One of the more controvercial ideas discussed on the Alpha BF2 channel was the 'squad roster' and picked squad teams idea.
Before the 'argument' over this leaks into teh Bravo BF2 area I should kick off by saying that this idea has nothing to do with everyday 'fun' play which goes on.
This idea is to do with internal and external competitive games - where we might want to be a bit more organized than we are during the 'fun' games (although, or course, all our games should be fun - so let's call the 'fun' games the 'irregular' games to avoid confusion).
Currently we play BF2 in an 'irregular' fashion.
Sure we have Squad Leaders, who give some tactical guidence and we recieve orders - but really these are 'ad hoc', and everything about our 'irregular' (everyday) games is based about informality and individual freedom.
Enter 'competitive' games.
BF2 is a competitive game. And it encourages, through it's squad/team based nature formal competitive matches between clan teams (or even internal squads).
- And once you start having internal or external competitive matches, it is inevitable that these teams will want to win, so will start devising tactics and formations to give them a better chance to beat teh competition.
Again, this does not impose or change the normal everyday 'irregular' games with any new rules that will stop the informal play that we enjoy there.
So - the big question is: do we think 'set' teams or teams derived from a team roster is a good idea for internal or external competitive matches?
------------------------
Notes:
1) Remember; we ALREADY use a roster system for picking teams for competitive matches. There are several threads where Bravo 'officers' who have arranged friendly matches have asked for volunteers to play in the match - this is a roster!
2) An example of an INTERNAL competitive match would be my idea for a '5 v 5' mini-league. This league would be based on a four team format; two dMw based squad teams (of 5 players) and one team of non-dMw regulars and, hopefully, a 'stragglers' team made up of whoever tuns up on the day.
3) Should we agree that set teams are a good idea for competition games - then it would be nice to have a 'team practise' evening. An evening set aside, each week, where those involved in teams can practise tactics and formations against each other in a 'friendly' fashion.
4) If we decide to have set teams for competition this implies that each team will have a team captain - this could be rotating, but there should be a roster of COs for each team.
I don't think you should have 'set' teams but a roster of available players for the SL/CO to pick from is a good idea (availability page for BF2). :D
QuoteOriginally posted by Whitey@Oct 1 2005, 09:27 AM
I don't think you should have 'set' teams but a roster of available players for the SL/CO to pick from is a good idea (availability page for BF2). :D
[post=97175]Quoted post[/post]
Someone has to chose the teams - this will be a set team.
Basically, in competitions you will have to announce a set team. That's how competitive matches work...Otherwise why have competitive team matches?
However, this doesn't sop you - for example - forming a 'random' team, Whitey.
What you do is this...
You write a load of names on bits of paper - then you put all these names into a container - then you close your eyes and pick out however many names you need to make up your team!
Or you could get one of those multisided dices that they use for RPG. Write peoples names on each side and then role away...
Oh - one problem...
There is a chance that the names you chose will probably have signed up for another team!
Er, so use a roster!
The fact is that some people will want to play in a set team and some won't.
That's why you have a 'stragglers' team - any volunteers to run this team (Whitey?)/
As I said - we ALREADY use set teams for competive matches. I have been involved with two out of three of these over the last two months. The COs for these game KNEW who was playing before the team game started.
Set teams.
So this IS a roster based system where the COs can CHOOSE members to be a in a SET team for the duration of a competition.
Alternatives for those who find 'set' teams 'too heavy, man' - ;)
In competitive situations, where some might be worried that you won't get in a team because they might have already been picked. So here's one way round this...
'Stragglers Team'
This is a 'ad hoc' team which can be involved in internal dMw competitive matches. It is a team made up of people who happen to turn up on the night.
They choose thier own CO/SL from whoever is there and willing to do the job.
In otherwords, it's rather like how we form squad/teams now in our everyday 'fun' games.
The downside on this is that you can never guarentee that you will have enough people to make up a proper full team - so the 'Stragglers' will inevitably end up 'forfitting' matches that they cannot play or losing games because they only have a reduced team.
-------------
Anyone think of any other alternatives for 'stragglers' to compete in organized matches?
You asked for opinions, I gave mine and then you attack it. I will be making no more contributions in this area. I have been trying to have a debate on the way things are going but I give up!!! :(
Ranger.
CS works like this and I see no reason why BF2 shouldn't work similar.
One or two people organise matches. (oldie and myself have organised a couple so far)
The date and time gets posted. People sign up.
