more structured squad system
officialpistol
Join Date: 2012-03-09 Member: 148501Members
Join Date: 2012-03-09 Member: 148501Members
NS2 so far lacks a solid squad system.
a dedicated squad structure would give players more organization,
so far squad play is inconsistent, and usually only happens when
someone on the mic nags people to follow.
- there should be a squad menu where you can host a squad
and people can join your squad.
- each squad should be color coded, rather than defined by name.
(i'll explain why)
- when a member of a certain squad talks on the mic, the mic indicator
on the right side of the screen should be highlighted in that players
squad color. this would rouse other members of the same squad's attention.
likewise commander should have its own distinct color.
- sort of like the microphone, team chat should also be color coded by squad.
- to avoid any confusion, all text and chat by the opposing team should appear white
or some other generic, neutral color.
- commander should be able to give squad order by clicking on the colored icon,
each color indicating a specific squad.
- commander can give squad perk and upgrades, specifically tailored to individual squads
purpose. for a random ass example, commander can unlock repair speed boost for squad that
wants to play mainly support roles etc...through squad unlocks and upgrades
it would give incentive for players to squad up and maximize the potential of squad play.
- squad leader should have some sort of ability that benefits the squad
members, this would give squad leaders a purpose and allow squad members
to rely on the squad leader during desperate scenarios. for example,
squad leaders can activate adrenaline boost, which would lower the whole squads
health 30-40% for increased speed and stamina.
these are just some ideas that can greatly open up possibilities of team play, and it
would give all those new rambo players incentive to work as a team. as of now
the term 'team' and 'squad' is very loose and unorganized.
a dedicated squad structure would give players more organization,
so far squad play is inconsistent, and usually only happens when
someone on the mic nags people to follow.
- there should be a squad menu where you can host a squad
and people can join your squad.
- each squad should be color coded, rather than defined by name.
(i'll explain why)
- when a member of a certain squad talks on the mic, the mic indicator
on the right side of the screen should be highlighted in that players
squad color. this would rouse other members of the same squad's attention.
likewise commander should have its own distinct color.
- sort of like the microphone, team chat should also be color coded by squad.
- to avoid any confusion, all text and chat by the opposing team should appear white
or some other generic, neutral color.
- commander should be able to give squad order by clicking on the colored icon,
each color indicating a specific squad.
- commander can give squad perk and upgrades, specifically tailored to individual squads
purpose. for a random ass example, commander can unlock repair speed boost for squad that
wants to play mainly support roles etc...through squad unlocks and upgrades
it would give incentive for players to squad up and maximize the potential of squad play.
- squad leader should have some sort of ability that benefits the squad
members, this would give squad leaders a purpose and allow squad members
to rely on the squad leader during desperate scenarios. for example,
squad leaders can activate adrenaline boost, which would lower the whole squads
health 30-40% for increased speed and stamina.
these are just some ideas that can greatly open up possibilities of team play, and it
would give all those new rambo players incentive to work as a team. as of now
the term 'team' and 'squad' is very loose and unorganized.
Comments
The requirements of players changes too rapidly to rigidly say that this group of people is now a squad. What if the commander needs only one person to perform a certain task? What if the commander needs three people but only squads of 4 exist? What if the commander needs 4 people but there are only two squads of 3? The difference is, in games that use squads, such as BF3, a player chooses what actions to perform and performs them. In natural selection, if a player wishes to be useful, he will perform the actions specified by the commander when he is told to. The commander determines squads, and they change rapidly. This doesn't have to be the case. Perhaps the commander instruct 4 of his marines to defend the hive room, while the other 4 move out to take res. This is a nice squad scenario, and everyone is happy. But as is common in an RTS, unexpected events occur. Maybe one of the res towers comes under attack, now 2 of the 4 squad members must break off and return to defend it.
This squad system also breaks down when differences between players occur. I don't mean skill differences, I mean equipment differences. The same effect can be seen in BF3 when one squad member takes a jet; what do the other 3 do? If there is an alien squad of 4 skulks, and one goes fade, what must the skulks do? The fade can't very well hunt in a pack of skulks. Or of one member goes lerk or gorge, the requirements of that player vastly differs from that of the rest of his squad.
Lastly, the game just isn't big enough to benefit from a squad system. BF3 is perfect for squads because of the massive player count. The extra administrative overhead is well handled by creating small squads of players who perform tasks. In ns2, where you are looking at at most around 12 players on a team, it just isn't needed.
