved with the main fight because we are relatively small. This grinds my gears to no end when we are having fun and our PL decides to do what they want instead of what is best for TG's player base.

          I like playing as part of the TG team, but when TG isn't being a team player I feel kind of bad. Yes, if it is a prime-time tooth-and-nail alert and we're not doing anything I will often either find another squad or quit the game. That's my right.-- Yes it is your right. Totally agree with you. When we are playing together as a well functioning Tg Platoon we are always helping in some way.

          I'm not saying everybody should always do alerts. It's entirely your right as PL to decide whether or not to participate in an alert, but you shouldn't be judging the players who do want to participate in the alert if they leave. It'd be like calling out somebody who leaves a Reaver squad because they don't like flying.-- All I am saying is I would like to see more TG stay with the Platoon if the PL decides to not do an alert. I can't remember the last time a PL didn't do an alert. I don't think there would be a Platoon left if the PL decided to not do an alert.
          .
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: NCO disscusion

            Alerts are population-centric. Do you want a platoon on Esamir running around with very few people to fight?
            The whole point of alerts is to concentrate battles. Rally server populations in a more concentrated fashion to facilitate large battles.

            Also, you don't have to play whack-a-mole during an alert. (I don't like this myself). Instead, you can assign a front and stay there.

            I understand what people are saying, but I don't think not using wack-a-mole strategies works within the current game mechanics. As long as there is a re-deploy function, wack-a-mole will probably stay.

            I suppose the alternative is to choose a front and stay on that front if you are platoon strength. Then defend/push forward etc.

            If you want some serious and fun battles where re-deployment doesn't make sense, join armor and let blueberries cap.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: NCO disscusion

              I have been thinking about this a good bit and have come to the conclusion that much of this whack 'O' mole we do could likely be seen as against the Primer due the suicide rule. I would opinionate that a good 30% or more of our attempts in an alert are against forces that are superior in number, assets, and environmental advantages. However we do it anyway because it "supports" the alert. This is my opinion and it varies depending on many dynamics most notably the platoon and squad leaders personalities.

              Note that while I tried to provide an unbiased understanding, I do actually prefer not to play whack "O" mole.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: NCO disscusion

                I find that given a choice, I'll avoid participating in alerts. I have a hard time getting enough people together to have an impact anywhere, I don't want to deal my squad getting split up because of continent queues, having to figure out who has membership and who doesn't, keeping track of people's queue numbers. I always want to help the faction, of course, but I consider it more productive overall to keep my squad on the non-alert continent and go after strategic targets(make sure we own Sungrey Amp Station on Amerish, for example) than to waste 30 or 40 minutes trying in vain to get everybody across(I'm looking at you, Primetime Indar Territory Alert).

                Platoon size forces are a different consideration, of course. As much as I love QueueSide, I would feel equally bad about keeping a significantly-sized group away from the action. 8 to 12 people can probably still find something to do on the mostly-empty non-alert continents. 24 or more? Not so much....



                Oh my, I just had a thought... What if we could somehow give squads and platoons preferential treatment in continent queues? It would be wonderful to be able have a whole squad in queue as one chunk, so we could move together instead of piecemeal. "TG, party of 24? Your warpgate is ready!"


                A pilot who doesn't have any fear probably isn't flying his plane to its maximum. -Jon McBride, astronaut

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: NCO disscusion

                  I like the idea Daelon! But talking about the topic, a Pl orders should be final, it is MOSTLY his decision, because orders are orders. We might not feel that they are necessarily correct, but it does help to see what comes out of the decision before actually leaving. That means staying for maybe 10 -20 minutes and seeing if the situation is really enjoyable or not. Then you should be able to form a strong opinion.
                  Questions about those who deserve it!
                  "Remember, no survivors" -Myself and probably what explains my methods the most

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: NCO disscusion

                    The complete aversion to alerts is akin to having a game of Insurgency in Project Reality and playing solely to kill Insurgents, not to find or destroy the caches. For the extreme counterpoint, intentionally extreme to illustrate my point, I think it could be argued that ignoring the Alert in progress is wholly against the primer:

                    It is exploiting the obvious sandbox nature and lack of centralized command structure of a team within the game of PlanetSide to allow for what amounts to a large scale version of lone wolfing. If such randomized 'win-lose' conditions existed in Battlefield or Call of Duty or ArmA we'd consider any squad, fireteam, or platoon not working for such a goal as 'disobeying orders'.

