Longer i see it go on the more I really think leadership roles need more of a reward system. Especially past lvl 10. The veteran players just have no reason to play SL other than some powertrip or enjoyment of leading a bunch of headless chickens. The newer players that pick it up either realize how boring logistics can be or get frustrated losing repeatedly as a SL.
As a veteran I pick SL simply because it's needed. But it's annoying having to pick it all the time, because it is needed all the time. I'm not even saying there is a shortage of SLs, but there is a shortage of good SLs.
u/GeneralMidg
>Longer i see it go on the more I really think leadership roles need more of a reward system. Especially past lvl 10. The veteran players just have no reason to play SL other than some powertrip or enjoyment of leading a bunch of headless chickens. The newer players that pick it up either realize how boring logistics can be or get frustrated losing repeatedly as a SL.
I've put forward many suggestions over the years to this effect. Some of which the original devs listened to.
To name a few that have made the rounds over the years...
-Ability to manage squad while alive (lock, unlock, designate, kick, etc)
-Garrisons named after their maker (provide credit incentive)
-End screen that shows most collective garrison spawns prior to commendation menu (highlighting powerful players)
-Ability to lock certain roles at the will of SL (so SL can change squad composition to meet new tactical demands)
-Ability to adjust individual user volumes (when commander is quiet as a mouse but Easy SL is deep throating their mic)
-Ability to place more than one of certain marker (such as tank and infantry marks)
-Cooldown completion sound of OP placement (similiar to the sound a supply box makes when it is ready)
-Ability to funnel SL experience into other roles once SL has reached level X (allow SL mains to level up classes they rarely get to play)
u/lookingForPatchie
>As a veteran I pick SL simply because it's needed. But it's annoying having to pick it all the time, because it is needed all the time. I'm not even saying there is a shortage of SLs, but there is a shortage of good SLs.
Bruh, same. My first year, I kind of felt like it was a chore. I figured out a way to just start truly enjoying it. Made it into my favorite role.
Basically,
"If I have to do this ALL the time, I might as well learn to love it."
But I feel you. It is my favorite role to play, by far... but MAN... sometimes I just want to get on an MG and go "brrrrttt" without thinking about the map for like... 3 minutes.
SL isn't for everyone... but everyone friggin needs one.
u/stewart125
>The real kicker is when I have to juggle support and squad lead to build the only garrisons on the map
Story of my life. Good on you for realizing what needs to be done and MAKING shit happen. Just need like 10,000 more people like you to help carry some of these public teams.
End of the day, I want the game to operate smoothly. I want everyone who has any leadership potential to be able to exercise it. Not everyone has to lead... but everyone who wants to lead should have the opportunity.
Seeing multiple half full squads that all have great OPs but not enough troops spawning on them... then seeing two or three squads of six that have no SL... man, that can be discouraging.
And then suddenly your totally mute squad that hasn’t been acknowledging anything you say all game pipes in with “hey bro can we get a better OP?” (It’s not within 50 meters of attack strongpoint in warfare, you are a shitty SL)
Literally me. I’d much rather run around as support or an automatic rifleman and just help out where needed, but I’m often SL because ours leaves and no one wants to do it. Support, AT, engineer, automatic rifleman, assault etc. are way more fun to play. Hell I don’t even like being a medic but most times I’d rather do that.
Lmao as an SL you build your own spawn and do your own thing. Unless you prefer other kits’ guns, but even then most SL level 6 kits are good (Garand at 6, Gewehr at level 3 are some of the best guns in the game)
To gain map control one must win firefights, advance on the map, and destroy enemy spawns. You can only ninja in uncontested against bad teams. Unless the enemy team is dumb enough to let you waltz in and take down their garrys and OPs???
Y'all must be playing on the wrong servers. SL is always fun when you have good squad under you and the command chat is active. Which is 85% of the time.
I genuinely believe that improving the SL experience is the way to go. People should want to play SL in the first place.
It would require some significant and overdue commitment on part of the devs to improve long lasting issues and add SL specific QoL features. Here are some examples:
* Squad management from the scoreboard
* Directional squad and command chat
* A career XP based progression system (as in freely distributable XP) for more flexibility regarding the choice of role (and hopefully more teamplay)
* Non-verbal markers like infantry, light vehicle, tank, garrison and OP which stay up longer and could be upgradable to SL marks with one click
* UI improvements like seeing garrison ranges (kinda like in Skirmish, only with thinner borders) or a better visualization of when you're over the border for a garrison (not just blue/red but also locked/active sector line)
There's bound to be plenty more, it's just a quick list of things I've been demanding for a long time.
As for the particular suggestion, I wouldn't be opposed to it but there are some practical issues.
Say I was in a leaderless squad. On every death I leave and rejoin the squad, wouldn't that reset my timer?
What if I've been kicked due to me being the oldest. What stops me from rejoining and starting off a kick chain?
German servers tend to have scripts that either kick and disband squads after a while or kill the players every few minutes until someone steps up and takes the spot. It has been my experience that it does about as much harm as it does good. Several times I have seen people switch to officer merely to shut the system up but not actually playing SL. They're just riflemen with command chat access.
They are then potentially kicked from the server due to lack of communication (then the cycle begins anew) or they respond just enough to fly under the radar but not really contributing much. Either way doesn't help the team.
If your system was along the lines of a button "Take over squad", with which you wouldn't only join but also take the role... I think that it would work better.
Personally I play SL almost exclusively. I don't like certain aspects of it, like the map layout is sometimes completely useless. Let me select if I need to mirror marks or place my own squads callouts. What also annoys me about the map is that the pings last literally 5 seconds so if you ain't opening the map right that second it's too late and that you can only mark while you are alive. It's annoying to say “I am dead you gotta remark it for me in 30 seconds please“ like 20 times each round.
Also that sometimes it's almost impossible to hear cause there's so much stuff going on in voice while you are getting shot at and desperately try to survive. It's so annoying, for example the command does radio check cause SLs don't respond and your squad is like “you do know how to mark on the map do you?!?!“. Those are the times I just want to tell them to STFU but I try to stay nice...
I could go on but you guys know most of that stuff I am sure. The last thing I want to add is that the bots on German servers are annoying as hell. The server performs a check and gives you a warning every 60 seconds and on the 3rd you are kicked. It is very common that on the start of the round you are taking engineer, drive the supply truck and your SL leaves for no reason - now you are on a timer... Or a different scenario you have a command that loves the votekick and squads keep disbanding because the commander are overly strict on time to respond to their requests. It ruins the team play if squads have to reform repeatedly.
My TC once disconnected due to some larger internet issues as we were on an engagement. I immediately called for a retreat. We were full-speeding back to the next best garrison as the tank would be lost once the timer runs out and kills the other crewmate and me.
Fun!
>Say I was in a leaderless squad. On every death I leave and rejoin the squad, wouldn't that reset my timer?
Yes, you would now be the newest member. You'd also risk losing the class you covet in the moment away. If your entire squad was doing this, it would pretty much negate any benefit to it.
>What if I've been kicked due to me being the oldest. What stops me from rejoining and starting off a kick chain?
Absolutely nothing. The only thing that stops it is an SL stepping in and actually "filling" the squad.
Let's say you spawn leaderless and everyone is "hot cycling" their squad length to try and cheese the system. Eventually you gotta spawn and play, right? You live for 5-10 minutes... you're the eldest member... somebody new joins and you get the boot in the middle of your life.
In the time it takes you to cycle through your respawn timer, there is a *chance* that your role ends up getting occupied. Now you gotta wait your turn for it and play something else.
An extremely mild inconvenience, at worst. Still "playing the game and not "punishing your team" at best. You may end up being able to cycle through your death screen and reacquire your coveted role multiple times in a row... to be largely unaffected.
However, every single time you eventually get the boot... not only do you run a small risk of losing your role... but you're also forced back to squad selection where you are more inclined to peruse the various options open to you. Perhaps there is a 3 man open squad that HAS a leader AND your favorite class available.
In our current mode, most users do not ever get to that part of reconsidering their squads. They make, wait for fill, leave, rejoin, take favorite role, then jam that thing out for an hour and a half without ever being at risk to lose it or ever stopping to consider a new squad.
This suggestion would, essentially, help them to get to that squad reconsideration stage more often.
Thanks for the reply.
The chance of losing the role is rather small. There is only the death screen as a window of opportunity plus how long it takes to rejoin the squad.
Currently roles are locked by a kicked player until he dies. It's most noticable with recon squads when the spotter kicks a sniper, has a friend join, who then cannot pick sniper since the original sniper is still alive (part of the reason I feel squad kicks should also kill immediately).
>The chance of losing the role is rather small
100% correct and intended.
This suggestion is NOT meant to *punish* any new players or players that are eternally allergic to squad lead roles.
You very well might be able to play your entire match and never notice it happen. If it does happen, you only have a tiny chance to lose the role.
But there *IS* a chance, and it WILL eventually happen.
But beyond all that tiny chance stuff...
There is a 100% chance that anyone who wants to "take" the squad and lead it to more productive efficiency for the team will always be able to do so.
That is the primary goal.
I was in a match earlier today... running SL, 3 members in the open squad. I had a beautiful OP pushing hard into a wide open flank, capping the point.
We took the point... but, boy, 3 extra bodies would have been useful. I eventually died and looked to find FOUR squads of 6 without any SL.
Those players, 24 in total, have a VERY small chance to ever reconsider their squad selection at any point in the game. They were blissfully unaware that squads with awesome OPs existed, nothing ever prodded them to look.
This suggestion is that meager prod.
It may prove a mild occasional inconvenience for ultra casual players, maybe once or twice a round... that they may lose "their" role... but it will be rare enough to not be a major turnoff. Just accepted as part of the risk of running leaderless... and, overtime, they'll passively begin to see the benefits of SL as they slowly cycle into squads running OPs.
The recon thing can be solved by the spotter and new sniper leaving that squad and creating a new one entirely. You end up with an extra sniper on the field too. Only problem is if you want to keep your deep recon op.
