Why is it whenever a bunch of new players enter the scene, these 'teamwork' debates always start up? Do any of you think that there is a logical connection between the release of a new patch, an influx of new players, and issues with teamwork (or our version of 'teamwork')?

 

WHY DO WE HAVE TO FREAK OUT EVERY TIME A NEW PATCH COMES OUT?

 

What lessons have we learned from previous patch releases? Can we handle change or are we losing patience? Have we become a clique?

 

Your thoughts?

Edited June 26, 200915 yr by system-zero@iinet.net.au

he he ^-^ no need for thread as obviously not, probably should keep this to the teamwork threads. Vis did say he was leaving the thread open to stop this sort of stuff popping up everywhere

I guess the reactions just come from frustration no matter how minor or major it is (kind of like the frustration you have that compelled you to make this thread) - well...assuming you're frustrated since you CAPS'd:

 

WHY DO WE HAVE TO FREAK OUT EVERY TIME A NEW PATCH COMES OUT?

 

I used to freak out but resisted the urge to thread it until i got over it and knew it'd just be a vicious cycle

This is about the history of patch releases, and our reactions to each release.That's what I hoped it would be about anyway.

 

Very true scrim. I often freak out at people's reactions to things. What you don't see is my own reactions to me freaking out at the reactions of others. I then often freak out at those also.

 

But I get your point. I guess it's just repetitive behaviour.

Edited June 26, 200915 yr by chambersAUS

The "teamwork issues" have been ongoing since 0.85 when PR was given large amounts of public advertisement thanks to EA.

 

0.86 was not the catalyst and the "teamwork issues" have not changed since 0.86

Aestabjoo, I think you are probably right there. The commanders role should've been made a lot more prominent in this patch. I am bitterly disappointed it wasn't. I guess now it's a different kind of game.

If it was brought back to it's former glory (a field commander) I would love it. Nothing is worse than being cooped up for a round. Don't try argue with the DEVs on this one though, I doubt it will change - regardless of all the right reasoning in the world (not Chuc and Ancient - other Devs)

If it was brought back to it's former glory (a field commander) I would love it. Nothing is worse than being cooped up for a round. Don't try argue with the DEVs on this one though, I doubt it will change - regardless of all the right reasoning in the world (not Chuc and Ancient - other Devs)

 

+1 Ryza, I used to love commanding and I didn't think I did a particularly shabby job either.

A commander who is out and about in the field and can kick a sl if they are not following orders. Now thats an interesting idea. Think of how many current issues many people have with the current flow of gameplay that would fix.

:hi:

I was disappointed a long time before the commander was confined to

his UAV truck/command post that he got no kills registered - which when

he is fighting for his life for whatever reason at least lets the team know

he is also getting his boots dirty.

 

There has always been an inflow of muppets with each patch. There always

will be.

 

If command posts and commander sequestration are necessary in the mod - perhaps the notion of a

deployable mobile command post wouldn't be too bad an idea.

 

Blah.

A commander who is out and about in the field and can kick a sl if they are not following orders. Now thats an interesting idea. Think of how many current issues many people have with the current flow of gameplay that would fix.

:hi:

 

sandy i often receive orders from a commander that i do not comply with for many reasons , i would hate to think i would be able to be kicked by a commander for not following orders , once again it comes down to personal opinion and as this is a GAME there is no penalties for doing so .

I also blame the prevelance of locked squads these days.... back in the good 'ol days there was none of this so new players were taken under the wing of regs more so learnt the bigD way a lot quicker.... Now there are locked squads there are less reg sql's to go around the newer players who are forced to fend for themselves.

The "teamwork issues" have been ongoing since 0.85 when PR was given large amounts of public advertisement thanks to EA.

 

Yeah I would look allot further back then that probably all the way to 0.5 right around the time BigD became a little stronger in the numbers. It being said before and someone will say it again PR has a steep learning curve and new players need time and a helping hand to learn how to best play it.

being able to kick a SL as commander is a good idea until you get a commander who doesnt know what he is doing, which cant be stopped. You should always follow commander orders, but you can try to convince him otherwise through communication and if he still doesnt agree you still have to follow his orders...even to your death, because you dont know if that tactic mighthelp the other squad complete the objectives.

 

Champsky, as a SL dont you want everyone in your squad to follow your orders?? if not they get kicked?? no different for the commander and his SLers.

 

I would def be commander a lot, even if i had to stay in the command post, because you would actually be influencing the battle, which is what the main role of a commander is and it would be much mroe enjoyable.

 

I wouldn't want to kick SLers but it means that they would follow my orders, or at least listen to me in fear of being kicked if they dont try and help the team.

you are obviously a control freak , because one man has a tactic does not make it gospel nor does that mean all squad leaders must follow them , that is taking it over the top .

 

being commander now means youre stuck in a box and really have not that much of an idea what is happening in the battle bar from squad positions and intel from squad leaders , therefore as a commander i would think that listening to your squad leaders instead of barking out orders like mr high and mighty would be fore more proactive .

Edited June 27, 200915 yr by Jthn

So that not how it works in the regular army?? and i am aware this is just a game, but a game that is trying to be very close to how the army would do it. Otherwise there is a game called bf2 if you want just a game.

