Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Commander

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

  • Commander

    So there is no commander option in BF3 sadly, however this does not mean there cannot be team wide coordination. I just wanted to start some dialog about how that best can happen.

    So I am going to assume that VOIP is on the squad level. Because frankly that is where I think it should be as that creates the best team work. If you have it on the team level then people do not speak up enough as they do not want to say something that is not relevant to the whole team. So coordinating in squad is not necessarily an issue but coordinating between squads is. This can become especially apparent on conquest maps where a flag might flip and then all the sudden you have 4 squads moving for it and none left defending (or similar situations)

    So I could see two solutions.

    1) Someone is nominated, self appointed, forced into being CO which can then give general orders to squads. It will not be on the level of the other BF games but it will at least keep 4 squads from going after the same flag.

    2) Squad leaders can all talk to each other and then figure out what they want to do for their squad. This is not as organized as having a CO but it is a lot more fluid and natural as you don't have to go through the awkward process of getting a CO in a game that is not designed to have a CO. So in this case a flag might flip and two squad leaders announce they are taking it so other squads might decide to hang back, knowing that others are taking it.

    I am kinda in favor of #2 because, as I mentioned, it is a little more fluid. And the problem with 4 squads attacking 1 flag is that no squad really knows what the other is doing. So just knowing what other squads intend to do would help a lot in terms of coordination. As far as how to make it happen? I am hoping that battlelog squad VOIP happens. That way it frees up TS to be used by squad leaders to communicate. In game chat takes too long and is too easily missed to be of value I think.

  • #2
    Re: Commander

    My comments apply only to 64p conquest.

    There are no squad leaders or commanders in BF3. I don't think we should try to force that structure on people or assume we all agree that putting them in the game is desirable.

    When people try to take on the role of commander in BF3beta or in bc2 I often find it presumptuous and annoying. If there was a CO position designated in the game that would be fine, otherwise I think announcing what your squad is doing, giving good sitreps, and offering an occasional suggestion to the rest of the squads is effective and fun. When someone tries to tell me or the squad I am in what to do without having any authority or consent to do so it usually offends me.

    At the team level a self organized approach works better for gaming because it is more fun to have the freedom to make your own choices. A clear chain of command is an effective way to accomplish large complex tasks, but it is not really much fun when you are playing some games.

    Similarly, there are no designated squad leaders in BF3. If we are able to lock our squads and invite only those that agree to designate a person as leader then I would have less of a problem with it. If all squad members want to have someone lead the squad that is up to them. But please don't just walk into a squad someone is in and start trying to take over as squad leader without first asking each squad member if that is OK. Most of the time self organized squad work great. Someone says, "lets go for checkpoint Delta." then the squad says, "yeah." and it works. I am pretty happy with that system.

    1. Teamspeak squad channels for 64 player conquest.
    2. Teamspeak whisper lists on the fly for anyone willing. Ask before you set up a whisper, please check with the person you are whispering.
    3. No CO unless we are playing a scrim and everyone knows that there is a chain of command beforehand and agrees to play it that way.
    4. Battlelog VOIP is no go for me since I shut my browser down after launching game.
    5. Teamwide text chat to communicate squad objectives.

    “Up, sluggard, and waste not life; in the grave will be sleeping enough!” Benjamin Franklin

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Commander

      Originally posted by sc1ence View Post
      Similarly, there are no designated squad leaders in BF3. If we are able to lock our squads and invite only those that agree to designate a person as leader then I would have less of a problem with it.
      There are squadleaders...they have the star next to their name, there was a bug in beta that after a round it would disappear but they were there some of the time.

      Also you can lock / kick members (not sure about invite)

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Commander

        If there are Squad leaders in game then awesome. disregard my comments RE squad-leaders then.

        “Up, sluggard, and waste not life; in the grave will be sleeping enough!” Benjamin Franklin

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Commander

          Originally posted by sc1ence View Post
          My comments apply only to 64p conquest.

          There are no squad leaders or commanders in BF3. I don't think we should try to force that structure on people or assume we all agree that putting them in the game is desirable.

          When people try to take on the role of commander in BF3beta or in bc2 I often find it presumptuous and annoying. If there was a CO position designated in the game that would be fine, otherwise I think announcing what your squad is doing, giving good sitreps, and offering an occasional suggestion to the rest of the squads is effective and fun. When someone tries to tell me or the squad I am in what to do without having any authority or consent to do so it usually offends me.