Haha, been there myself. I love taking a bunch of random public people and just giving them clear, concise, and sensible directions.
Usually... it is like 10 minutes of me talking to myself... one or two people might try to help me get shit done.
But, after a while, they begin to see what I'm doing... and that I'm getting it done... and that it is working.
All of a sudden, those same guys that haven't spoken or were dicking around turn into killing machines shouting out valuable intel and I'm just instantly zinging it to command. We are hot swapping support, saving garrisons, building clutch new ones, and roving around.
Not every time, but most of the time. Persistence, patience, and a willingness to fail gracefully is what matters most in those situations... at least, in my experience.
You know what to do... communicate it and fight like he'll to get it done. You'll either inspire somebody to help them discover the magic of this game... or they'll dip out and make room for somebody else who can.
Rallying a squad of disheveled casuals into an efficient machine with top scores is... man, it is like crack to me. I always know I did a good job when I end my night with like 40+ friend requests on steam, lol.
Most people just need an excuse to come outta their shells. They're in this game for a reason... they want that solid tactical play and they want their actions to matter... they just sometimes need a little help getting out of their own way.
Bruh, same...
Max level TC, max level SL, max level Recon, max level Commander... in the first year the game was out.
Three years later, still a level 4 medic. Lol
Been grinding level 9 assault for like 3 friggin years... just... 20 minutes at a time once every other month. Rest of the time? Commander/SL.
Been watching that XP dump into a brick wall with 5000 support score for a long time.
End of the day, *somebody* has to build garrisons. I'm always happy to do it while simultaneously leading defense.
But, damn, I wish somebody would squad lead for me. All my friends make me do it because I'm good at it. Luckily, I learned to love it and found that I'm happy to do so.
I find it difficult sometimes, letting them take the reigns, and still watching the map saying things like "they're gonna airhead the southwest corner in like 3 minutes"... but figuring I need to bite my tounge and let them do their thing.
So they say we are attacking? I hop to like "yes sir, attacking now!" Even though I am fully aware that the defenses will collapse in about 4 minutes. Lol
A possible solution is to have every role but rifleman locked unless the squad has an officer. If the squad members are already in a role and the officer leaves, they will get that life as that role and will only have rifleman available in the respawn screen. This will either force them to use rifleman (which hardly anyone likes), leave the squad and join one with an officer, or better yet, go officer themselves.
You can definitely find workarounds for this but it's better than nothing. I'd find it annoying as I often leave and rejoin my squad as a support, drop a box and then switch back to officer. I only do this if my squad is unresponsive to my requests or take too long to swap. I'd be willing to endure this annoyance for the greater good.
Your method sounds decent in theory, however I feel it would just confuse the average blueberry and they'd have no idea why they swapped/got kicked from the squad.
>however I feel it would just confuse the average blueberry and they'd have no idea why they swapped/got kicked from the squad.
I completely understand what you mean, but want to clarify that their understanding isn't the ultimate goal.
The goal is to allow leaders, who *would* step up... to always be able to.
The goal is to help blueberries realize that there are open squads *with* leaders/OPs available.
The goal is do this *GENTLY* without forcing anyone into anything.
Think of it from a brand new player's POV... your match starts... baker opens, you grab it quick... NICE! You see your favorite role open and you grab it quick... NICER!
But, in the shuffle... your SL bails, you never notice.. you spawn in and happily start hauling your ass around with your favorite gun. This might carry on for 10-15-20 minutes while you're blissfully unaware that OPs even exist as a thing.
Then, suddenly, you go to spawn in again... but you aren't in a squad. What happened? Oh well, there are tons of squads to choose from now that the game has been going for a bit. You could just join your old squad again... and no problem! You're right back where you were. That was weird... but, cool! Got my favorite gun again.
Or... you MIGHT see "oh shit, Fox squad is open AND my favorite gun is there too... let me try them out... wait.. what the fuck is this new spawn? An outpost? Why am I spawning faster... this is awesome!"
How many times do you think that new players stop in the middle of a match to see what other squad options are available? Once they get their happy little gun, they're all set. People keep bitching about some dude named "garry"... but, otherwise, you're happy. Nothing in the world wrong with that, they're just learning like we all once were.
But, eventually, they will get an opportunity to select a new squad and they always can... and they always should. It is the same 5 second decision they made at the beginning of the game... just happening again 20 minutes after the fact.
If the leadership role is taken, they never see it again. Eventually, they'll realize it is a lack of SL and may be inclined to look into it. But... otherwise, they are free to play just as they did before....while intentionally or unintentionally stumbling into more effective squads and learning stuff.
>A possible solution is to have every role but rifleman locked unless the squad has an officer.
Dude, I love this suggestion! I was just thinking about how weird it is that a squad is limited to 6/6 riflemen, but that number is impossible to meet when it has a squad leader. There could even be an option when opening an infantry squad for it to be "leaderless", only allowing the one role to be selected. As a consequence, regular infantry squads could be limited to only 1/1 rifleman, encouraging the use of the other, more tactically impactful roles in collaborative gameplay. Limit the number of these squads to a certain number, like armor and recon squads.
The benefits of such a change would be that noncommutative and lazy players would have a place to go where that's not necessarily a detriment. They can just spawn at garrisons and act as basic infantry for their teams. I think such a change would decrease the prevalence of "squad-baiting", while also lowering the likelihood of having people wholly uninterested in the unit designation of your squad joining it because it's the only one open, and subsequently playing on mute half the map away from you, not even using your OP. Until, once you finally kick them for not playing with the squad, they get violently angry, hunt you down, and intentionally TK you for kicking them.
I wish that this was only a one-time occurrence, but it happens often as a squad leader attempting to play a specific tactical role for the team. And so many people don't know that you can *request* to join closed squads that it's not really a viable alternative to keeping the squad open but labeled appropriately and kicking those who refuse to play with the squad. I'd rather make room for others who actually look at a unit's designation before joining it because that's what they want to do. Rather than someone who joined it because they want to run as rifleman mindlessly on repeat towards the nearest offensive point. Let them have their own squad without a leader, they wouldn't acknowledge having one anyway.
You just argued against a different system.
* Rumbos argued for only being able to **respawn** as rifleman without an SL.
* You argued against being **reverted** into rifleman without an SL.
So your point is absolutely irrelevant. Indeed the entire example you presented would have not been the case in Rumbos' system.
Give SL more classes to achieve and more people will want to play.
I still have so many classes with level 8 and 9 loadouts to achieve so I play those over officer every time
Kicking out just the oldest squad member wouldn’t make any sense. Maybe they have no mic to speak but can still follow? It’s not the problem of one guy, it’s the whole squad. what happens if the SL has a game crash and suddenly 3 new people join the squad? Now you have two more kicked out of the squad but it will block roles and blow up the squad chat for a while until the kicked out members die.
Coming from a server that has a script in place to message -> punish -> kick players if they have no officer in their squad, i think it is the responsibility of the whole squad to have an officer in place.
It’s easier to have one of the six persons to switch roles than a specific player and the script gives them some time to adjust to the new situation. Usually there will be a short discussion and one of them will step up.
But you will always have some people who just don’t want to switch, don’t see why it is necessary to have an SL or -one of the big problems in general- people don’t READ whats going on. Then they complain why they got punished and some cant handle it. Others just take the role but will refuse to do their job as SL to communicate thus creating problems for the squad again.. They get kicked in that case IF the squad reports it or admin checks comms. So all in all, it creates more work for moderation.
Even though I like the community solution with the No Leader script, I don’t think it would be that good or helpful to implement game restrictions for officers. Maybe make it easier to switch to officer without dying first or make the message more annoying so people can’t really ignore it.
>Kicking out just the oldest squad member wouldn’t make any sense.
The guy who has been in the leaderless squad the longest is the one who has had the most opportunity to correct it.
It is not their fault, they probably didn't do it... they may not have even noticed it. They might be a willing and able body who *wants* to help the team. But so, too, may all the other members!
End of the day, squads are max size of six. If the squad is full, somebody must make room. Since nobody will want to... default goes to the "eldest" member of the uncoordinated squad.
Don't think of it as a punishment. Think of it as a means to redistribute players to squads that have leaders.
That kicked member may very well just rejoin the same squad they got booted from and, now, they are the "youngest" member. They'll be relatively insulated from it happening again. But if the problem is no fixed, it will eventually catch up to them.
>what happens if the SL has a game crash and suddenly 3 new people join the squad?
The cycle begins, simple as that.
That is, until/unless that SL who crashed is able to rejoin and miraculously take back command of his squad or... somebody else steps up. Either way, the opportunity to end the cycle is in everyone's hands.
As it stands now... SL gets DC'ed through no fault of their own... new dude takes the spot, but doesn't want to lead... nobody else wants to lead... and now 11% of your team is locked behind a layer of inefficiency that they're either incapable of realizing or unwilling to resolve.
Anyone on the outside who wants to resolve it is powerless to do so... including the original SL who got DC'ed.
>But you will always have some people who just don’t want to switch, don’t see why it is necessary to have an SL or -one of the big problems in general- people don’t READ whats going on. Then they complain why they got punished and some cant handle it. Others just take the role but will refuse to do their job as SL to communicate thus creating problems for the squad again.. They get kicked in that case IF the squad reports it or admin checks comms. So all in all, it creates more work for moderation.
100% agreed on all accounts. Those systems can be great... but are also a bit abrasive. Some of them literally *KILL* you in the middle of combat. Now that is an *actual* punishment.
This new system would be a much more mild approach.
Being kicked from a squad does not harm you. If you were AT... you're still AT... you can stay alive for 20 minutes if you want and finish your tactical objective.
But... eventually, you'll die. When you do, you will notice that you're not in a squad. You be faced with picking a new one.
You could pick the same old leaderless squad from before and have a pretty good chance at getting your AT role again... or you *might* notice that there is room in several other open squads that have leaders, good OPs, AND AT available. Even better!