                    Obviously this extreme stance is untenable in reality, there is no reason to expect TG to always partake in an Alert since TG could be actively in a training mission, a scenario event, a testing environment, stuck in queue, understrength or unwilling, etc. However, I posit this stance only to counter the equally untenable position that participating in Alerts is non-TG or somehow anti-primer. Frankly its absurd and counter-productive to approach Alerts with such a bureaucratic stance.


                    These same people are often calling for reinforcements in the wrong places. I don't like us being at their beck and call when they sometimes don't know what they are talking about.
                    This is a side-effect of a lack of central command. If PlanetSide2 had a CO feature like Battlefield does your opinion wouldn't matter; you'd do it to the best of your ability or to the extent that you are willing to follow orders. I find it a little bit unproductive to just write off Faction level teamwork because of anecdotal claims that what the other friendlies were asking for is in your opinion wrong. If its wrong or if you can't provide the exact support requested at least try to provide some support if capable.

                    I also like to team play but I want to make a difference with our assets not just add them to the grind.
                    No snowflake feels like they've made the blizzard.

                    As for back capping I have been in multiple Platoons where the NCFU have been tasking TG with back capping instead of getting involved with the main fight because we are relatively small. This grinds my gears to no end when we are having fun and our PL decides to do what they want instead of what is best for TG's player base.
                    Then be the PL. A chain of command always is present with or without working with the Faction as a whole. I know from many nights of PLing and COing that you can never please everyone so I don't care if I don't, I try to find the best balance between productivity and entertainment.

                    Yes it is your right. Totally agree with you. When we are playing together as a well functioning Tg Platoon we are always helping in some way.
                    Not if its a platoon on Esamir during an Amerish Amp Station alert.

                    All I am saying is I would like to see more TG stay with the Platoon if the PL decides to not do an alert. I can't remember the last time a PL didn't do an alert. I don't think there would be a Platoon left if the PL decided to not do an alert.
                    This might be a side-effect of not enough PLs/SLs. I see no problem with some TG members making a 'Non-Alert' squad/Platoon and others making an 'Alert' Squad/Platoon. The fact is that people will go where they want and where they can. No TG person wanting to do an alert will join the Non-Alert squad/Platoon and vice versa.

                    But none of what I've responded with is productive to trying to solve the inherent issue. The issue isn't about Alert participation or not its about finding a middle ground between the way we at TG like to play and what is needed of us in Alerts. If enough people in TG don't like whack-a-mole redeploys we don't have to do it that way. Okay so this means that we can't be so quick in response, this means that we might be at a strategic disadvantage even, but it doesn't mean that we can't have fun, that we can't aid our team, or that we are doomed to failure.

                    TG is horizontal in structure, as a result we have varying ways of approaching the tactics and strategy in PS. If this is a problem maybe we should try to enforce more agreeable strategies.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: NCO disscusion

                      Ytman you have provided an interesting perspective on the primer. However the game provides other ways to assist in an alert from other continents in the way of making assets less expensive by conquering continents. In my opinion this nullifies your aruement that direct support of an alert is required, especially when alert cont has ques. I hope SOE expands and adds more cross continent contributions.

                      My abstract thoughts on what puts us in the situation to debate this in the first place: SOE's motive is to create the big massive fights and wars that they advertise because it is their main selling point or niche in the genre of FPS. They got to make a buck, I get it. However this SOE motive is what drives many of the changes such as alerts that puts us in "TG primer vs game reality" conflict.

