Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Amendment to asset rule?

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

  • Amendment to asset rule?

    3c. Vehicle assets may be assigned to a specific squad only through the orders of the commanding officer. If there is no commanding officer, vehicle assets are available on a first-come, first-serve basis.
    It seems like people more and more see this rule as an excuse to lonewolf certain armor and air assets in two-man locked squads, which undermines teamwork the general effectiveness of the team. It's one thing on the smaller maps where these assets mainly serve as supporting units and can fulfill their role by themselves, but it can be a major issue on the big maps where they're an essential part of the teams core. Having all the tanks (or whatever else) rolling around on their own hunting for kills is problary fun for the crew, but it rarely helps the team as a whole in the long run. Not to mention that you lose a lot of assets simply because they get caught alone and then outgunned. So the way I see it, there's both a gameplay and realism issue here. It's a gameplay issue because it doesn't promote teamwork or the enjoyment of playing togheter in a armor or air formation, and it's a realism issue because these assets never work alone in real combat, especially not if they're going up against enemy armor or air units (as far as I know).

    I wouldn't suggest going back (?) to the old asset rule(s), but it should definetly be amended to require teamwork and cooperation from the players.

  • #2
    Re: Amendment to asset rule?

    Im not dismissing your concerns but the quick solution, and the most realistic from us Admin's perspective to enforce, is for you to step up and CO and you can assign the assets as you see fit. I respectfully suggest the rules are fine as they are now.

    |

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Amendment to asset rule?

      Going back? Old rules? I think we've always ran it this way, at least as far back as I can remember, and that's an awful long time.
      Skud


      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Amendment to asset rule?

        Yea, it's always been first come first serve. I did use the CO power yesterday to make both Kiowa squads on Kokan get their act together.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Amendment to asset rule?

          Well, this suggestion is sort meant to complement that rule and provide some framework when there is no CO (which is too often). If there's no CO from the start that sits through the whole round, it's difficult for anybody who takes the spot mid-round to organize things because the assets will most likely be so spread out between the squads already. So this would also help the CO get things togheter.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Amendment to asset rule?

            I would ask a few questions:

            1) Are you proposing a squad-must-be-named-for-asset change to the rule?
            2) Who says that a squad named "Apache" in a 2-man locked squad will be any more or less apt to coordinate with their team (pick a method of communication - doesn't matter) than a squad named "Bravo" that is also a 2-man locked squad with the apache?

            "You milsim guys are ruining the game."

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Amendment to asset rule?

              Not really, since the only person higher in the food chain than the CO in terms of capability to order people around in-game is an admin, it's pretty easy to say "We're going to take a few minutes to consolidate our assets and holdings. Everybody listen up for your assignments..."

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Amendment to asset rule?

                To communicate with people not in your squad:

                1) SL mumble channel

                2)Team chat

                3)SL radio markers on the map

                Only rarely have all 3 failed me and it was usually when trying to contact certain regular infantry SLs.
                |TG-12th| Namebot

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Amendment to asset rule?

                  Insofar as votes count in this, I vote no, the rules are fine as is and teamwork is created by the players, not ordered by the admin.
                  There are servers out there where the admins micromanage assets if that is to your taste.
                  You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to,
                  So that when they turn their backs on you,
                  You'll get the chance to put the knife in.Pink Floyd "Dogs"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Amendment to asset rule?

                    Originally posted by d1sp0sabl3H3r0 View Post
                    I would ask a few questions:

                    1) Are you proposing a squad-must-be-named-for-asset change to the rule?
                    2) Who says that a squad named "Apache" in a 2-man locked squad will be any more or less apt to coordinate with their team (pick a method of communication - doesn't matter) than a squad named "Bravo" that is also a 2-man locked squad with the apache?
                    #1: No. But of course it's always helpful to indicate what your squad is doing.
                    #2: Not me. What I'm proposing is that players shouldn't be allowed to use assets in a purely egotistical or inconstructive manner. Of course, what defines that varies from map to map and situation to situation. For example, on maps like Fallujah or Muttrah single armor squads can be useful as long as they work with infantry and provide the support they're meant for. But on Silent Eagle or Kashan Desert it's not useful having a bunch of single armor squads that all have different goals and ideas on how to do stuff, because they do work best in numbers on those maps.
                    Originally posted by Namebot View Post
                    To communicate with people not in your squad:

                    1) SL mumble channel

                    2)Team chat

                    3)SL radio markers on the map

                    Only rarely have all 3 failed me and it was usually when trying to contact certain regular infantry SLs.
                    Communication is not the issue here, it's organization. Everybody can be using all three of those, but if they're not in the same squad it means that they don't have a common leader.