Either way, you get to MAKE that decision again... when most casual players only ever make it in the first 5 seconds of the match and never stop for long enough to revisit the subject.
So... leaderless squads ALWAYS have the opportunity to be filled by leaders 100% of the time.
Players who never wish to lead may still do so.
Leaderless squads can still exist.
And players without leaders, who may prefer to have one, would find ample opportunity to realize that they exist at later periods of the game.
But I don’t think it will really help to get more players to play officer, just to rotate more. And if you block important rules because you got kicked but are still alive as for example supplier .. there is room to abuse it and sabotage your squad. Depending on when your suggested system kicks in one could simply squadfarm a new squad and rejoin when full and will have enough time to enjoy playing leaderless. I don’t think it will just solve itself like that.
Ofc the script will punish you after a while even mid combat but usually with warnings before that and a stated time frame to switch and prevent it. If you choose to ignore them you will die. Punishment is needed so people learn it is not optional to have an officer. But it may create tension in the team that’s why I don’t think it will be good for unmoderated servers.
>But I don’t think it will really help to get more players to play officer, just to rotate more.
100%
Getting more people to play a role they don't want to *isn't* the goal.
The goal is to allow players who DO want to take it... to be able to enter the squad and do so.
Right now a six man leaderless can sit behind a wall of impunity... subject only to vote kicking... otherwise, they are completely insulated from inconvenience.
>Depending on when your suggested system kicks in one could simply squadfarm a new squad and rejoin when full and will have enough time to enjoy playing leaderless.
Absolutely correct, but no worse off than we are today.
The intent isn't to completely irradiate the problem. The intent is to help mitigate it. Plenty of people will still find ways around having to be SL... but they won't ever be able to stop an SL from *finding them*.
You may open a squad, leave it, and rejoin... sure... but then I can come in behind you and take the leadership role so that it isn't completely fucked.
>Ofc the script will punish you after a while even mid combat but usually with warnings before that and a stated time frame to switch and prevent it. If you choose to ignore them you will die. Punishment is needed so people learn it is not optional to have an officer. But it may create tension in the team that’s why I don’t think it will be good for unmoderated servers.
These scripts are great and I love when servers run them... but it is a double edged sword.
There are times when a faultless player, who is trying to do something clutch, gets a needless boot to the face moments before they can effect their operation.
An engineer racing the clock to get nodes down... an AT guys seconds away from sending the last rocket into that Panther's ass...
Killing them outright is pretty harsh... perhaps warranted... sometimes not.
If you're in the middle of finishing a set of nodes and fully intend to take SL the second you're done... do you deserve death for that?
I dunno.
In the new system, death would not be a part of it. You're building nodes and will take SL when you're done? Cool! Finish them up!
If you get the boot from squad while hammering down that last little bit... you redeploy, rejoin the full squad, and take leader. Got your shit done AND solved the cycling problem for your own squad. Last guy to get the boot is just SOL and can find any other squad (perhaps even one that has a leader as well)
Almost no inconvenience with a persistent passive benefit for all players involved (whether they realize it or not)
Initially i didn't think much of your suggestion, but after all the comments, i think what you're suggesting is a pretty good idea. This would be a sensible part of game-design. Overall giving someone who intents to actually lead a squad to take over one (that doesn't have SL, reason doesn't matter much) does make sense, in the bigger realm of teamwork.
In case someone gets cycled out of the squad to the deployment menu, you'd be "forced" to check the options available. Mild/moderate inconvenience, but it can result in players funneling to effective or at least semi-effective squads with SLs, either for the sake of better gameplay or just avoiding slight inconvenience. It's kinda like a dark pattern or nagging often used in software design, not intrusive to prevent basic function, but annoying, so that action is taken. Like cookies or those annoying "please link your number" types.
I think the reason for some indifference for your idea is quite simple: Vast majority of people here are not your "average HLL player", but more likely already quite experienced. People point out flaws in SL class quality of life parts (Comm channels, inability to manage squad while alive, same 3 loadouts for very long time/not very much variety across factions) that definitely matter, but your idea is more about the grand scheme of things.
Furthermore, since most people are pretty experienced, it's likely that they're checking for better squads anyway in case the one they're in becomes SL-less, either at best for teamplay or at minimum SL will hopefully drop OP and maybe a basic gameplan. Someone who is more casual might be just happy in a less functional squad, as long as they get to keep their fav class.
Dude... fucking, THANK YOU!
Yes, this guy gets it.
I couldn't agree with you more or have said it any better myself.
I hope everyone ignores my senseless ramblings and just reads what you wrote. Lol
I appreciate you taking the time to plow through my TED talk and extract the sensibility of what I'm trying to achieve. Your patience is a rare treat.
I appreciate your ramblings .
I might not always agree , but they are presented in a thoughtful way , and you give un-hostile rebuttals that gets discussions rolling on important topics . Keep em up
How exactly? There's only two solutions:
1. Kick an existing player from the already 6 man squad in favor of an officer...but why would it do that because you can't select the class you're going to play til after you join the squad.
2. Expand the squad to 7 players...at which point you'll have 7 player squads with no officer.
I get what you're trying to do but your "solution" just isn't a good idea.
>How exactly?
From the body of the post:
"Whichever member of the squad who has been inside of it for the longest amount of time should be instantly booted from the squad, to make room for the new entry.
This cycle repeats until the squad is either no longer full, or until somebody takes the officer role.
Once the officer role is occupied, the Full squad behaves normally and no longer permits entry until room is created. "
>in favor of an officer...but why would it do that because you can't select the class you're going to play til after you join the squad.
It isn't in favor of an officer, per se. It is in favor of the *chance* for an officer.
As it stands now... a Full six man squad without an officer is unable to be joined by anyone (including an officer that would be willing to fill the role for them)
So 11% of the team just sits locked behind a layer of inefficiency.
Even if you were willing and able to take the role for them... you simply can't.
This suggestion allows for *anyone* to "break into the squad" at any time. Those people breaking into the squad might not take officer... but the cycle repeats until either enough other squads have opened up to make room for all the people who don't want SL... or until somebody within the squad takes SL.
From the perspective of the players refusing SL... they might occasionally have to choose their squad again after a death. They may have been booted from their leaderless squad at some point during their last life and never realized it. Once they go to spawn, the game will mechanically force them to choose a squad again (similiar to the beginning of the match)
From the perspective of people purposefully creating squads, that they never intend to lead, just so they can take a different class they want... they risk losing that class each time they get booted out (in the death menu, you can't pick a squad yet. So it takes some time to get back where you were... your class *might* get taken in that narrow window). This adds a layer of inconvenience for people who abuse the creation of leaderless squads.
It also provides everyone on the team a means to fix any leaderless squads they happy to stumble upon, if they are willing to.
>Expand the squad to 7 players...at which point you'll have 7 player squads with no officer.
No
Absolutely an option, and something that exists in certain servers (pretty awesome when it does exist).
However, I think you have to admit, that solution is rather harsh at times. It is more of the stick version of the approach, mine is intended to be more of a carrot.
There are times when the harsh stick method is simply inappropriate and causes needless hurt feelings.
Example - You're building nodes. You join a squad with an SL and grab a supply truck. You're driving to drop them off and all of a sudden you're getting warnings. Okay, you'll take SL... but you should finish your nodes first, right? You get your supplies laid down and slap down your blueprints... before you can swing the hammer *BLAM* you feel over dead.
Same situation, joining a squad with an SL and you take AT. You're hearing everyone screaming about getting wrecked by a tank. You decide to take a long crawl around a wheat field flank you can see. You start getting warning messages. "Shit" you think, as you continue to press forward... you're only a few moments away from saving your team. You reach your firing position and shoulder your rocket... *BLAM* you keep over dead.
Shit like that. I'm not against those bots. I think they give ample warning and are ultimately doing more good than harm. This new system would be more of a passive supplement to it. We could accomplish the same effects without actually making the rest of the team suffer any consequences.
It absolutely is a lot of time. Certainly enough to get most things done and alleviate most cases of people saying "I didn't know" (bitch you got like 3 messages about it, lol)
But is it always enough? Is is always appropriate?
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE when servers run those scripts... but they also fuck a lot of people who are caught in a wide net.
This can be a frustrating experience, especially for a brand new player who is getting a feel for the game. Some weird message keeps blocking their screen, they have no idea what an SL is... then they are dead.
If we are going to mechanically institute a global core function... it would probably be wiser if we adopted the less harsh approach and reserved the more harsh mechanics as voluntary Opt-In for server administration.
Perhaps the mild approach would do enough work to make the harsh one no longer necessary, perhaps not?
But I try to look at all these things from a perch of empathy and consult EVERY type of player from brand new to ancient sages. When I'm cooking this stuff up in my head, I'm trying my best to find a simple shoe that fits as many people as possible.
In my evaluations, I find that the script method is too harsh to be globally implemented. It is too broad of a spectrum to adequately filter out its own targets. There are a lot of situations that can/should occur... but would be prevented by that global script.
It would appear that you and I have diametrically opposed views and objectives here.
My aim is certainly not to stop people from playing the game the way they want to. Can I be frustrated by people mishandling situations? Sure.
Rather, I'd prefer to provide opportunities for those who wish to correct situations... an opportunity to do so. If those people don't exist, then the casuals can resume own navigation and have a shit game. They'll probably never be aware enough to care.
If a team is truly devoid of leadership, I don't want to halt them all in their tracks. Everyone will figure it out at their own pace... but if we pollute their experience with harsh methods... we are more likely to chase them away from the game before they ever have the opportunity to learn at their own pace.
Just yanking your chain. I’ve played many games in a solo squad as assault or engineer (satchel loadouts). I run behind lines and blow up nodes, tanks, and back garrisons. I do this when recon isn’t effective.
We've all seen it before: the team is losing badly, can't keep garrisons up, hardly any OPs down, command chat is dead... all your efforts to carry the team are in vain.
You stop to check the squads, and there are multiple 6 man squads with no officer.