Team is picked from available players on the night. this is done on a round robin over ability. to let everybody who would like to play in matches, a go.
SL is know in advance. normally from a small pool of tactical minded people.
Then we play.
If we get to the point where we regularly get twice as many people sign up for a match than we need. is when predetermined squads are made.
QuoteOriginally posted by Whitey@Oct 1 2005, 11:14 AM
You asked for opinions, I gave mine and then you attack it. I will be making no more contributions in this area. I have been trying to have a debate on the way things are going but I give up!!! :(
[post=97198]Quoted post[/post]
Whitey - I'm not attacking it. In a sense I am agreeing with you, plus giving an alternative.
Giving an reply shouldn't be seen as an attack - epecially when we are all friends here.
I've stood on my head to ensure I've made my self clear as possible and to repeat that these ideas are not intended to exclude anyone.
As Armitage points out these formations are already used in dMw in the CS - so they are nothing new, therefore they can hardly be called a 'change in direction' for dMw players playing BF2 (as the majority of these guys come from playing CS in dMw).
What I didn't see that made sense in your view, was that you never pointed out an alternative formation yourself, but critisised mine.
In the end I had to play devils advocate and put forward an alternative myself.But none of this was an attack on your view - I actually wrote up a defence FOR your view in my alternative.
Nobody is getting personal, Whitey. I see this as a mature discussion between team-mates - mate! :)
As I say - put down some details of your prefered alternative, or sign up for the roster. But never give up mate if you feel you have a view - I may be opinionated (as you can see) BUT I would never say that I am always right!
Apologies if I did come across as being personal - noting was further from my mind. I have personally enjoyed your counter views.
Ranger
One problem I can see is that the stragglers who will be picking the game up for the first time (or them who didn't like it to start with and come back ..ie:me ) will never get into the squad ...as more experienced members will always be chosen for matches ... :(
that would seriously jeopardise what dMw has stood for for the past few years .....
:blink:
my 2p worth ;)
QuoteOriginally posted by Armitage@Oct 1 2005, 11:35 AM
Ranger.
CS works like this and I see no reason why BF2 shouldn't work similar.
One or two people organise matches. (oldie and myself have organised a couple so far)
The date and time gets posted. People sign up.
Team is picked from available players on the night. this is done on a round robin over ability. to let everybody who would like to play in matches, a go.
SL is know in advance. normally from a small pool of tactical minded people.
Then we play.
If we get to the point where we regularly get twice as many people sign up for a match than we need. is when predetermined squads are made.
[post=97201]Quoted post[/post]
Yep - that's exactly it Armitage.
Having a roster just allows the CO/SL the luxary of seeing what classes are available to him. Then he can pick a set team for the competition.
What I was hoping is that we would be able to have a certain night when we could practise working together as 'set' teams - eventually that would allow us to have some very effiecient squads fro COs to chose from when it come to competition games.
FOR EXAMPLE: What were formally the 'BIG' guys like defending - were we to work together as a set squad we would make an ideal 'Defence section' for a CO to chose if we were playing the 'Role & Hold' tactic.
We would know our job in advance - know what the CO had in mind when he picked up as Defence and said 'Right guys, Roll & Hold!'...
That's just an example.
Or if the CO had another tactic in mind - or a completely new tactic in mind - he could simply look down the roster, pick what guys were appropriate and say 'OK guys, you are an Assault/AT mix - you are my Assault team.'
Or whatever.
That sound about right/make sense?
QuoteOriginally posted by MAD_ness@Oct 1 2005, 01:39 PM
One problem I can see is that the stragglers who will be picking the game up for the first time (or them who didn't like it to start with and come back ..ie:me ) will never get into the squad ...as more experienced members will always be chosen for matches ... :(
that would seriously jeopardise what dMw has stood for for the past few years .....
:blink:
my 2p worth ;)
[post=97228]Quoted post[/post]
Good point Mad_ness -
What we could do - in a 6 man squad situation - is say that one or two places could be held open as 'X' places.
These would always be available fpr 'stragglers'.
...That gets round teh whole issue of there not being enough stragglers to make up a squad.
One thing to remember though is that just because a player is a straggler, that doesn't mean he is 'inexperienced' or a 'noob'...
I've regualrly seen strangers coming into teh dMw BF2 server who are obviously fantastic players. Some of these guys keep coming back until they are eventually full dMw (because they like the dMw 'way').
So just because you are a 'straggler' squad doen't mean you will get your ass kicked...
