Poll

Do you agree?

Yes, rules should be changed from specialist squads to specialists per number of people in battalion.
5 (55.6%)
No, specialists should remain in squads and be per side.
4 (44.4%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Author Topic: Rules are more suited towards bigger battalions?  (Read 1704 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Momchilo

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Rules are more suited towards bigger battalions?
« on: February 07, 2016, 09:24:08 pm »
In my opinion, the bigger battalion will always have a slight advantage over the side that consists of multiple smaller battalions simply because they can coordinate faster on a larger scale, and that is ok and to be expected, but in this current state of the events the smaller ones are imo at a bigger disadvantage. Why?

The big coordinated battalions have full control over specialist squads like the snipers, jets etc. and thus they have a bigger situational advantage, having full control over what goes where they are able to react a lot more quicker and control the battlefield with a greater ease.

I believe it would be more balanced if we had specialists per manpower in battalion, not designated squads of them per side.

Example: 2 snipers, 2 jets, 1 shotgunner, 1 heavy, 1 medic per 12 ppl etc. Of course I just spurted these numbers randomly, but you get the point. Yes, there is also a system currently that designates specialists per manpower, but I am talking about the squads. This way battalions would have control over the specialists they have, they would be able to host designated trainings for them, it would be less of a gamble (whether your team battalions coordinate or not, do we get the squad or not etc.) than it is now. Yes, we would lose squads of specialists, but we would gain better balance and that for me is worth it.

Keep in mind this is my subjective view on the things, I might be wrong, that is why I want your opinions on this.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2016, 12:28:59 am by Momchilo »

Offline Sellsword

  • Vigilante
  • *****
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
Re: Rules more suited towards bigger battalions?
« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2016, 10:17:39 pm »
What is the problem? You can set any rules for the event.

Offline Momchilo

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Rules more suited towards bigger battalions?
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2016, 12:27:13 am »
What is the problem? You can set any rules for the event.

I dont host the official events.

Offline Axwen

  • Staff Member
  • Junior
  • ***
  • Posts: 204
  • Community Manager
    • View Profile
Re: Rules are more suited towards bigger battalions?
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2016, 01:31:04 am »
The rules that your imposing are not impossible to implement but they require an extensive amount of effort to moderate.
"You know impossible is what Rogue Squadron does best" - Corran Horn

Offline Vengeful

  • Staff
  • Vigilante
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
  • 501st_SSgt_Vengeful
    • View Profile
Re: Rules are more suited towards bigger battalions?
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2016, 09:19:56 am »
I can understand your concern and I have to agree that it kinda hurts the balance, but I don't think your solution would help in this kind of Problem.

Your solution proposes to give every Regiment (that have mostly 10-20 People) their own Snipers, Jets and so on. But that would only make the smaller Regiment side in a battle even more confusing since it would be 7 different Generals trying to move armies. It would be a gigantic clusterfck of 2 or 3 man units and even more unbalanced against them.

With designated Squads, you have to communicate with the other clans and actually have a plan instead of 7 generals each trying to coordinate 5 seperated units with the other ~25 2 man units.

Offline Baskakov_Dima

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: Rules are more suited towards bigger battalions?
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2016, 09:44:46 am »
I also don't like that only big squads communicate, but what's the problem? As I see it now, in most events it's the 501st plus some clan against lots of clans. Why don't these lots of clans join one single TS and appoint roles? WOuld help a lot, I think.

What about 501st event hosters helping them to do it?

Offline Vengeful

  • Staff
  • Vigilante
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
  • 501st_SSgt_Vengeful
    • View Profile
Re: Rules are more suited towards bigger battalions?
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2016, 09:47:59 am »
I also don't like that only big squads communicate, but what's the problem? As I see it now, in most events it's the 501st plus some clan against lots of clans. Why don't these lots of clans join one single TS and appoint roles? WOuld help a lot, I think.

What about 501st event hosters helping them to do it?

I agree wholeheartedly (I hope thats written correctly lol). It all comes down to communicatio in between generals.

Offline Momchilo

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Rules are more suited towards bigger battalions?
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2016, 11:27:22 am »
I also don't like that only big squads communicate, but what's the problem? As I see it now, in most events it's the 501st plus some clan against lots of clans. Why don't these lots of clans join one single TS and appoint roles? WOuld help a lot, I think.

What about 501st event hosters helping them to do it?

Yes, that would be perfect, but easier to say than do. Even if we establish perfect cooperation between the battalions, it would still makes us lag behind, simply because while we think of a good plan and agree on it, the commander on the bigger battalion has already set things in motion because he has direct control, his word is the final. This would only work by forming an army and appointing an army leader, but this creates a plethora of other issues related to community.

But that would only make the smaller Regiment side in a battle even more confusing since it would be 7 different Generals trying to move armies. It would be a gigantic clusterfck of 2 or 3 man units and even more unbalanced against them.

It is not much different than having a designated shotgun per manpower like we do now, it would just be the same for jets and snipers etc.

I hope you guys realize the importance of jetspacks in events, if the battalion has full control over them it can turn the tide of battle.

Flank breaking? Set jets to plug it up. Broke enemies flank? Send jets to keep up the momentum. And what can we do now? We can sit and hope our jets will do what they should, if we cooperate with them we have to hope they will listen to our advice. It is a gamble.  Not to mention we cannot host designated squad trainings, as we do not know with guarantee we will get that specialist squad. Even if we do, then the other battalions lose that ability.