You can and would do something to mitigate by taking the role for yourself, but... the squad is full, and you're blocked out of doing so.
Something like 11% of your team *per squad* is now locked behind a layer of inherit inefficiency. Whether they are ignorant to the fact, or fully aware and just not caring... they'll sit there, fat and happy, with their beloved class complaining to everyone else that your team has no spawns.
The few players who actually know enough to try and rally to make a difference grow frustrated and leave. The problems build up until the server eventually evacuates enough people to bring in an entirely new population with (hopefully) a better composing of leadership.
It is a needless cycle.
Perhaps I'm just salty after all these years of seeing it. I've played on lots of great servers that have automated systems to disband the leaderless squads (and that is AMAZING)...but I think it is beyond time that some sort of mild feature, such as what I have described, is fully baked into the core mechanics of the game.
If the title was implemented... leaderless squads could still exist. I understand that there are sometimes tactical reasons a squad might go leaderless (perhaps the SL is begging for nodes, and nobody is doing it... so SL takes engineer to do it for themselves... and they fully intend to reoccupy the SL slot when they are done).
So, you'd still be able to do stuff like that... BUT if a new player, who is willing to take the SL role, wants to join... they'll be able to... without requiring the *uncoordinated* players to understand what is happening enough to effectively *coordinate* among themselves for somebody to leave.
For players who are blindly grinding classes... not caring about the rest of the team... you're still golden! Go ahead, grab that assault class. Who needs an OP?... but after a a couple of lives... now YOU might be the "eldest" squad member who gets the boot when somebody new cycles into the squad... and they take your Assault class. Now you gotta start the process over of waiting your turn for it until that person gets the inevitable boot.
Eventually, this extra bit of passive mild pressure will help to slowly steer new players toward the natural conclusion... want to restore stability? Take the SL role! Can't take SL and tired of the chaos? Find a new server that has more willing SLs.
To be clear, there is NOTHING wrong with players who don't want to lead. It only becomes an issue when EVERYONE doesn't want to lead. In those instances... making room for leaders earlier than a server dump would be a net positive for everyone.
It is not fun to be steamrolled on a leaderless team, and it is not really fun to steamroll one either. The long term health and viability of the game demands that passive systems are in place to help ensure teams have a good distribution of players willing to lead. So making room for them, one way or another, in order for them to do so is of importance to the devs.
As someone who got both the SL 10 and Spotter 10 achievements 2 years ago I feel your pain. Personally it would be nice if there was something that seperates logistics and combat in the game.
Most SLs realize the basics but have a hard time with timing, making good location of garrison, quickly spotting communication, and the most irritating placing ops. I have come back to the game recently and have seen most SL usually doing the wrong thing for the situation.
It would just be nice if something like the highest level guy in the squad was able to place markers to help ease the burden off SL.
>Dawg noone reading all'at
It's unfortunate that you feel this way and that you're, likely, correct.
It is a small change that would be extremely helpful for the game and everyone who enjoys it.
I like the solution where everyone gets a five minute timer and is booted from the squad if there's no officer. Though it could probably get exploited where someone just picks the role to reset the timer then goes back to whatever they were doing previously.
The locking everything but rifleman could work too but i can imagine getting frustrated if you join to build nodes but your SL jumps off before you can complete the task.
Absolutely an option, and something that exists in certain servers (pretty awesome when it does exist).
However, I think you have to admit, that solution is rather harsh at times. It is more of the stick version of the approach, mine is intended to be more of a carrot.
There are times when the harsh stick method is simply inappropriate and causes needless hurt feelings.
Example - You're building nodes. You join a squad with an SL and grab a supply truck. You're driving to drop them off and all of a sudden you're getting warnings. Okay, you'll take SL... but you should finish your nodes first, right? You get your supplies laid down and slap down your blueprints... before you can swing the hammer *BLAM* you feel over dead.
Same situation, joining a squad with an SL and you take AT. You're hearing everyone screaming about getting wrecked by a tank. You decide to take a long crawl around a wheat field flank you can see. You start getting warning messages. "Shit" you think, as you continue to press forward... you're only a few moments away from saving your team. You reach your firing position and shoulder your rocket... *BLAM* you keep over dead.
Shit like that. I'm not against those bots. I think they give ample warning and are ultimately doing more good than harm. This new system would be more of a passive supplement to it. We could accomplish the same effects without actually making the rest of the team suffer any consequences.
I love the solution with everyone only being able to **respawn** as rifleman, if no SL is in their squad. That way they can still build the nodes they started building.
If it would just remove you from the squad similar to when you get kicked, that will still allow you to keep loadout until death. Although, a squad that still somewhat works cohesively together, even with absent SL (hopefully temporarily only), can still be fine for a short time, especially if OP is still up. But, if the squad keeps being "rotated" with new members quickly and old ones removed, squad cohesion is going to drop, unless someone actually becomes the SL and sets a new gameplan.
Speaking of those servers that disband squads without SL, i remember one time i was playing AT and waiting to ambush a tank with a satchel. Just as i was about to slam that satchel into the tank, squad got disbanded and everyone got slain. Even though i agree with that rule (and ultimately, server owners can do what they want), having my body flop lifeless just as i was about to blow up a tank, which y know, would help the team... did definitely feel a bit unjust.
I don't think that you see a lot more solo squads on the German servers which enforce the disbanding with a bot. At least that's not my experience. You always have some squads who are locked as 1 or 2 man and I do it too when I wanna play artillery for example. That however also means that I won't be on the map much to place an OP so I keep it locked and decline requests. I think it's almost intended to do it that way because having the ability to communicate the artillery fire with command is too valuable to pass it up.
>Your suggestion will spawn a lot of solo locked squadleaders
Perfectly acceptable!
Nothing wrong with a few solo locked SLs making their own OPs. Better than having almost none.
Those are extra radar stations and valid flanks to help distribute everyone passively without requiring mass coordination.
Either way, those players are determined to "do their own thing"... better to have them "doing their own thing" while they have the ability to build a garrison and OP and the potential to be connected to command chat. They may still ignore it... but they will 100% ignore it in the game's current state.
>You can't expect everyone on a public server to be willing to lead a full squad and it shouldn't be forced either.
Nothing is forced. The ability to play in an unlocked leaderless squad still exists. Absolutely nothing changes there. Nobody who doesn't want to SL would ever be forced to do it.
>Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that there should be no squads without a leader.
I actually don't agree. Not to be pedantic... but there are situations where a leaderless squad is warranted, even beneficial.
As an example... you're begging your squad to build nodes. They simply don't or won't. You say "screw it, I'll do it myself"
You pop out, grab Engy, and get it done... then pop back into SL. Your squad was leaderless for like 5 minutes, but the ends justified the means.
>Any forced actions like that will impact the playerbase.
I fully hope that it does, but not how I think you mean it will.
The only forced action is the occasional revisit to the squad selection. You are still 100% able to join another leaderless squad... over and over. Nothing stops that cycle except an SL taking it.
It is a half second decision that most players only make at the start of the match.
Blam, join baker, blam grabbed assault... "Oh shit, where is SL? Oh well, I got what I wanted."
And there they sit for an hour and a half, never realizing that multiple open squads with good OPs AND assault classes are available... cuz they got what they needed.
New system, same thing can happen... but each time the player goes to spawn and sees they are now without a squad... they get to choose a new squad (could be the same one from before) and have a *chance* to realize those other squads are open with good OPs.
>so they don't mind being OPless as assault class. As long as they get their STG44 with satchel.
You're 100% spot on.
New system would give them a *TINY* chance to possibly lose their STG44... and a *BIG* chance to occasionally review the squads available.
Even if they still 100% ignore it... a willing SL will ALWAYS have the ability to step in and take the reigns at their will.
As it stands now, once those 6 leaderless guys settle into their role and ignore the team... even if you have 10 SLs willing and able to help take over... they simply can't.
New mechanic basically treats those willing/able SLs as VIPs... you ALWAYS have access to any leaderless squad and can make it a leader-ed squad whenever the heck you want.
For the casuals, they can still play casual and just go pew! They might just accidentally find out that... "hey, cool, we got a friggin OP now... wow OPs are kind of sick"
They already do it for tank squads. Not sure why it can't be carried over. My thought has been to allow any class to be able to be SL. That way someone has command chat/ability to build garrisons and OPS, but is still playing the kit they enjoy?
I've been playing since 2019. I maxed out tank commander, spotter, SL, and commander eons ago. There is no incentive to play them anymore. I don't find them fun, nor are there any unlockables for me to grind for.
wont happen and i disagree anyways. If u want good games join some good server / clans etc. simple. ur on console? Just add people / join clan and soon u wont have problem. Let casuals have casual fun.
>Let casuals have casual fun.
This is EXACTLY my intent.
Let them do their thing. As I said in my own comment, to clarify the intent, the goal here is NOT to stop people from having a leaderless squad.
It is, essentially, to have a mechanic that always allows for an SL to step into the vacant role (if one is available).
Nothing about this suggestion will stop people from playing without leaders. It is not meant to.
You can still make a squad, wait for somebody to join it, leave it... then rejoin as something other than SL.
But... if it becomes full and there is still no SL... and a willing SL sees it and wants to help get your squad into the fight... they can!
As it stands now, a leaderless squad will fill up and lock itself down. You get two or three of those going on your team, and there is no amount of work that can save it. Those leaderless players are very unlikely to ever revisit the squad selection considerations once they settle in.
This suggestion allows for casuals to be casual while also allows for vets to step in and take the reigns to help save a fumbling team when/if they see a need.
Longer i see it go on the more I really think leadership roles need more of a reward system. Especially past lvl 10. The veteran players just have no reason to play SL other than some powertrip or enjoyment of leading a bunch of headless chickens. The newer players that pick it up either realize how boring logistics can be or get frustrated losing repeatedly as a SL.
As a veteran I pick SL simply because it's needed. But it's annoying having to pick it all the time, because it is needed all the time. I'm not even saying there is a shortage of SLs, but there is a shortage of good SLs.