                    To clarify, I'm not suggesting an absolute rule that would completely replace the current one(s), just a guideline to improve teamwork.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Amendment to asset rule?

                      Thats what we have a CO spot for.

                      If no one is willing to do that then you have to make compromises with the other squads on your team and come to a decision on how to coordinate.

                      Regular everyday rounds are not expected to be scrim quality organization. People are going to experiment with different tactics/strategy, try out new roles that they might suck at and generally be a bit more loose.




                      If you have some particular situations in mind that you think you have developed quality group tactics for and would like to share, I'd love to see a strategy writeup or an outline. I know that whenever I do vehicles I lock it at one vehicle if I usually end up with someone(s) I am unfamiliar with because I have a hard time explaining basics and answering the flood of questions that usually accompany the experience while maintaining any sort of combat effectiveness.
                      |TG-12th| Namebot

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Amendment to asset rule?

                        Originally posted by d1sp0sabl3H3r0 View Post
                        2) Who says that a squad named "Apache" in a 2-man locked squad will be any more or less apt to coordinate with their team (pick a method of communication - doesn't matter) than a squad named "Bravo" that is also a 2-man locked squad with the apache?
                        Points for knowing it's an apache. Of course the opposite is true if it's actually a havok. So I would say it's pretty circumstantial.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Amendment to asset rule?

                          Originally posted by Farks View Post
                          #2: Not me. What I'm proposing is that players shouldn't be allowed to use assets in a purely egotistical or inconstructive manner. Of course, what defines that varies from map to map and situation to situation. For example, on maps like Fallujah or Muttrah single armor squads can be useful as long as they work with infantry and provide the support they're meant for. But on Silent Eagle or Kashan Desert it's not useful having a bunch of single armor squads that all have different goals and ideas on how to do stuff, because they do work best in numbers on those maps.

                          Communication is not the issue here, it's organization. Everybody can be using all three of those, but if they're not in the same squad it means that they don't have a common leader.


                          To clarify, I'm not suggesting an absolute rule that would completely replace the current one(s), just a guideline to improve teamwork.
                          What are you suggesting then? To me, determining if someone else is using an asset in a constructive manner geared toward the good of the team as opposed to egotistical or nonconstructive is highly subjective. Who would arbitrate that decision, the admins?

                          Just to play devil's advocate: What if the only admin on was on the team opposite the asset? Wouldn't that look a little suspicious?

                          Mainly, though, while I agree in principal that people shouldn't waste assets, determining if they truly are or not is a tough call at times. I cannot think of how we could begin to construct some type of ruling that would be fair and objective on this, but it certainly is ok to say that behavior not constructive to the team isn't really welcomed on our server so people can get the hint, but anything short of people outright violating rules or griefing the server can't really get admins involved.

                          "You milsim guys are ruining the game."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Amendment to asset rule?

                            The larger maps NEED a co. The uav is so important to feed armor intelligence its not even funny. I think here would be a good time to make a pledge to CO every 25 rounds. If every player would do that no game would be CO less. Then you can form effective squads an put a halt on single tanks taking on 3 tanks.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Amendment to asset rule?

                              it's difficult for anybody who takes the spot mid-round to organize things because the assets will most likely be so spread out between the squads already

                              The entire game is difficult. If the assets are spread out then use whats there to the best of your ability and build it forward from there.
                              Pub games are usually simply about the weakest link ie. abandoning flags, etc

                              Im not a fan of we must have all the tanks in one squad and it must be labelled tank or its obviously bad tactics. There is no obvious, the game would be boring if it were this straight forward simple

                              I'd much rather see a rule that discounts the same person losing the same asset continually. If a tank crew loses the tank they should rotate to infantry in my view at least for 1 vehicle spawn cycle.
                              That way it'd encourage better use I think, of course there is bad luck but the entire game is an uphill struggle and thats why its a good game


                              If you find yourself in a fair fight, then you have obviously failed to plan properly.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X