 

The commander is not going to get it right everytime but you learn from your mistakes so you dont make them again...hopefully.

 

A control freak would be bad, but if they are bad at the job they wont keep doing it. I am way more democratic, if i ask someone to do something and they give me a reason not too or a better idea i will listen and judge their opinion fairly, whether i take theiradvice or stick with mine.

 

being commander now means youre stuck in a box and really have not that much of an idea what is happening in the battle bar from squad positions and intel from squad leaders , therefore as a commander i would think that listening to your squad leaders instead of barking out orders like mr high and mighty would be fore more proactive .

 

lol

Edited June 27, 200915 yr by chambersAUS

so as commander that gives you the right to tell people how they should be playing the game or face the consequences , i am aware of what happens in the real army more than you would ever know .

I understand champsky, giving the power of kicking squads to the commander would be crazy, considering anyone can go commander and they arn't always necessarily good.

so as commander that gives you the right to tell people how they should be playing the game or face the consequences , i am aware of what happens in the real army more than you would ever know .

 

Being commander, IMO, allows the team to be able to communicate what each squad is doing and what is happening on the battlefield.

 

I'll give you an example. Setting up an attack,as US, on West City on old Ejod format.

 

There are 3 squads attacking that position. With out communictaion they could be attacking from any where, mostly from the S, SE as US.

 

In the commander role I would ask 1 squad to stay behind the rocks and sand dunes to the S of the flag and shoot/nade at the defenders on the flag, while also throwing smoke on the SW side of the flag area.

 

This creates a diversion as well as allowing the other 2 squads to flank the W side of the flag. Once past the big building to the W, I would send one squad to attack the flag area while the other squad sets up a defence on the N of the flag to stop MEC soldiers coming in from the N, NE and NW.

 

As the squad is attacking the MEC guys that are busy shooting at the squad in the S, it gives the opportunity for the squad in the S to move up so you clear out the flag from the NW and S.

 

This will not always be a success and by watching the battle unfoldon his commmand screen, and from what the SL are telling him he can quickly change the mode of atttack, retreat or defend what ground was made.

 

Asking a SL in the battle to be able to this would be very difficult and without a commander it would be imppossible.

 

So in all, what I would actually TELL people what to do isn't much different to what they were doing anyway, just more organised and they know that the other squads are doing things to help them achieve the objective instead of everyone trying to do evverything by them selves.

Edited June 27, 200915 yr by tomg101

No real motivation to have a commander is SL's arent going to listen, A good CO has a strategy and knows what he needs his squads to do to reach his goal.

He also knows that some of the time the team/squads wont do what is required ie; help build a FB so he has to get his hands dirty thus why COíng is nowhere near as good as when you could get out on the field.

 

Psyrus is testament to how good a CO could support and reinforce a teams position and almost guarantee a win.

the thing is the regs that lead squads know what they are doing and how to accomplish an objective without the commander spewing his ideas and tactics all over you constantly , it gets bloody annoying and i have had this happen on numerous occasions , i will not name names .

 

i.e , squad is capping a flag and has defend marker on it , commander pipes in "squad 1 i want you to cap and defend flag " , that is what i call verbal diarrhea and is just not needed and when it happens over and over again it becomes spam and just ruinds the game for me personally . now if the commander says "good work squad stay on defence and squad* has reported contacts to the ? and are heading your way " that is far better commanding than stating the obvious at every given chance .

Edited June 27, 200915 yr by Jthn

exactly, the commander is used as a communication tool between the SLers. I would prefer if SLers could communicate verbally but they can't, it would be easier and quicker.

 

Reg SL know the tactics but there is no point in 3 reg squads all trying to achieve the same thing when they need at least one of the squads to take a different role to help them rather than hinder.

 

Communicating enemy movements is very important and unless someone is communicating these movement then the defending squad will either leave the flag or be surprised rather than ready.

 

I don't know what defines a reg SL but there will always be SL that do not know how to be a reg SL so a little help from the commander, who should be a reg SL, would bring them up to speed better.

Commander shouldn't be able to kick squad leaders from their squad, rather he should have a little button next to each squad that allows him to cut off their ability to request limited kits.

 

That means while the commander can't go crazy and intentionally rip squads apart he can neuter them so that they only have access to the most basic assets and kits and that would give them a big incentive to get back on task I think.

Commander shouldn't be able to kick squad leaders from their squad, rather he should have a little button next to each squad that allows him to cut off their ability to request limited kits.

 

That means while the commander can't go crazy and intentionally rip squads apart he can neuter them so that they only have access to the most basic assets and kits and that would give them a big incentive to get back on task I think.

 

Thats actually a much better idea than kicking sl from thier squads.

It would reduce the effect a poor/ineffective/disobiedient SL would have on a match.

All it would need is the Com to approve limited kits for squads on a case by case basis. Like asset builds used to be.

Wish Id thought of that.

:kiss:

If only there were a system where people vote for the commander.

 

That way no tards could get in and ruin the game.

 

I can see the cut-off kit idea being bugged as, the LMGs and medics are already screwed.