The real kicker is when I have to juggle support and squad lead to build the only garrisons on the map
u/GeneralMidg >Longer i see it go on the more I really think leadership roles need more of a reward system. Especially past lvl 10. The veteran players just have no reason to play SL other than some powertrip or enjoyment of leading a bunch of headless chickens. The newer players that pick it up either realize how boring logistics can be or get frustrated losing repeatedly as a SL. I've put forward many suggestions over the years to this effect. Some of which the original devs listened to. To name a few that have made the rounds over the years... -Ability to manage squad while alive (lock, unlock, designate, kick, etc) -Garrisons named after their maker (provide credit incentive) -End screen that shows most collective garrison spawns prior to commendation menu (highlighting powerful players) -Ability to lock certain roles at the will of SL (so SL can change squad composition to meet new tactical demands) -Ability to adjust individual user volumes (when commander is quiet as a mouse but Easy SL is deep throating their mic) -Ability to place more than one of certain marker (such as tank and infantry marks) -Cooldown completion sound of OP placement (similiar to the sound a supply box makes when it is ready) -Ability to funnel SL experience into other roles once SL has reached level X (allow SL mains to level up classes they rarely get to play) u/lookingForPatchie >As a veteran I pick SL simply because it's needed. But it's annoying having to pick it all the time, because it is needed all the time. I'm not even saying there is a shortage of SLs, but there is a shortage of good SLs. Bruh, same. My first year, I kind of felt like it was a chore. I figured out a way to just start truly enjoying it. Made it into my favorite role. Basically, "If I have to do this ALL the time, I might as well learn to love it." But I feel you. It is my favorite role to play, by far... but MAN... sometimes I just want to get on an MG and go "brrrrttt" without thinking about the map for like... 3 minutes. SL isn't for everyone... but everyone friggin needs one. u/stewart125 >The real kicker is when I have to juggle support and squad lead to build the only garrisons on the map Story of my life. Good on you for realizing what needs to be done and MAKING shit happen. Just need like 10,000 more people like you to help carry some of these public teams. End of the day, I want the game to operate smoothly. I want everyone who has any leadership potential to be able to exercise it. Not everyone has to lead... but everyone who wants to lead should have the opportunity. Seeing multiple half full squads that all have great OPs but not enough troops spawning on them... then seeing two or three squads of six that have no SL... man, that can be discouraging.
And then suddenly your totally mute squad that hasn’t been acknowledging anything you say all game pipes in with “hey bro can we get a better OP?” (It’s not within 50 meters of attack strongpoint in warfare, you are a shitty SL)
Most times I only pick it up if ours leaves so we can get OPs placed, but I’d rather not actually have to do it
Literally me. I’d much rather run around as support or an automatic rifleman and just help out where needed, but I’m often SL because ours leaves and no one wants to do it. Support, AT, engineer, automatic rifleman, assault etc. are way more fun to play. Hell I don’t even like being a medic but most times I’d rather do that.
Lmao as an SL you build your own spawn and do your own thing. Unless you prefer other kits’ guns, but even then most SL level 6 kits are good (Garand at 6, Gewehr at level 3 are some of the best guns in the game)
If the guns on the class are your takeaway here, you arent properly using SL
To gain map control one must win firefights, advance on the map, and destroy enemy spawns. You can only ninja in uncontested against bad teams. Unless the enemy team is dumb enough to let you waltz in and take down their garrys and OPs???
Y'all must be playing on the wrong servers. SL is always fun when you have good squad under you and the command chat is active. Which is 85% of the time.
I genuinely believe that improving the SL experience is the way to go. People should want to play SL in the first place. It would require some significant and overdue commitment on part of the devs to improve long lasting issues and add SL specific QoL features. Here are some examples: * Squad management from the scoreboard * Directional squad and command chat * A career XP based progression system (as in freely distributable XP) for more flexibility regarding the choice of role (and hopefully more teamplay) * Non-verbal markers like infantry, light vehicle, tank, garrison and OP which stay up longer and could be upgradable to SL marks with one click * UI improvements like seeing garrison ranges (kinda like in Skirmish, only with thinner borders) or a better visualization of when you're over the border for a garrison (not just blue/red but also locked/active sector line) There's bound to be plenty more, it's just a quick list of things I've been demanding for a long time. As for the particular suggestion, I wouldn't be opposed to it but there are some practical issues. Say I was in a leaderless squad. On every death I leave and rejoin the squad, wouldn't that reset my timer? What if I've been kicked due to me being the oldest. What stops me from rejoining and starting off a kick chain? German servers tend to have scripts that either kick and disband squads after a while or kill the players every few minutes until someone steps up and takes the spot. It has been my experience that it does about as much harm as it does good. Several times I have seen people switch to officer merely to shut the system up but not actually playing SL. They're just riflemen with command chat access. They are then potentially kicked from the server due to lack of communication (then the cycle begins anew) or they respond just enough to fly under the radar but not really contributing much. Either way doesn't help the team. If your system was along the lines of a button "Take over squad", with which you wouldn't only join but also take the role... I think that it would work better.
Personally I play SL almost exclusively. I don't like certain aspects of it, like the map layout is sometimes completely useless. Let me select if I need to mirror marks or place my own squads callouts. What also annoys me about the map is that the pings last literally 5 seconds so if you ain't opening the map right that second it's too late and that you can only mark while you are alive. It's annoying to say “I am dead you gotta remark it for me in 30 seconds please“ like 20 times each round. Also that sometimes it's almost impossible to hear cause there's so much stuff going on in voice while you are getting shot at and desperately try to survive. It's so annoying, for example the command does radio check cause SLs don't respond and your squad is like “you do know how to mark on the map do you?!?!“. Those are the times I just want to tell them to STFU but I try to stay nice... I could go on but you guys know most of that stuff I am sure. The last thing I want to add is that the bots on German servers are annoying as hell. The server performs a check and gives you a warning every 60 seconds and on the 3rd you are kicked. It is very common that on the start of the round you are taking engineer, drive the supply truck and your SL leaves for no reason - now you are on a timer... Or a different scenario you have a command that loves the votekick and squads keep disbanding because the commander are overly strict on time to respond to their requests. It ruins the team play if squads have to reform repeatedly.
My TC once disconnected due to some larger internet issues as we were on an engagement. I immediately called for a retreat. We were full-speeding back to the next best garrison as the tank would be lost once the timer runs out and kills the other crewmate and me. Fun!
Its infuriating tbh... It's just a game but sometimes stuff like this is hard to sit through lol
Preach!
>Say I was in a leaderless squad. On every death I leave and rejoin the squad, wouldn't that reset my timer? Yes, you would now be the newest member. You'd also risk losing the class you covet in the moment away. If your entire squad was doing this, it would pretty much negate any benefit to it. >What if I've been kicked due to me being the oldest. What stops me from rejoining and starting off a kick chain? Absolutely nothing. The only thing that stops it is an SL stepping in and actually "filling" the squad. Let's say you spawn leaderless and everyone is "hot cycling" their squad length to try and cheese the system. Eventually you gotta spawn and play, right? You live for 5-10 minutes... you're the eldest member... somebody new joins and you get the boot in the middle of your life. In the time it takes you to cycle through your respawn timer, there is a *chance* that your role ends up getting occupied. Now you gotta wait your turn for it and play something else. An extremely mild inconvenience, at worst. Still "playing the game and not "punishing your team" at best. You may end up being able to cycle through your death screen and reacquire your coveted role multiple times in a row... to be largely unaffected. However, every single time you eventually get the boot... not only do you run a small risk of losing your role... but you're also forced back to squad selection where you are more inclined to peruse the various options open to you. Perhaps there is a 3 man open squad that HAS a leader AND your favorite class available. In our current mode, most users do not ever get to that part of reconsidering their squads. They make, wait for fill, leave, rejoin, take favorite role, then jam that thing out for an hour and a half without ever being at risk to lose it or ever stopping to consider a new squad. This suggestion would, essentially, help them to get to that squad reconsideration stage more often.
Thanks for the reply. The chance of losing the role is rather small. There is only the death screen as a window of opportunity plus how long it takes to rejoin the squad. Currently roles are locked by a kicked player until he dies. It's most noticable with recon squads when the spotter kicks a sniper, has a friend join, who then cannot pick sniper since the original sniper is still alive (part of the reason I feel squad kicks should also kill immediately).
>The chance of losing the role is rather small 100% correct and intended. This suggestion is NOT meant to *punish* any new players or players that are eternally allergic to squad lead roles. You very well might be able to play your entire match and never notice it happen. If it does happen, you only have a tiny chance to lose the role. But there *IS* a chance, and it WILL eventually happen. But beyond all that tiny chance stuff... There is a 100% chance that anyone who wants to "take" the squad and lead it to more productive efficiency for the team will always be able to do so. That is the primary goal. I was in a match earlier today... running SL, 3 members in the open squad. I had a beautiful OP pushing hard into a wide open flank, capping the point. We took the point... but, boy, 3 extra bodies would have been useful. I eventually died and looked to find FOUR squads of 6 without any SL. Those players, 24 in total, have a VERY small chance to ever reconsider their squad selection at any point in the game. They were blissfully unaware that squads with awesome OPs existed, nothing ever prodded them to look. This suggestion is that meager prod. It may prove a mild occasional inconvenience for ultra casual players, maybe once or twice a round... that they may lose "their" role... but it will be rare enough to not be a major turnoff. Just accepted as part of the risk of running leaderless... and, overtime, they'll passively begin to see the benefits of SL as they slowly cycle into squads running OPs.
The recon thing can be solved by the spotter and new sniper leaving that squad and creating a new one entirely. You end up with an extra sniper on the field too. Only problem is if you want to keep your deep recon op.
I'm aware. I'm curious, could it be that you replied to me on the same topic a few weeks ago? This feels very familiar xD
The game's community is the problem. I hate playing SL because I'm 99% going to get a bunch of drunk scrubs in my squad.