          At the team level a self organized approach works better for gaming because it is more fun to have the freedom to make your own choices. A clear chain of command is an effective way to accomplish large complex tasks, but it is not really much fun when you are playing some games.

          Similarly, there are no designated squad leaders in BF3. If we are able to lock our squads and invite only those that agree to designate a person as leader then I would have less of a problem with it. If all squad members want to have someone lead the squad that is up to them. But please don't just walk into a squad someone is in and start trying to take over as squad leader without first asking each squad member if that is OK. Most of the time self organized squad work great. Someone says, "lets go for checkpoint Delta." then the squad says, "yeah." and it works. I am pretty happy with that system.

          1. Teamspeak squad channels for 64 player conquest.
          2. Teamspeak whisper lists on the fly for anyone willing. Ask before you set up a whisper, please check with the person you are whispering.
          3. No CO unless we are playing a scrim and everyone knows that there is a chain of command beforehand and agrees to play it that way.
          4. Battlelog VOIP is no go for me since I shut my browser down after launching game.
          5. Teamwide text chat to communicate squad objectives.
          Your points on the CO role are well taken but I disagree about SLs. The game includes a SL position for each squad. I will not be running my squads by congress. If you join a squad I lead then I expect you to spawn with the squad, move on objectives I designate and bring a kit layout that I request if I request something specific. Similarly, if I join a squad I expect the SL to provide leadership to the squad. There's no worse feeling than being with TG members in a squad and nobody is talking and everybody is off doing their own thing.

          I expect that overall team strats will be done on-the-fly by either the entire team or by squad leaders, dependent on how we setup teamspeak. I hope, but don't expect, that if a strat is agreed upon by SLs in TS that all SLs party to the plans will act on it properly and not lonewolf their squad.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Commander

            I am not going to ninja edit my post - but yeah, I was wrong. There are SLs in the game. Follow the SL orders and we are good. If the SL wants to run it by committee, it is their call. Frankly I am quite pleased. I love the SL role, but not having it designated in game like in BC2 makes it awful.

            Back on topic, the role of CO.

            “Up, sluggard, and waste not life; in the grave will be sleeping enough!” Benjamin Franklin

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Commander

              Tactical Gamer requires players to follow the orders of their squad leaders and/or their commander. Failure to follow orders can result in removal from the server. To avoid any conflicts, make sure that you communicate with the commanding officer.
              From the Rules which are generic across ALL of TG. As there is no official CO role, that can be skipped, but I think a general consensus can always be reached, no need to go getting offended if someone asks you to do something Science, that's the way many people in this community do things, not presumptuous, just organised. :)

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Commander

                Originally posted by Jeepo View Post
                From the Rules which are generic across ALL of TG. As there is no official CO role, that can be skipped, but I think a general consensus can always be reached, no need to go getting offended if someone asks you to do something Science, that's the way many people in this community do things, not presumptuous, just organised. :)
                Asking is fine - ordering me around without consent is not. :) SL role is in, SLs order peeps around and kick if they disobey. Co role is not in the game, there is no CO unless it is put in by TG rule.

                “Up, sluggard, and waste not life; in the grave will be sleeping enough!” Benjamin Franklin

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Commander

                  Originally posted by sc1ence View Post
                  Asking is fine - ordering me around without consent is not. :) SL role is in, SLs order peeps around and kick if they disobey. Co role is not in the game, there is no CO unless it is put in by TG rule.
                  Yeah now THAT I get! :)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Commander

                    I don't think we'll be able to artificially implement a CO...If we can get the SL's to talk to each other I am sure we can get things to work out fine in game without one.

                    Drawing from my experience from 2142, there were certain people that liked be leaders, and were good at it...these people got handed SL positions whenever they joined a squad. I imagine something similar will happen with BF3, if player X gets a reputation for being a good at organizing the other squads the SL's will listen to that persons instructions.

                    I see the only real problem is (like science described) when someone comes in and orders other squads around. I think the default rule is SL's take care of their own squads and everything else are "suggestions" and not "orders"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Commander

                      Ya all that has been said above has is pretty much how I feel as well. Maintaining a CO would just be plain awkward. Assuming VOIP works in game/battlelog I would like to see a nice precedence set for Squad leaders joining the SL channel in team speak so they can communicate. I just fear something like BC2 happening where you either get the whole team on 1 channel and little talking happens or you get splinter groups that just do their own thing because there is no establish way to coordinate.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Commander

                        With 8 SL's per side, we'll need one or two SL's to step up and coordinate on the private SL-radio channel. I guess we'll have to figure out SOP for resolving conflict, but I'm not too worried about it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Commander

                          Didnt other Battlefield titles allow anyone to take over the role of commander? It was not a role appointed to anyone, it was not done by popular vote, even if we could vote to impeach the commander. At that point we would just take their orders with good faith. Even if we didnt agree with them, we still follow the orders of those in charge, it is a fact of life.