Offline Vengeful

  • Staff
  • Vigilante
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
  • 501st_SSgt_Vengeful
    • View Profile
Re: Rules are more suited towards bigger battalions?
« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2016, 11:36:31 am »
Sorry but how do you imagine that?

If there are lets say 501st and a small clan against 6 small clans.

Then every small clan gets 1 Sniper, 1 Jet and 1 Commando?

The coordination would be useless since you have only 1 Person to coordinate with.

Offline BNS Sleekphantom

  • Good luck.
  • Member
  • Vigilante
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • Ireland > G.B
    • View Profile
Re: Rules are more suited towards bigger battalions?
« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2016, 04:39:53 pm »

Yes, that would be perfect, but easier to say than do. Even if we establish perfect cooperation between the battalions, it would still makes us lag behind, simply because while we think of a good plan and agree on it, the commander on the bigger battalion has already set things in motion because he has direct control, his word is the final.


Lol, we tell Marko if it's a sh*t idea and he listens, like a good boy. OUR word is final! :D
Tóg a bóg é.


Offline Momchilo

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Rules are more suited towards bigger battalions?
« Reply #10 on: February 08, 2016, 05:13:48 pm »
Sorry but how do you imagine that?

If there are lets say 501st and a small clan against 6 small clans.

Then every small clan gets 1 Sniper, 1 Jet and 1 Commando?

The coordination would be useless since you have only 1 Person to coordinate with.

The same way shotgun specialists work. Instead of having a full squad of people who use shotguns, we assign it per manpower. Yes, would kill the specialist squads, but for more balance it is worth it imo.

Offline Vengeful

  • Staff
  • Vigilante
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
  • 501st_SSgt_Vengeful
    • View Profile
Re: Rules are more suited towards bigger battalions?
« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2016, 06:14:28 pm »

The same way shotgun specialists work. Instead of having a full squad of people who use shotguns, we assign it per manpower. Yes, would kill the specialist squads, but for more balance it is worth it imo.

That would only destroy the communication inside the big regiments. You would rip every specialist squad and every specialist regiment apart, only for "balance" which could easily be fixed by regiment leaders being nice to each other.

Offline KickingJoub

  • Bear Force II Developer
  • Junior
  • *
  • Posts: 139
  • To drink or not to drink, that is not a question.
    • View Profile
Re: Rules are more suited towards bigger battalions?
« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2016, 07:27:26 pm »
As the (sort of kind of) leader of a small clan and having been in a few events, I'd pitch the constant swapping of factions and maps as one cause for the general chaos. It's just not possible to come up with a plan, implement the plan and then make sure it works in the span of a single round of combat for a variety of groups. Right now that's all you get and IMO it's a huge problem. We didn't even manage to link up with one other group whom we had specifically agreed to co-operate with. Having no individual banners made it even harder, not to mention finding your own group in the spawn mess.

In my opinion the signed up for squad system is fine and would be better, if it was possible to properly communicate, which would require that teamspeak someone suggested. But gaming groups have a tendency of being individuals, so not sure how well that would work. Splitting off all specialists into individuals is mostly an opinion matter, or a hosting decision as it depends on the type of event that's being hosted. Cant' really say much about it, except I like the assigned specialist squads ;) I don't care either way with teamspeak.

I have some experience of running and leading ~160 player events from Vikingr and smaller events from other mods. One round per faction per map is way too low. Even with teamspeak dictatorship over 80 players consisting of 6-7 groups and having some premade plan, it's almost impossible to do anything but run around in chaos mode for the first round. This in a slower melee mod on top of everything else. Then there's using chat to communicate, which I've never seen work decently. Trying to do it with guns is insanity.

In summary: A couple of rounds per faction per map, individual banners, faction teamspeak if anyone actually wants it.
Ps: yes, we're a clan, not a battalion/regiment/whatever, deal with it :P

Edit: There's also the tiny thing, that giving orders doesn't always mean they'll be carried out at all or efficiently.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2016, 07:30:04 pm by KickingJoub »
Alcoholic Acolytes: When in doubt, go forwards. When in a bar, go drink.

Offline Jepekula

  • Junior
  • *
  • Posts: 86
  • Dakka-dakka-dakka
    • View Profile
Re: Rules are more suited towards bigger battalions?
« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2016, 07:30:17 pm »
In addition, forming the teams pre-event and putting up an army commander wouldn't mean that everyone would do as the commander says. I have experience of that from Vikingr, where my team actually won a few rounds thanks to clan leaders acting semi-independently when I wasn't yelling at them.

Offline Momchilo

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Rules are more suited towards bigger battalions?
« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2016, 09:55:34 pm »

The same way shotgun specialists work. Instead of having a full squad of people who use shotguns, we assign it per manpower. Yes, would kill the specialist squads, but for more balance it is worth it imo.

That would only destroy the communication inside the big regiments. You would rip every specialist squad and every specialist regiment apart, only for "balance" which could easily be fixed by regiment leaders being nice to each other.

Chain of command exists for a reason, opinions differ, you cannot rely on cooperation when it comes to balance, you have to think of both possibilities. Anyway, disbanding squads would kill them yes, but it wouldnt be much different than having shotguns per manpower rather than shotgun squads.