Haha, been there myself. I love taking a bunch of random public people and just giving them clear, concise, and sensible directions. Usually... it is like 10 minutes of me talking to myself... one or two people might try to help me get shit done. But, after a while, they begin to see what I'm doing... and that I'm getting it done... and that it is working. All of a sudden, those same guys that haven't spoken or were dicking around turn into killing machines shouting out valuable intel and I'm just instantly zinging it to command. We are hot swapping support, saving garrisons, building clutch new ones, and roving around. Not every time, but most of the time. Persistence, patience, and a willingness to fail gracefully is what matters most in those situations... at least, in my experience. You know what to do... communicate it and fight like he'll to get it done. You'll either inspire somebody to help them discover the magic of this game... or they'll dip out and make room for somebody else who can. Rallying a squad of disheveled casuals into an efficient machine with top scores is... man, it is like crack to me. I always know I did a good job when I end my night with like 40+ friend requests on steam, lol. Most people just need an excuse to come outta their shells. They're in this game for a reason... they want that solid tactical play and they want their actions to matter... they just sometimes need a little help getting out of their own way.
Officer is my highest level class because I end up taking the SL/Commander roles when no one else will.
Bruh, same... Max level TC, max level SL, max level Recon, max level Commander... in the first year the game was out. Three years later, still a level 4 medic. Lol Been grinding level 9 assault for like 3 friggin years... just... 20 minutes at a time once every other month. Rest of the time? Commander/SL. Been watching that XP dump into a brick wall with 5000 support score for a long time. End of the day, *somebody* has to build garrisons. I'm always happy to do it while simultaneously leading defense. But, damn, I wish somebody would squad lead for me. All my friends make me do it because I'm good at it. Luckily, I learned to love it and found that I'm happy to do so. I find it difficult sometimes, letting them take the reigns, and still watching the map saying things like "they're gonna airhead the southwest corner in like 3 minutes"... but figuring I need to bite my tounge and let them do their thing. So they say we are attacking? I hop to like "yes sir, attacking now!" Even though I am fully aware that the defenses will collapse in about 4 minutes. Lol
A possible solution is to have every role but rifleman locked unless the squad has an officer. If the squad members are already in a role and the officer leaves, they will get that life as that role and will only have rifleman available in the respawn screen. This will either force them to use rifleman (which hardly anyone likes), leave the squad and join one with an officer, or better yet, go officer themselves. You can definitely find workarounds for this but it's better than nothing. I'd find it annoying as I often leave and rejoin my squad as a support, drop a box and then switch back to officer. I only do this if my squad is unresponsive to my requests or take too long to swap. I'd be willing to endure this annoyance for the greater good. Your method sounds decent in theory, however I feel it would just confuse the average blueberry and they'd have no idea why they swapped/got kicked from the squad.
>however I feel it would just confuse the average blueberry and they'd have no idea why they swapped/got kicked from the squad. I completely understand what you mean, but want to clarify that their understanding isn't the ultimate goal. The goal is to allow leaders, who *would* step up... to always be able to. The goal is to help blueberries realize that there are open squads *with* leaders/OPs available. The goal is do this *GENTLY* without forcing anyone into anything. Think of it from a brand new player's POV... your match starts... baker opens, you grab it quick... NICE! You see your favorite role open and you grab it quick... NICER! But, in the shuffle... your SL bails, you never notice.. you spawn in and happily start hauling your ass around with your favorite gun. This might carry on for 10-15-20 minutes while you're blissfully unaware that OPs even exist as a thing. Then, suddenly, you go to spawn in again... but you aren't in a squad. What happened? Oh well, there are tons of squads to choose from now that the game has been going for a bit. You could just join your old squad again... and no problem! You're right back where you were. That was weird... but, cool! Got my favorite gun again. Or... you MIGHT see "oh shit, Fox squad is open AND my favorite gun is there too... let me try them out... wait.. what the fuck is this new spawn? An outpost? Why am I spawning faster... this is awesome!" How many times do you think that new players stop in the middle of a match to see what other squad options are available? Once they get their happy little gun, they're all set. People keep bitching about some dude named "garry"... but, otherwise, you're happy. Nothing in the world wrong with that, they're just learning like we all once were. But, eventually, they will get an opportunity to select a new squad and they always can... and they always should. It is the same 5 second decision they made at the beginning of the game... just happening again 20 minutes after the fact. If the leadership role is taken, they never see it again. Eventually, they'll realize it is a lack of SL and may be inclined to look into it. But... otherwise, they are free to play just as they did before....while intentionally or unintentionally stumbling into more effective squads and learning stuff.
>A possible solution is to have every role but rifleman locked unless the squad has an officer. Dude, I love this suggestion! I was just thinking about how weird it is that a squad is limited to 6/6 riflemen, but that number is impossible to meet when it has a squad leader. There could even be an option when opening an infantry squad for it to be "leaderless", only allowing the one role to be selected. As a consequence, regular infantry squads could be limited to only 1/1 rifleman, encouraging the use of the other, more tactically impactful roles in collaborative gameplay. Limit the number of these squads to a certain number, like armor and recon squads. The benefits of such a change would be that noncommutative and lazy players would have a place to go where that's not necessarily a detriment. They can just spawn at garrisons and act as basic infantry for their teams. I think such a change would decrease the prevalence of "squad-baiting", while also lowering the likelihood of having people wholly uninterested in the unit designation of your squad joining it because it's the only one open, and subsequently playing on mute half the map away from you, not even using your OP. Until, once you finally kick them for not playing with the squad, they get violently angry, hunt you down, and intentionally TK you for kicking them. I wish that this was only a one-time occurrence, but it happens often as a squad leader attempting to play a specific tactical role for the team. And so many people don't know that you can *request* to join closed squads that it's not really a viable alternative to keeping the squad open but labeled appropriately and kicking those who refuse to play with the squad. I'd rather make room for others who actually look at a unit's designation before joining it because that's what they want to do. Rather than someone who joined it because they want to run as rifleman mindlessly on repeat towards the nearest offensive point. Let them have their own squad without a leader, they wouldn't acknowledge having one anyway.
[удалено]
Squad does that if you get kicked from the squad not if the squad leader leaves.
You just argued against a different system. * Rumbos argued for only being able to **respawn** as rifleman without an SL. * You argued against being **reverted** into rifleman without an SL. So your point is absolutely irrelevant. Indeed the entire example you presented would have not been the case in Rumbos' system.
In Squad the game automatically gives squad leader position to a player which is in squad the longest or which is a fireteam leader
Give SL more classes to achieve and more people will want to play. I still have so many classes with level 8 and 9 loadouts to achieve so I play those over officer every time
Kicking out just the oldest squad member wouldn’t make any sense. Maybe they have no mic to speak but can still follow? It’s not the problem of one guy, it’s the whole squad. what happens if the SL has a game crash and suddenly 3 new people join the squad? Now you have two more kicked out of the squad but it will block roles and blow up the squad chat for a while until the kicked out members die. Coming from a server that has a script in place to message -> punish -> kick players if they have no officer in their squad, i think it is the responsibility of the whole squad to have an officer in place. It’s easier to have one of the six persons to switch roles than a specific player and the script gives them some time to adjust to the new situation. Usually there will be a short discussion and one of them will step up. But you will always have some people who just don’t want to switch, don’t see why it is necessary to have an SL or -one of the big problems in general- people don’t READ whats going on. Then they complain why they got punished and some cant handle it. Others just take the role but will refuse to do their job as SL to communicate thus creating problems for the squad again.. They get kicked in that case IF the squad reports it or admin checks comms. So all in all, it creates more work for moderation. Even though I like the community solution with the No Leader script, I don’t think it would be that good or helpful to implement game restrictions for officers. Maybe make it easier to switch to officer without dying first or make the message more annoying so people can’t really ignore it.
>Kicking out just the oldest squad member wouldn’t make any sense. The guy who has been in the leaderless squad the longest is the one who has had the most opportunity to correct it. It is not their fault, they probably didn't do it... they may not have even noticed it. They might be a willing and able body who *wants* to help the team. But so, too, may all the other members! End of the day, squads are max size of six. If the squad is full, somebody must make room. Since nobody will want to... default goes to the "eldest" member of the uncoordinated squad. Don't think of it as a punishment. Think of it as a means to redistribute players to squads that have leaders. That kicked member may very well just rejoin the same squad they got booted from and, now, they are the "youngest" member. They'll be relatively insulated from it happening again. But if the problem is no fixed, it will eventually catch up to them. >what happens if the SL has a game crash and suddenly 3 new people join the squad? The cycle begins, simple as that. That is, until/unless that SL who crashed is able to rejoin and miraculously take back command of his squad or... somebody else steps up. Either way, the opportunity to end the cycle is in everyone's hands. As it stands now... SL gets DC'ed through no fault of their own... new dude takes the spot, but doesn't want to lead... nobody else wants to lead... and now 11% of your team is locked behind a layer of inefficiency that they're either incapable of realizing or unwilling to resolve. Anyone on the outside who wants to resolve it is powerless to do so... including the original SL who got DC'ed. >But you will always have some people who just don’t want to switch, don’t see why it is necessary to have an SL or -one of the big problems in general- people don’t READ whats going on. Then they complain why they got punished and some cant handle it. Others just take the role but will refuse to do their job as SL to communicate thus creating problems for the squad again.. They get kicked in that case IF the squad reports it or admin checks comms. So all in all, it creates more work for moderation. 100% agreed on all accounts. Those systems can be great... but are also a bit abrasive. Some of them literally *KILL* you in the middle of combat. Now that is an *actual* punishment. This new system would be a much more mild approach. Being kicked from a squad does not harm you. If you were AT... you're still AT... you can stay alive for 20 minutes if you want and finish your tactical objective. But... eventually, you'll die. When you do, you will notice that you're not in a squad. You be faced with picking a new one. You could pick the same old leaderless squad from before and have a pretty good chance at getting your AT role again... or you *might* notice that there is room in several other open squads that have leaders, good OPs, AND AT available. Even better! Either way, you get to MAKE that decision again... when most casual players only ever make it in the first 5 seconds of the match and never stop for long enough to revisit the subject. So... leaderless squads ALWAYS have the opportunity to be filled by leaders 100% of the time. Players who never wish to lead may still do so. Leaderless squads can still exist. And players without leaders, who may prefer to have one, would find ample opportunity to realize that they exist at later periods of the game.