                          I am not saying that we have to bend over and take what ever the man in charge says as fact. It is quite feasible to inform the commander what the squad's intentions were, and they usually would adjust their tactics to fit that role into the plans. If my squad was defending the Lumbermill for the round, it would be silly to pull us off to attack the Church and leave the Lumbermill open for a flanking attack. We could easily push up to support the attack from distance, but our standing order was to keep the Lumbermill from being flanked and lost. But just blowing off others who are taking charge of a round is just silly and goes against the mature teamwork that I assumed TG was all about. If Lancer had asked all of us to pull off the Hill and attack the Checkpoint I would have done so, I wouldnt agree with the tactic, but I would follow and support his choices and move with the rest of the team. I certainly didnt agree with all the tactics conceived on the ArmA servers, but if someone was taking charge I would follow them. I have definitely lead my squad to its demise on more than one occasion in all the game titles I have played.

                          Even though there was no commander in BC2, there were some times that players would try to take command and try to get the team to work in an orderly fashion. Of course it was not really followed... yet when Britt issued orders through TS that we should take this or defend that, I would do so. During the last weekend of the beta there were often times we would decide which flags we should keep and defend on Caspian at the beginning of the round. Of course without everyone following those requests, we had people pushing on other flags, leaving others weak and open to assault which usually resulted in loosing them.

                          It was quite obvious after the first couple rounds that Hilltop was the key to the map and the eventual win or loss of a round. As with 90% of multiplayer maps there is a key point to the map that results in a higher win/loss ratio. It was mentioned many times in TS that we need to keep that flag, and worked out well when it was kept. From that vantage point we could easily keep Forest and defend from assaults from the Checkpoint. Taking back the Hill is really tough once the enemy has dug in there. Keeping and defending the Gas Station at the same time as the Hill and Forest eliminates a lot of flow of attack from that side. Meaning that focus can be concentrated on the No Mans Land's side of the map. It is always easier to defend than to attack a flag, especially one that has such a great vantage point of the surrounding area. As I keep saying in the BC2 server, fighting on 2 fronts is always a losing battle. It is part of the Art of War. If you cut the battlefield in half and create a line of defense it is much easier on everyone concerned.

                          Yeah I know, I am a bit off topic. It just seems silly that some are looking at taking orders from some snot-nosed kid who is not in my squad as an insult to your gameplay abilities. I am definitely not pointing any fingers as I have seen this before, not just here at TG.
                          theeANGELofDEATH(Steam/Origin)
                          E Pluribus Unum
                          Sarcasm is just another free service I offer
                          Si vis pacem, para bellum .. Molon Labe

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Commander

                            I personally do not mind taking orders either. But the main problem with it in BF3 is that making someone a CO is just not going to happen smoothly. It was hard enough getting someone to CO in 2142 / BF2 sometimes. So even if it some how happened at the launch I see the practice eventually dying off. However if we build an infrastructure to support a SL channel I can see that being sustained.

                            Then maybe we have a suggestive squad leader role :P if someone if feeling particularly leaderly they can suggest to other squad leaders where to shift attention.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Commander

                              You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ANGELofDEATH again.
                              A very nice post mate.

                              Then maybe we have a suggestive squad leader role :P if someone if feeling particularly leaderly they can suggest to other squad leaders where to shift attention.
                              This will happen naturally. If it does, then as per the TG philosophy and rule set I would expect that person to be respected and his "orders" to be followed. If that rule gets enforced in BF3 like it is in other games here, you have to follow the orders. As angelofdeath mentioned I too have had to bravely lead my squad to death, charging open fields into machine gun fire, knowing it would end rather unwell for me. But I still did it as they are the rules, and that is the chain of command. That way the commander learns from his decision. You can "advise" him of the situation, but he commands. Now if he is doing it intentionally then that can be addressed, but he learns through adversity, as do we all. I would be disappointed to think that someone at TG would openly ignore a CO's order because the game didn't implement it so it doesn't count. If TG goes that way (no clue if they will) then it has to be done.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X