Squad Rules (Allow Squad Names to Reserve Assets)

**-Sauso-** · 05-14-09, 07:49 PM

IF there is a commander.

i'm guessing in the past month while i have been on there has been a commander maybe 15% of the time.

**draco7891** · 05-14-09, 07:56 PM

Well, that's a situation you're more than capable of rectifying, Sauso.

Draco

**-Sauso-** · 05-14-09, 08:07 PM

not complaining....just shows how the PR devs need to fix the commander position..should have left it alone.

**MarioSpeedwagen** · 05-14-09, 08:18 PM

The commander/no commander point is moot. Aside from the fact it's obviously an undesireable position to play(and I don't think we should force people to sacrifice a round of having fun to command the team), it doesn't really matter because going commander doesn't suddenly make that player any more or less skilled, or even a teamplayer. The bottom line is do we think our player base is disciplined enough to invoke the named assets rule, or better yet, do we think it will actually promote discipline among us.

I wouldn't mind giving it a shot.

**DancingCorpse** · 05-14-09, 09:04 PM

I did good commanding on Muttrah tonight, pulled the team together to start a comeback, but it was too late in the round to make a difference.

The other problem I see with commander is that you do not get NEARLY the same amount of points as you would as a squad leader or squad member.

**Wraith** · 05-14-09, 09:07 PM

Since I played a game on Archer and an area saved my ass (and the game), I have found out how vital a commander is. As a result, I've been going commander frequently lately when there isn't one. However, I find that most people imsply ignore me, ESPECIALLY regarding assets.

**DancingCorpse** · 05-14-09, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by Wraith

Since I played a game on Archer and an area saved my ass (and the game), I have found out how vital a commander is. As a result, I've been going commander frequently lately when there isn't one. However, I find that most people imsply ignore me, ESPECIALLY regarding assets.

Then let an admin know, even if they are not in game, they can take care of the problem people for you. A commanders order is a commanders order and is to be followed.

**11Bravo** · 05-14-09, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by Ranger10

But that's not the TTP way.

You can take the commanders seat and assign the squads and assets that way, but I caution the first person that joins just to hand out assets to his buddies, then leaves the CDMR seat to join that squad. You will be banned for doing that. You've been warned.

Moving on.

It's unfortunate that some people will lose the helo on take off because they don't know how to fly, but those are the breaks. If people are habitually screwing up assets, or taking out friendly vehicles, THAT's when the admins step in. Those kinds of situations are much easier to police than babysitting the airfield and depots to make sure people get the right kits.

So in conclusion, TTP doesn't have a vehicle line, a no-base rape policy (unless priming the server), or a specific squad that gets to use the most powerful assets all the time.

It is possible that the admins will review this topic and decide it's a good idea, but I highly doubt it will happen.

Originally Posted by w4jchosen

No lines.

What can we expect next? Constant chat railing about how much they SUCK.

I give this idea a big 'ol NO. Sorry.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

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.

I sure as hell wouldn't support it. It's called micro-managing the server and the admins don't micro-manage the server. There have been and always will be teamkillers on any server out there. No one deserves a right to assets. It's called secure it and use it properly. While I understand it sucks, I want no part of having to police it. I also don't see the need for a commander to assign assets, because it's going to be real hard to know when someone isn't hooking a buddy up.

**SpecOpsScott** · 05-14-09, 09:54 PM

In short, this is a teamplayer server. True teamplayers know when its time for guys skilled in certain roles to assume those roles, and conversely when its time to let people learn to excel in positions they might not assume when the heat is on. The other night i was in a squad "Trans/Supply" We started out with a helo and supply trucks. If the rule was you hold on to those assets, we never would have morphed into the Armor squad we became that simply laid waste to the opposing team. Still tagged "Trans/supply" we ended up in BMPs and Tanks... because thats what was needed at that time. IMO, resticting assets to tagged squads does nothing but restrict the team as a whole.

**CivilWars** · 05-14-09, 10:16 PM

The commander gives orders to the squad leaders based on what assets they have in the squad, not the other way around. Name your squad anything you choose, but that grants you nothing. Get the _____ asset first, and the lose it, and you are not guaranteed to get it back. The rules are simple, no need to make them more difficult now. If someone does not know how to fly, drive, shoot, gun, walk, talk, lead, follow, whatever, then YOU teach them. If they refuse to be taught then the admins will put them in time out. This is not your personal playground, nor mine.