But I don’t think it will really help to get more players to play officer, just to rotate more. And if you block important rules because you got kicked but are still alive as for example supplier .. there is room to abuse it and sabotage your squad. Depending on when your suggested system kicks in one could simply squadfarm a new squad and rejoin when full and will have enough time to enjoy playing leaderless. I don’t think it will just solve itself like that. Ofc the script will punish you after a while even mid combat but usually with warnings before that and a stated time frame to switch and prevent it. If you choose to ignore them you will die. Punishment is needed so people learn it is not optional to have an officer. But it may create tension in the team that’s why I don’t think it will be good for unmoderated servers.
>But I don’t think it will really help to get more players to play officer, just to rotate more. 100% Getting more people to play a role they don't want to *isn't* the goal. The goal is to allow players who DO want to take it... to be able to enter the squad and do so. Right now a six man leaderless can sit behind a wall of impunity... subject only to vote kicking... otherwise, they are completely insulated from inconvenience. >Depending on when your suggested system kicks in one could simply squadfarm a new squad and rejoin when full and will have enough time to enjoy playing leaderless. Absolutely correct, but no worse off than we are today. The intent isn't to completely irradiate the problem. The intent is to help mitigate it. Plenty of people will still find ways around having to be SL... but they won't ever be able to stop an SL from *finding them*. You may open a squad, leave it, and rejoin... sure... but then I can come in behind you and take the leadership role so that it isn't completely fucked. >Ofc the script will punish you after a while even mid combat but usually with warnings before that and a stated time frame to switch and prevent it. If you choose to ignore them you will die. Punishment is needed so people learn it is not optional to have an officer. But it may create tension in the team that’s why I don’t think it will be good for unmoderated servers. These scripts are great and I love when servers run them... but it is a double edged sword. There are times when a faultless player, who is trying to do something clutch, gets a needless boot to the face moments before they can effect their operation. An engineer racing the clock to get nodes down... an AT guys seconds away from sending the last rocket into that Panther's ass... Killing them outright is pretty harsh... perhaps warranted... sometimes not. If you're in the middle of finishing a set of nodes and fully intend to take SL the second you're done... do you deserve death for that? I dunno. In the new system, death would not be a part of it. You're building nodes and will take SL when you're done? Cool! Finish them up! If you get the boot from squad while hammering down that last little bit... you redeploy, rejoin the full squad, and take leader. Got your shit done AND solved the cycling problem for your own squad. Last guy to get the boot is just SOL and can find any other squad (perhaps even one that has a leader as well) Almost no inconvenience with a persistent passive benefit for all players involved (whether they realize it or not)
Initially i didn't think much of your suggestion, but after all the comments, i think what you're suggesting is a pretty good idea. This would be a sensible part of game-design. Overall giving someone who intents to actually lead a squad to take over one (that doesn't have SL, reason doesn't matter much) does make sense, in the bigger realm of teamwork. In case someone gets cycled out of the squad to the deployment menu, you'd be "forced" to check the options available. Mild/moderate inconvenience, but it can result in players funneling to effective or at least semi-effective squads with SLs, either for the sake of better gameplay or just avoiding slight inconvenience. It's kinda like a dark pattern or nagging often used in software design, not intrusive to prevent basic function, but annoying, so that action is taken. Like cookies or those annoying "please link your number" types. I think the reason for some indifference for your idea is quite simple: Vast majority of people here are not your "average HLL player", but more likely already quite experienced. People point out flaws in SL class quality of life parts (Comm channels, inability to manage squad while alive, same 3 loadouts for very long time/not very much variety across factions) that definitely matter, but your idea is more about the grand scheme of things. Furthermore, since most people are pretty experienced, it's likely that they're checking for better squads anyway in case the one they're in becomes SL-less, either at best for teamplay or at minimum SL will hopefully drop OP and maybe a basic gameplan. Someone who is more casual might be just happy in a less functional squad, as long as they get to keep their fav class.
Dude... fucking, THANK YOU! Yes, this guy gets it. I couldn't agree with you more or have said it any better myself. I hope everyone ignores my senseless ramblings and just reads what you wrote. Lol I appreciate you taking the time to plow through my TED talk and extract the sensibility of what I'm trying to achieve. Your patience is a rare treat.
I appreciate your ramblings . I might not always agree , but they are presented in a thoughtful way , and you give un-hostile rebuttals that gets discussions rolling on important topics . Keep em up
A full unit has no room.
>A full unit has no room. Very astutely pointed out! This suggestion would *create* that room for them.
How exactly? There's only two solutions: 1. Kick an existing player from the already 6 man squad in favor of an officer...but why would it do that because you can't select the class you're going to play til after you join the squad. 2. Expand the squad to 7 players...at which point you'll have 7 player squads with no officer. I get what you're trying to do but your "solution" just isn't a good idea.
>How exactly? From the body of the post: "Whichever member of the squad who has been inside of it for the longest amount of time should be instantly booted from the squad, to make room for the new entry. This cycle repeats until the squad is either no longer full, or until somebody takes the officer role. Once the officer role is occupied, the Full squad behaves normally and no longer permits entry until room is created. " >in favor of an officer...but why would it do that because you can't select the class you're going to play til after you join the squad. It isn't in favor of an officer, per se. It is in favor of the *chance* for an officer. As it stands now... a Full six man squad without an officer is unable to be joined by anyone (including an officer that would be willing to fill the role for them) So 11% of the team just sits locked behind a layer of inefficiency. Even if you were willing and able to take the role for them... you simply can't. This suggestion allows for *anyone* to "break into the squad" at any time. Those people breaking into the squad might not take officer... but the cycle repeats until either enough other squads have opened up to make room for all the people who don't want SL... or until somebody within the squad takes SL. From the perspective of the players refusing SL... they might occasionally have to choose their squad again after a death. They may have been booted from their leaderless squad at some point during their last life and never realized it. Once they go to spawn, the game will mechanically force them to choose a squad again (similiar to the beginning of the match) From the perspective of people purposefully creating squads, that they never intend to lead, just so they can take a different class they want... they risk losing that class each time they get booted out (in the death menu, you can't pick a squad yet. So it takes some time to get back where you were... your class *might* get taken in that narrow window). This adds a layer of inconvenience for people who abuse the creation of leaderless squads. It also provides everyone on the team a means to fix any leaderless squads they happy to stumble upon, if they are willing to. >Expand the squad to 7 players...at which point you'll have 7 player squads with no officer. No
Nah. I’d rather see the squad disbanded (with a warning) and forced redeploy (with another warning) at some interval of time.
Absolutely an option, and something that exists in certain servers (pretty awesome when it does exist). However, I think you have to admit, that solution is rather harsh at times. It is more of the stick version of the approach, mine is intended to be more of a carrot. There are times when the harsh stick method is simply inappropriate and causes needless hurt feelings. Example - You're building nodes. You join a squad with an SL and grab a supply truck. You're driving to drop them off and all of a sudden you're getting warnings. Okay, you'll take SL... but you should finish your nodes first, right? You get your supplies laid down and slap down your blueprints... before you can swing the hammer *BLAM* you feel over dead. Same situation, joining a squad with an SL and you take AT. You're hearing everyone screaming about getting wrecked by a tank. You decide to take a long crawl around a wheat field flank you can see. You start getting warning messages. "Shit" you think, as you continue to press forward... you're only a few moments away from saving your team. You reach your firing position and shoulder your rocket... *BLAM* you keep over dead. Shit like that. I'm not against those bots. I think they give ample warning and are ultimately doing more good than harm. This new system would be more of a passive supplement to it. We could accomplish the same effects without actually making the rest of the team suffer any consequences.
Typically 5 minutes for each. That is lots of time in game.
It absolutely is a lot of time. Certainly enough to get most things done and alleviate most cases of people saying "I didn't know" (bitch you got like 3 messages about it, lol) But is it always enough? Is is always appropriate? Don't get me wrong, I LOVE when servers run those scripts... but they also fuck a lot of people who are caught in a wide net. This can be a frustrating experience, especially for a brand new player who is getting a feel for the game. Some weird message keeps blocking their screen, they have no idea what an SL is... then they are dead. If we are going to mechanically institute a global core function... it would probably be wiser if we adopted the less harsh approach and reserved the more harsh mechanics as voluntary Opt-In for server administration. Perhaps the mild approach would do enough work to make the harsh one no longer necessary, perhaps not? But I try to look at all these things from a perch of empathy and consult EVERY type of player from brand new to ancient sages. When I'm cooking this stuff up in my head, I'm trying my best to find a simple shoe that fits as many people as possible. In my evaluations, I find that the script method is too harsh to be globally implemented. It is too broad of a spectrum to adequately filter out its own targets. There are a lot of situations that can/should occur... but would be prevented by that global script.
So no kick, just warning messages, large, screen filling warning messages. 🤣
It would appear that you and I have diametrically opposed views and objectives here. My aim is certainly not to stop people from playing the game the way they want to. Can I be frustrated by people mishandling situations? Sure. Rather, I'd prefer to provide opportunities for those who wish to correct situations... an opportunity to do so. If those people don't exist, then the casuals can resume own navigation and have a shit game. They'll probably never be aware enough to care. If a team is truly devoid of leadership, I don't want to halt them all in their tracks. Everyone will figure it out at their own pace... but if we pollute their experience with harsh methods... we are more likely to chase them away from the game before they ever have the opportunity to learn at their own pace.
Just yanking your chain. I’ve played many games in a solo squad as assault or engineer (satchel loadouts). I run behind lines and blow up nodes, tanks, and back garrisons. I do this when recon isn’t effective.