Without getting 'BIG' headed (get it!?) we 'BIG' guys played regularly in a straggler squad - made up of us, maybe one dMw, and a couple of strangers, and I think we won our fair share of matches against all dMw sides.
But - it's up to the majority vote (which is what this dicussion is about)...
So there are now two alternatives:
1) A 'Stragglers' ad hoc squad, OR...
2) Setting aside a couple of places on a 'set' team derived from teh roster as 'X' places to be filled by 'stragglers'.
(Plan 2 sounds good - it has teh advantage of allowing stragglers to play with full dMw guys regularly).
What do you think?
I don't think specific roles for people or squads is a good idea, The word it says to me is inflexible. example.. the squad that has just captured a flag turns automatically to the defenders. now should they hold until the defenders move up. or should the defenders from the last flag, move to the attack. I know which makes sense to me.
Sticking to one class. sounds great. but has the same problem. to you have 2 AT guys in your squad in case a tank roles in, or get people to swap when needed.
I think BF2 is two fluid for had rules like these. Team work, sticking together, in some sort of coherent group is what we need. And after playing a few round as infantry only last night. seems the way to practice that.
I think you're abusing your right to the 'word' "teh".
:P
QuoteOriginally posted by Armitage@Oct 1 2005, 01:59 PM
I don't think specific roles for people or squads is a good idea, The word it says to me is inflexible. example.. the squad that has just captured a flag turns automatically to the defenders. now should they hold until the defenders move up. or should the defenders from the last flag, move to the attack. I know which makes sense to me.
Sticking to one class. sounds great. but has the same problem. to you have 2 AT guys in your squad in case a tank roles in, or get people to swap when needed.
I think BF2 is two fluid for had rules like these. Team work, sticking together, in some sort of coherent group is what we need. And after playing a few round as infantry only last night. seems the way to practice that.
[post=97232]Quoted post[/post]
Mmmm...
I'm obviously not explaining myself well...The idea of the roster is so that teh CO/SL can ick a good ballance of people who LIKE to play a wide range of roles.
You'll notice that in the roster that each player has down a second alternative class that they like to play.
Even if a CO/SL starts the game with a fixed squad that he has picked to start off a 'play' - he will probably want this squad to modify after that initial play so will ask people in the squad to change roles to suit the situation thereafter.
This thinking behind this:For every map there is an ideal initial play.
Take Karkland as MEC, itial play: heavy on the engineers to mine the way in. And so on and so forth...
Or the CO/SL may have an idea for an initial play - but whatever, they will want to pick and INITAL force composed of a ballance squad made up from the roster.
After the initial play, or if something starts to go wrong - the CO/SL will simply say "We need people to spawn as xxx!"
This is what we do now.
But at the end of the day a good CO/SL will have a plan and will want to stick to it once things are normalized.
Does this make sense?
(Don't forget - as a CO/SL you are free to use a set squad or random squad from the roster. Either way the roster is a helpful tool. This is 'a' idea for people to use if they like it - not an idea set rule. Personally were I a SL I would use the set squad, but I wouldn't worry if anyone else didn't!)
QuoteOriginally posted by Hippy@Oct 1 2005, 02:06 PM
I think you're abusing your right to the 'word' "teh".
:P
[post=97233]Quoted post[/post]
:)
It's a combination of my fat fingers and bad typing skills!
;)
I usually can't be TANGO'd to go back and edit. SO It's also laziness! Hee hee
I see what you are saying , but I think it is making work of something that is as easy as saying on match night "what do you want to play tonight" I know personally my favourite class has changed since I have been playing the game. SF to Assault and now I am playing medic more. so I don't know what I will fancy playing on the night.
The SL/CO roster is good idea. we should pick them an hour before the match if possible
QuoteOriginally posted by Armitage@Oct 1 2005, 02:17 PM
I see what you are saying , but I think it is making work of something that is as easy as saying on match night "what do you want to play tonight" I know personally my favourite class has changed since I have been playing the game. SF to Assault and now I am playing medic more. so I don't know what I will fancy playing on the night.
The SL/CO roster is good idea. we should pick them an hour before the match if possible
[post=97236]Quoted post[/post]
Yep Armitage - it's all down to your particular 'style' of command I think.
Loose or controlled...I'm a bit of a control freak so I like to have little diagrams and 'play's and all that kinda stuff.
Doen't make me a better player/commander - but makes me feel good!
;)
As I say - once you have the roster - each squad SL can choose his own way of picking a squad.
* SET
* RANDOM
* SET with 'X' slots for random
That's three alternatives now! :)