If you cant talk and play at the sametime or listen on the CC and play, then this isnt your game :(
The requirements of players changes too rapidly to rigidly say that this group of people is now a squad. What if the commander needs only one person to perform a certain task? What if the commander needs three people but only squads of 4 exist? What if the commander needs 4 people but there are only two squads of 3? The difference is, in games that use squads, such as BF3, a player chooses what actions to perform and performs them. In natural selection, if a player wishes to be useful, he will perform the actions specified by the commander when he is told to. The commander determines squads, and they change rapidly. This doesn't have to be the case. Perhaps the commander instruct 4 of his marines to defend the hive room, while the other 4 move out to take res. This is a nice squad scenario, and everyone is happy. But as is common in an RTS, unexpected events occur. Maybe one of the res towers comes under attack, now 2 of the 4 squad members must break off and return to defend it.
This squad system also breaks down when differences between players occur. I don't mean skill differences, I mean equipment differences. The same effect can be seen in BF3 when one squad member takes a jet; what do the other 3 do? If there is an alien squad of 4 skulks, and one goes fade, what must the skulks do? The fade can't very well hunt in a pack of skulks. Or of one member goes lerk or gorge, the requirements of that player vastly differs from that of the rest of his squad.
Lastly, the game just isn't big enough to benefit from a squad system. BF3 is perfect for squads because of the massive player count. The extra administrative overhead is well handled by creating small squads of players who perform tasks. In ns2, where you are looking at at most around 12 players on a team, it just isn't needed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. what makes you believe that implementing a squad system means removal of individual control by comm?
2. again, comm should be able to send individual commands to 3 people, instead of a whole squad.
3. drop the battlefield 3 references. two totally separate game, with different mechanics.
it's just an excuse if ideas are countered with gameplay from other games.
4. jets!? wtf does that have to do with NS2? again, you're drawing examples off other game's foundation.
5. the squad system will NOT break down due to a member of a squad choosing a different class.
contrarily, it would promote coordination and tactical advantages. on the flip side there will be times
where squad members have to split up, but that isn't a valid argument against implementation of squad system.
6. even if the squad system implements only red and blue squad, it would be more organized
and easier to keep track of than current.
7. FINALLY, basically what you summed up is the squad system, without labels. all i'm trying to say is
take what's already here and put a label on it for organization and efficiency sake. although you say
you're against it fundamentally, you're agreeing to concept.
2. again, comm should be able to send individual commands to 3 people, instead of a whole squad.
3. drop the battlefield 3 references. two totally separate game, with different mechanics.
it's just an excuse if ideas are countered with gameplay from other games.
4. jets!? wtf does that have to do with NS2? again, you're drawing examples off other game's foundation.
5. the squad system will NOT break down due to a member of a squad choosing a different class.
contrarily, it would promote coordination and tactical advantages. on the flip side there will be times
where squad members have to split up, but that isn't a valid argument against implementation of squad system.
6. even if the squad system implements only red and blue squad, it would be more organized
and easier to keep track of than current.
7. FINALLY, basically what you summed up is the squad system, without labels. all i'm trying to say is
take what's already here and put a label on it for organization and efficiency sake. although you say
you're against it fundamentally, you're agreeing to concept.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1 and 2: If players do not strictly stick to playing with their own squad members, then what is the point of a squad? If half a squad is frequently separated from the other half then there is no squad, there is just a label and a bunch of colours which don't really represent anything. <b>BATTLEFIELD 3</b>, a game which has successfully implemented a squad based system, encourages any and all actions taken to be done so with squad members. This is the only reason to have a squad based system.
3: Battlefield 3 has the exact system you are suggesting. If you wish to look at the impact of a suggestion, existing examples of said suggestion are the best place to start.
4: Its an analogy for fades. You are probably going to want to look up analogy.
5: Fades do not coordinate attacks with skulks. Fades are far faster and more agile than skulks are, and thus if they were to coordinate attacks with skulks, would be severely hindered. Similarly, gorges build structures in relative safety for the most part. Having a group of skulks sitting around a gorge building stuff in a hive is pointless, and having a gorge follow skulks into the enemies base can be equally as pointless.
6. I suppose that's true, but nobody has problems keeping track of anything as is. Why fix what isn't broken?
7. If what I summed up was a squad system without labels, then what NS2 needs is a squad system without labels. Oh look it already has one, great!
3: Battlefield 3 has the exact system you are suggesting. If you wish to look at the impact of a suggestion, existing examples of said suggestion are the best place to start.
4: Its an analogy for fades. You are probably going to want to look up analogy.
5: Fades do not coordinate attacks with skulks. Fades are far faster and more agile than skulks are, and thus if they were to coordinate attacks with skulks, would be severely hindered. Similarly, gorges build structures in relative safety for the most part. Having a group of skulks sitting around a gorge building stuff in a hive is pointless, and having a gorge follow skulks into the enemies base can be equally as pointless.