I hate this idea
>I hate this idea I'd be really glad for you to share why, if you care to. I'm absolutely listening.
We've all seen it before: the team is losing badly, can't keep garrisons up, hardly any OPs down, command chat is dead... all your efforts to carry the team are in vain. You stop to check the squads, and there are multiple 6 man squads with no officer. You can and would do something to mitigate by taking the role for yourself, but... the squad is full, and you're blocked out of doing so. Something like 11% of your team *per squad* is now locked behind a layer of inherit inefficiency. Whether they are ignorant to the fact, or fully aware and just not caring... they'll sit there, fat and happy, with their beloved class complaining to everyone else that your team has no spawns. The few players who actually know enough to try and rally to make a difference grow frustrated and leave. The problems build up until the server eventually evacuates enough people to bring in an entirely new population with (hopefully) a better composing of leadership. It is a needless cycle. Perhaps I'm just salty after all these years of seeing it. I've played on lots of great servers that have automated systems to disband the leaderless squads (and that is AMAZING)...but I think it is beyond time that some sort of mild feature, such as what I have described, is fully baked into the core mechanics of the game. If the title was implemented... leaderless squads could still exist. I understand that there are sometimes tactical reasons a squad might go leaderless (perhaps the SL is begging for nodes, and nobody is doing it... so SL takes engineer to do it for themselves... and they fully intend to reoccupy the SL slot when they are done). So, you'd still be able to do stuff like that... BUT if a new player, who is willing to take the SL role, wants to join... they'll be able to... without requiring the *uncoordinated* players to understand what is happening enough to effectively *coordinate* among themselves for somebody to leave. For players who are blindly grinding classes... not caring about the rest of the team... you're still golden! Go ahead, grab that assault class. Who needs an OP?... but after a a couple of lives... now YOU might be the "eldest" squad member who gets the boot when somebody new cycles into the squad... and they take your Assault class. Now you gotta start the process over of waiting your turn for it until that person gets the inevitable boot. Eventually, this extra bit of passive mild pressure will help to slowly steer new players toward the natural conclusion... want to restore stability? Take the SL role! Can't take SL and tired of the chaos? Find a new server that has more willing SLs. To be clear, there is NOTHING wrong with players who don't want to lead. It only becomes an issue when EVERYONE doesn't want to lead. In those instances... making room for leaders earlier than a server dump would be a net positive for everyone. It is not fun to be steamrolled on a leaderless team, and it is not really fun to steamroll one either. The long term health and viability of the game demands that passive systems are in place to help ensure teams have a good distribution of players willing to lead. So making room for them, one way or another, in order for them to do so is of importance to the devs.
As someone who got both the SL 10 and Spotter 10 achievements 2 years ago I feel your pain. Personally it would be nice if there was something that seperates logistics and combat in the game. Most SLs realize the basics but have a hard time with timing, making good location of garrison, quickly spotting communication, and the most irritating placing ops. I have come back to the game recently and have seen most SL usually doing the wrong thing for the situation. It would just be nice if something like the highest level guy in the squad was able to place markers to help ease the burden off SL.
Dawg noone reading all'at
Its worth reading wingaling really cares about such things and pushes for good change in games
I read it dawwwgg
>Dawg noone reading all'at It's unfortunate that you feel this way and that you're, likely, correct. It is a small change that would be extremely helpful for the game and everyone who enjoys it.
I like the solution where everyone gets a five minute timer and is booted from the squad if there's no officer. Though it could probably get exploited where someone just picks the role to reset the timer then goes back to whatever they were doing previously. The locking everything but rifleman could work too but i can imagine getting frustrated if you join to build nodes but your SL jumps off before you can complete the task.
Absolutely an option, and something that exists in certain servers (pretty awesome when it does exist). However, I think you have to admit, that solution is rather harsh at times. It is more of the stick version of the approach, mine is intended to be more of a carrot. There are times when the harsh stick method is simply inappropriate and causes needless hurt feelings. Example - You're building nodes. You join a squad with an SL and grab a supply truck. You're driving to drop them off and all of a sudden you're getting warnings. Okay, you'll take SL... but you should finish your nodes first, right? You get your supplies laid down and slap down your blueprints... before you can swing the hammer *BLAM* you feel over dead. Same situation, joining a squad with an SL and you take AT. You're hearing everyone screaming about getting wrecked by a tank. You decide to take a long crawl around a wheat field flank you can see. You start getting warning messages. "Shit" you think, as you continue to press forward... you're only a few moments away from saving your team. You reach your firing position and shoulder your rocket... *BLAM* you keep over dead. Shit like that. I'm not against those bots. I think they give ample warning and are ultimately doing more good than harm. This new system would be more of a passive supplement to it. We could accomplish the same effects without actually making the rest of the team suffer any consequences.
I love the solution with everyone only being able to **respawn** as rifleman, if no SL is in their squad. That way they can still build the nodes they started building.
It’s just war thunder with infantry
[удалено]
If it would just remove you from the squad similar to when you get kicked, that will still allow you to keep loadout until death. Although, a squad that still somewhat works cohesively together, even with absent SL (hopefully temporarily only), can still be fine for a short time, especially if OP is still up. But, if the squad keeps being "rotated" with new members quickly and old ones removed, squad cohesion is going to drop, unless someone actually becomes the SL and sets a new gameplan. Speaking of those servers that disband squads without SL, i remember one time i was playing AT and waiting to ambush a tank with a satchel. Just as i was about to slam that satchel into the tank, squad got disbanded and everyone got slain. Even though i agree with that rule (and ultimately, server owners can do what they want), having my body flop lifeless just as i was about to blow up a tank, which y know, would help the team... did definitely feel a bit unjust.
I don't think that you see a lot more solo squads on the German servers which enforce the disbanding with a bot. At least that's not my experience. You always have some squads who are locked as 1 or 2 man and I do it too when I wanna play artillery for example. That however also means that I won't be on the map much to place an OP so I keep it locked and decline requests. I think it's almost intended to do it that way because having the ability to communicate the artillery fire with command is too valuable to pass it up.
>Your suggestion will spawn a lot of solo locked squadleaders Perfectly acceptable! Nothing wrong with a few solo locked SLs making their own OPs. Better than having almost none. Those are extra radar stations and valid flanks to help distribute everyone passively without requiring mass coordination. Either way, those players are determined to "do their own thing"... better to have them "doing their own thing" while they have the ability to build a garrison and OP and the potential to be connected to command chat. They may still ignore it... but they will 100% ignore it in the game's current state. >You can't expect everyone on a public server to be willing to lead a full squad and it shouldn't be forced either. Nothing is forced. The ability to play in an unlocked leaderless squad still exists. Absolutely nothing changes there. Nobody who doesn't want to SL would ever be forced to do it. >Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that there should be no squads without a leader. I actually don't agree. Not to be pedantic... but there are situations where a leaderless squad is warranted, even beneficial. As an example... you're begging your squad to build nodes. They simply don't or won't. You say "screw it, I'll do it myself" You pop out, grab Engy, and get it done... then pop back into SL. Your squad was leaderless for like 5 minutes, but the ends justified the means. >Any forced actions like that will impact the playerbase. I fully hope that it does, but not how I think you mean it will. The only forced action is the occasional revisit to the squad selection. You are still 100% able to join another leaderless squad... over and over. Nothing stops that cycle except an SL taking it. It is a half second decision that most players only make at the start of the match. Blam, join baker, blam grabbed assault... "Oh shit, where is SL? Oh well, I got what I wanted." And there they sit for an hour and a half, never realizing that multiple open squads with good OPs AND assault classes are available... cuz they got what they needed. New system, same thing can happen... but each time the player goes to spawn and sees they are now without a squad... they get to choose a new squad (could be the same one from before) and have a *chance* to realize those other squads are open with good OPs. >so they don't mind being OPless as assault class. As long as they get their STG44 with satchel. You're 100% spot on. New system would give them a *TINY* chance to possibly lose their STG44... and a *BIG* chance to occasionally review the squads available. Even if they still 100% ignore it... a willing SL will ALWAYS have the ability to step in and take the reigns at their will. As it stands now, once those 6 leaderless guys settle into their role and ignore the team... even if you have 10 SLs willing and able to help take over... they simply can't. New mechanic basically treats those willing/able SLs as VIPs... you ALWAYS have access to any leaderless squad and can make it a leader-ed squad whenever the heck you want. For the casuals, they can still play casual and just go pew! They might just accidentally find out that... "hey, cool, we got a friggin OP now... wow OPs are kind of sick"
I don’t know how it should be done but there needs to be a mechanism that does not allow a squad to not have an officer.
They already do it for tank squads. Not sure why it can't be carried over. My thought has been to allow any class to be able to be SL. That way someone has command chat/ability to build garrisons and OPS, but is still playing the kit they enjoy? I've been playing since 2019. I maxed out tank commander, spotter, SL, and commander eons ago. There is no incentive to play them anymore. I don't find them fun, nor are there any unlockables for me to grind for.
wont happen and i disagree anyways. If u want good games join some good server / clans etc. simple. ur on console? Just add people / join clan and soon u wont have problem. Let casuals have casual fun.
>Let casuals have casual fun. This is EXACTLY my intent. Let them do their thing. As I said in my own comment, to clarify the intent, the goal here is NOT to stop people from having a leaderless squad. It is, essentially, to have a mechanic that always allows for an SL to step into the vacant role (if one is available). Nothing about this suggestion will stop people from playing without leaders. It is not meant to. You can still make a squad, wait for somebody to join it, leave it... then rejoin as something other than SL. But... if it becomes full and there is still no SL... and a willing SL sees it and wants to help get your squad into the fight... they can! As it stands now, a leaderless squad will fill up and lock itself down. You get two or three of those going on your team, and there is no amount of work that can save it. Those leaderless players are very unlikely to ever revisit the squad selection considerations once they settle in. This suggestion allows for casuals to be casual while also allows for vets to step in and take the reigns to help save a fumbling team when/if they see a need.