                      SOE says "Alert objective go, ill give cert candy!" Planetside masses based on consensus say "yes sir, we will mass hop faster and stronger then the enemy!" Sometimes TG PL's say "Now wait a minute, that may work but its zerg suicide, that's against our Primer!"

                      My point here is just because SOE decrees we should do something, doesn't mean it and/or blueberry consensus on how to achieve it is in TG's best interest.

                      If I stand with my TG and blueberry bretheren atop a cliff and SOE commands the factions to reach the bottom and our bueberry bretheren decide jumping off the cliff in order to reach the bottom objective is their plan of action, forgive me if I turn around to start the safe trek down the side with a path. I have no doubt that they will achieve the objective faster, but how you play the game is important to me, and the primer.

                      But I don't think I have heard of anyone completely writing off participating in alerts permanently, just the course of actions that most of our blueberry bretheren have chosen to achieve those objectives. I agree that a balance between the "TG way" and how we work within the "game reality" should be the goal. My take is: im not leading whack'O'mole zerg squads/Platoons. Will I follow leads that do? Perhaps but depending on my mood for the day, that time that I do will likely be less than it would have been in a squad that was not.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: NCO disscusion

                        I am personally opposed to "whack-o-mole" tactics as well, I've mentioned it before. There is an absolute lack of continuity in such strategies, it wastes loads of resources if deployables are snagged and ditched without consideration, and redeploying causes disruptions in squad cohesion and is a definite hit to morale, as those tactics rarely lead to the kind of success a TG member wants to achieve. It's the difference between pulling off a headshot at range and having an entire squad hose down a mountainside to get one man. The latter is more effective, but takes no skill.

                        The theory behind rapid redeploy tactics is to play the cap timer. The issue I have with this is that it's assuming the world ends at 00:00 on the alert. I have seen us give up strategically important bases simply because the cap timer showed we'd hold it until after the alert. Tactically an epic fail in the broader scope of the game. That's my opinion, I understand the opposing viewpoint, I simply find it tedious and far too BF3/4 for my taste.

                        I firmly believe that alert support can be achieved without zerging like a mindless herd of Universal Soldiers. To be honest, the last thing I would propose TG doing during an alert is infantry. I think a mixed armor and air role is a better choice, the mass of the NC will be pouring 1,000 lbs of squishies into a 10 lb box all over the map. Taking out enemy assets and spawn options would be extremely effective in a "He with the most men wins" game. Harasser squad for rapid AV nest deployment/relocation, a mix of air assets, and some AA/AI ground units.
                        MacKahan -- Mac-Kay-an In case you were curious. ;-)

                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: NCO disscusion

                          Originally posted by TonyMac View Post
                          Taking out enemy assets and spawn options would be extremely effective in a "He with the most men wins" game. Harasser squad for rapid AV nest deployment/relocation, a mix of air assets, and some AA/AI ground units.
                          I've always really liked this kind of thinking and I know for a fact that TG is capable of doing sort of 'outside-the-box' thing. Alert participation doesn't have to be on captures, a whole mess of battles can happen in between! Just instead of playing for territory or direct objectives in the Alerts we could play towards or against (for enemy) them.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: NCO disscusion

                            Originally posted by Ytman View Post
                            I've always really liked this kind of thinking and I know for a fact that TG is capable of doing sort of 'outside-the-box' thing. Alert participation doesn't have to be on captures, a whole mess of battles can happen in between! Just instead of playing for territory or direct objectives in the Alerts we could play towards or against (for enemy) them.
                            This is exactly what I am talking about TG doing more of instead of what people in the Command channel want us to do. ie: Get more people in the Bio Lab you Nubs!!!

                            I love being the asset denial squad/platoon and it is a super effective way to halt/hinder an enemy advance.
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: NCO disscusion

                              Originally posted by Toddshooter View Post
                              This is exactly what I am talking about TG doing more of instead of what people in the Command channel want us to do. ie: Get more people in the Bio Lab you Nubs!!!

                              I love being the asset denial squad/platoon and it is a super effective way to halt/hinder an enemy advance.
                              Yes.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X