6. I suppose that's true, but nobody has problems keeping track of anything as is. Why fix what isn't broken?
7. If what I summed up was a squad system without labels, then what NS2 needs is a squad system without labels. Oh look it already has one, great!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. again, you are inferring scenarios as an absolute constant. where did you pull the idea that
squads will or will not always be together? different situations call for different approach.
that is great, lets promote and encourage teamwork..problem? based on your logic why
does the world have a such thing as squad?
2. battlefield 3 may have a similar system, but never exact. again, different game mechanics,
the factors to take into consideration vastly differs from NS2.
3. that's a loose analogy, you can't compare fade with a jet aircraft.
4. wrong, all classes can coordinate with eachother. fade can cover the entrances, while the
skulks destroy buildings, while gorge puts up hydra and cysts. again, it's circumstantial.
fades can go ahead and clear out an area, before support classes come in setup base.
5. you have improvement and fixing mixed up, where would humans be if we stopped at
horse and buggies...cause it works. we're talking about efficiency.
6. your last comment basically says, "my way or the highway" and i won't respond to that.
7. i'm sorry, but an organized squad system would only be an improvement.
And btw. there is a dynamic squad system partially implemented right now, as can be seen by the color circles around marines in commander sight. This is much better than a semi static squad system as you suggests.
Will it be effective all the time? No, you still need 1-2 person squads to build rts and execute other small squad tactics but being able to clearly label 2-3 groups of different players allows the the commander to allocate resources (players) much quicker than looking at the minimap and yelling out all of the players names (half of the time they aren't aware you are asking them to do something) in a specific room.
Typical example:
Situation: 6 marines in drill repair
Objective: You want 2 of them to backtrack to another room and the 4 other marines to push forward.
Typical Command: Alright I want 4 of you in drill repair to push forward and the other two to go back to the other side of the map and hold that tower in obs
Typical Reaction: The majority of marines push forward, some aren't sure what to do and just go with the large group of marines. Maybe one guy who respawns at base follows the command or just ignores it and walks off to solo the hive asking for medpacks and ammo.
With the capability to create a squad (you 3 in red squad) from a commanders perspective the guys you group together into a squad will be responsible to follow the order you give them and gives the commander to follow up on the situation (red squad whats going on in <location>). I think people have an issue with the bf3 style squad management where the players join and manage the squad squad, that simply will not work for ns2 but may be analogous.
The commander should be able to group players together (like ns1 but with better identification) and be able to regroup players on the fly using CTRL + Number. This doesn't require a lot of dev time to implement, just need color coding or labels for the commander to be able to distinctly tell squads apart and for players to be able to tell which squad they are in (icon in the corner near their health identifying squad name or color).
.02
'
If squad allocation isn't your cup of tea then no reason to do it, but the option could be there.
Assigning players to squads and relaying tasks can indeed simplify things.
Such as:
1 - 75%
2 - 50%
3 - 25%
It would scale to fit within 100%, 2x priority 1's would split the manpower 50:50, etc.
Voice comm is usually a mess when strategic planning for the Comm has to mix with tactical comms of the Marines.
"Secure RT"
"Argh! Fade!"
"Defend PG"
"Argh! Onos!"
Etc...
Will it be effective all the time? No, you still need 1-2 person squads to build rts and execute other small squad tactics but being able to clearly label 2-3 groups of different players allows the the commander to allocate resources (players) much quicker than looking at the minimap and yelling out all of the players names (half of the time they aren't aware you are asking them to do something) in a specific room.
Typical example:
Situation: 6 marines in drill repair
Objective: You want 2 of them to backtrack to another room and the 4 other marines to push forward.
Typical Command: Alright I want 4 of you in drill repair to push forward and the other two to go back to the other side of the map and hold that tower in obs
Typical Reaction: The majority of marines push forward, some aren't sure what to do and just go with the large group of marines. Maybe one guy who respawns at base follows the command or just ignores it and walks off to solo the hive asking for medpacks and ammo.
With the capability to create a squad (you 3 in red squad) from a commanders perspective the guys you group together into a squad will be responsible to follow the order you give them and gives the commander to follow up on the situation (red squad whats going on in <location>). I think people have an issue with the bf3 style squad management where the players join and manage the squad squad, that simply will not work for ns2 but may be analogous.
The commander should be able to group players together (like ns1 but with better identification) and be able to regroup players on the fly using CTRL + Number. This doesn't require a lot of dev time to implement, just need color coding or labels for the commander to be able to distinctly tell squads apart and for players to be able to tell which squad they are in (icon in the corner near their health identifying squad name or color).
.02
'<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the key idea is organization, you're paying the com
too much attention. think about the squad itself
and the members that pertain. it promotes combat
efficiency, communication, coordination and general
team play due to the fact that your squad members
are actually labeled and set, so players would have
a heightened sense of comradery; in return, increasing
game immersion.