Squad Rules (Allow Squad Names to Reserve Assets)

**CivilWars** · 05-14-09, 11:30 AM

In a word NO.

Who gets to decide who gets what asset(s)? You, me, the admins, the commander? It will do nothing to prevent TKing. If I want to fly a jet I could care less what your squad is named I am going to fly it. If I also happen to be someone that TKs to make sure I get the jet then I will TK you to fly it. I really see no benefit other than allowing those people that tell me to read the F'ing manual getting admin approval to whore the most prized assets on the battlefield.

**Kelderos** · 05-14-09, 12:08 PM

Or you could get the asset fair and square as the first come first serve and name your squad after your asset making the commanders job easier to identify your squad and not deal with the organization problem.

I would really hate if the guy who had a faster computer than me get the asset every round because of it. I also fail to see how naming your squad something is going to stop someone from TKing you. Non-Teamplayers don't care what you name your squad if they want your jet or chopper they will take it.

**DancingCorpse** · 05-14-09, 12:32 PM

If squads could "call" assets, I would never get to be in a tank, APC, TransHeli, or the Attack Helis even though I am above average in all of them, most people who make those squads lock them with only 2 or 4 people, and I sometimes come in late and I won't be able to get in an asset I am obviously better than someone else in.

Originally Posted by Darkenone86

Hmm
I'm still a oob to this, however I can see where this is benificial to all. If you have 3 squads named APC. The APC's should go in order of the sqauds created. For example S1, S3, and S4 all are titled APC. Well S4 is shit out of luck and S1 and S3 get the APCS. However, since there are only 2 seats in the APC that are really needed. S1 would have to lable there squad APCx2 if they wanted both APCS, then S3 would be out of luck.
But if S1 made a squad called APC and S3 made a squad called APCx2, S3 would only get 1 APC because S1 was before them.

What if S4 was actually made first? A lot of people make random squads at the beginning of a round and then leave them later and the squad numbers are all jumbled. That would not work.

**Darkenone86** · 05-14-09, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by DancingCorpse

If squads could "call" assets, I would never get to be in a tank, APC, TransHeli, or the Attack Helis even though I am above average in all of them, most people who make those squads lock them with only 2 or 4 people, and I sometimes come in late and I won't be able to get in an asset I am obviously better than someone else in.

Originally Posted by Darkenone86

Hmm
I'm still a oob to this, however I can see where this is benificial to all. If you have 3 squads named APC. The APC's should go in order of the sqauds created. For example S1, S3, and S4 all are titled APC. Well S4 is shit out of luck and S1 and S3 get the APCS. However, since there are only 2 seats in the APC that are really needed. S1 would have to lable there squad APCx2 if they wanted both APCS, then S3 would be out of luck.
But if S1 made a squad called APC and S3 made a squad called APCx2, S3 would only get 1 APC because S1 was before them.

What if S4 was actually made first? A lot of people make random squads at the beginning of a round and then leave them later and the squad numbers are all jumbled. That would not work.

Tru Dat

**Wraith** · 05-14-09, 02:18 PM

I cannot drive or pilot worth a shit, so the only I care about is having a sufficient amount of infantry and COMPETENT pilots (who, as I have constantly, are extremely hard to find). However, once when I was commander, I had to deal with bickering over assets. I sided with the correct but unpopular guy (who lost) (I was proven correct in the next game, where the other guy constantly crashed the chopper and one-manned assets despite constant warnings. Had it not been for him one-manning, we had a good chance at winning the game) but an admin sorted it out by kicking him (I found that funny, considering he was being civil and polite and the other guy and his friends were constantly cursing him out and unwilling to compromise)

So I agree with a squad asset-naming rule. It sorts out a lot of confusing. Luckily, I play on servers like "Moderated, other server names are not acceptable to post" often, and have few problems with this.

**503** · 05-14-09, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by draco7891

The rules of TTP are simple: squad up, follow orders, do your job. How does this proposal increase the elegance or simplicity of that ruleset? How does it deal with the myriad exceptional situations that will come up?

If you want to have assets reserved to squads, go Commander.

It's simple, it's clean, and it's easy to admin.

Draco

There you go.

**Talon2342** · 05-14-09, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by 503

Originally Posted by draco7891

The rules of TTP are simple: squad up, follow orders, do your job. How does this proposal increase the elegance or simplicity of that ruleset? How does it deal with the myriad exceptional situations that will come up?

If you want to have assets reserved to squads, go Commander.

It's simple, it's clean, and it's easy to admin.

Draco

There you go.

See thats one thing though, I talked to an admin and they said that's not enforced. So can it be taken more seriously now?

Thanks to everyone for your input, this thread has served it's purpose so I believe it should be locked.

**DancingCorpse** · 05-14-09, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by Talon2342

Originally Posted by 503

Originally Posted by draco7891

The rules of TTP are simple: squad up, follow orders, do your job. How does this proposal increase the elegance or simplicity of that ruleset? How does it deal with the myriad exceptional situations that will come up?

If you want to have assets reserved to squads, go Commander.

It's simple, it's clean, and it's easy to admin.

Draco

There you go.

See thats one thing though, I talked to an admin and they said that's not enforced. So can it be taken more seriously now?

Thanks to everyone for your input, this thread has served it's purpose so I believe it should be locked.

I don't know who told you that, because if the commander says that a squad gets an asset, that is an order to the whole team, and if the team is not following orders from the commander, then they will get kicked and/or banned.

**1shot1death(87)** · 05-14-09, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Talon2342

"NO!!!! GO AWAY damn canadian....",

Edit: for clearer title.

LOL

i think we should give it a test run, why not just see how this works...you learn from your mistakes so why not learn and see if it will work or not? maybe for a month after the stimulus is over we could try it out and see how it does? if it works it works, if it doesnt then it doesnt but we should give it a chance guys!

**bust331** · 05-14-09, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Talon2342

Originally Posted by 503

Originally Posted by draco7891

The rules of TTP are simple: squad up, follow orders, do your job. How does this proposal increase the elegance or simplicity of that ruleset? How does it deal with the myriad exceptional situations that will come up?

If you want to have assets reserved to squads, go Commander.

It's simple, it's clean, and it's easy to admin.

Draco

There you go.

See thats one thing though, I talked to an admin and they said that's not enforced. So can it be taken more seriously now?

Thanks to everyone for your input, this thread has served it's purpose so I believe it should be locked.

This doesn't need to be locked, it provides a good discussion on server rules, possibly even improving.

Also, anytime the commander issues an order, as in, squad 4 only gets the helicopter, anyone else who takes it is not following orders, and an admin should warn/kick/ban him.