Squads are undoubtedly one of the greatest benefits of Empires gameplay. First of all, I think there are a bit too many Squad choices, most of which are unnecessary. On a large server, say 48 slots, you have 24 players per team. So that's 24 players to be divided up among squads (you can subtract 1 for the Commander, who will only be in squad temporarily if in a squad at all throughout a round). 23 / 5 = 4 squads x 5 players, + 1 squad x 3 players. 5 squad choices are all that are needed for a 48 slot server. Now, if anyone ever somehow manages to put up a 64 slot server with great performance and no lag (lol, I commend anyone who manages to accomplish this in the future), more squad choices would need to be available. You would need at least 2 additional squad choices, totaling 7 squad choices. If reducing the amount of available squad choices is determined to be "out of the question," then I propose the following: Adjust the squad system so that no players may join Bravo until Alpha has at least 2 or more players in it, and no players may join Charlie until Bravo has at least 2 or more players in it, and so on and so forth the squad choices would cascade downward and become unlocked/available as other squads become used. This discourages people from taking the "free for all" approach when joining/creating squads. Friends who want to be in a squad of only their trusted friends could still do so, because if they occupied a squad with 2, 3, or even 5 people, they wouldn't be preventing anyone else from joining other squads because even if they were a squad of 3 and not letting 2 players in, those players could join the squad choice that becomes available next. This would allow everyone to make the same use of the squad system they always had before, but encourage more people to condense player distributions among squads, allowing squad participants to earn more participation points (a squad of 5 earns them easier than a squad of 2, etc.). It also discourages people from being snobby and joining some weird off the wall squad like Hotel or Juliet which someone else may not notice and may not join, to gain squad benefits. There's nothing wrong with the current squad system. I'm not complaining about it or anything, but I think that some improvements to it could encourage more cohesive gameplay among teammates. Thoughts?
As commander, especially on emp_canyon I find that squad dynamics are key to winning. I also find that it is harder to quickly see who is in what squad when ppl are in xray squad etc. The reason for this is because when being voted for Comm the voting system is almost totally unreliable because it shows u being voted in as comm and u don't get it. I believe this is because the previous round ppl voted for u and didn't vote next round? and then their vote appears to be there but it isn't ? not too sure. So I don't really rely on that to see if i am comm, i wait till the round starts. I then want to delegate what squads go where and i need to do it quickly as all comms know that comm rushing a strategic position is usually key to the ecomonic and/or strategic win.
In fact, with a 48 person server there should be 12 squads - enough for 2 people per squad (enough to accrue squad points and gain benefits). This "forcing people to make squads properly" is nonsense imo, and something it seems you don't know about is that often in scrims you want 3 squads of 3 people and 1 commander. Another thing you haven't thought about is if squad alpha has a muppet as squad leader and no one wants to be with him, then the other squads will never get filled. I just don't get this, why would you want to force things on squads? Why is it a problem that there are a lot of squads and that people want to make a November or whiskey squad? Is it your dream to have 4 full squads roaming around the maps in co-ordinated teamworking glory? Because truth to tell, you can't force that using a system.
You either did not read or did not comprehend my suggestion. My suggestion does allow for 3 squads x 3 players. So your point is moot. Don't cast me aside as knowing nothing because I don't belong to a clan or participate in scrims. As I made this thread late last night, it's not farfetched that I may have left out a few details, but don't tell me what I did or didn't think of. One thing I forgot to mention in my above post is that I think there should be a feature that allows squads to votekick their Squad Leader, removing them from the squad so that the next person is promoted (that, and allow a squad leader to designate an heir to avoid the "kick everyone and have them rejoin" method). My suggestion forces nothing upon anyone, it only encourages. And if someone wants to choose a squad based on its name, then hell... let them type in their own squad name or select a name from a list containing the already-existing squad names. I also specifically stated that I had no quarrels with the existing system, and therefore do not mind someone being in "November" or "Whiskey." I'm not trying to force anything and I've been playing Empires more than long enough to thoroughly understand that it would be pointless and futile to dream of a "coordinated teamworking glory" guaranteed by any system.
Hmm...John Shandy's Guide to Successful Commanding... Never noticed that before You should add some pics of comms under water, or nine mined comms that are 200 feet + And research strategies, those are good for comms to know, with time requirements; default, and server tweaked. But back on topic-y'all noticed the thing where you get rank points as a commander due to squad operations? I've always thought that that was peculiar, especially since its only going to rank, which you technically get anyway by building your own shit, and doesn't go to a collective squad point system for special commander abilities(someone elses suggestion somewhere), like it does for each squad already.
You are right. That was a dire error, my apologies. Tssk...you are trying to regulate squads for no good reason. I'll address my concerns from your first post properly, rather than just doing a blanket "it's not good", and hoping you see what I mean. I do hope you saw what I said about the squad numbers though, after all, you agreed that people could play with only 2 or 3 people in a squad bringing the number up substantially. Free for all approach...i'm not sure exactly why you'd want to stop that. Anyway, adjusting the squad system like this means people will need to wait in line to become squad leaders and everyone else will need to wait in line to join a squad. Do we really want more time spent waiting around for a major teamwork element? Will people think "hey, i'll wait because this looks good" or will they turn around and go "what the hell? why do I have to wait for this crapporano?" Would you want to wait for the squads to fill up or have to vote some squad leader out, simply because they are the first noobs to join when the squad unlocks? Would you want that hassle? Am I right in thinking that this would promote squad-leader camping too - where people have to be the first to click join for a squad, if they want to be leader? Tbh, this idea may condense player distributions among squads, or it may turn people off squads entirely. I just think the latter is bound to happen, rather than the former.
I see what you're saying now, Ikalx. You made yourself much clearer than before. That's understandable I believe. I still would like to see votekicking for Squad Leaders though, much like the votekicking for Commanders.
Yes, although squad leader kicking might involve having to have 3 people vote him out of the squad first, which may be more hassle than making a new one. Although I can't deny that sometimes you really need to. It might also be useful if the SL could nominate another squad leader (say when they're dead for instance).
the squad thing is an OK idea, I would rather it automatically place people who are NOT in a squad in a squad after 5 minutes of not being in one. me and my friend find ourselves exploiting the games flaw's alot, so we normally like to go to foxtrot and lock it. also if someone is joining a squad, its the EXACT same thing has having at LEAST 2 people in it. this idea just pushes it forward for the noobs and the people who know what there doing get irritated. THIS is an oxymoron. if someone is joining a squad, they have teamwork in there mind, if not teamwork then at least that one squad point in there mind. thats good enough. normally people joining a random squad either has a friend coming, or has a plan to get someone in. if that fails then they join a free squad or start a new(depending if the freebies are full).
No, it's not an oxymoron. You misunderstood me. Of course someone is joining a squad with the intent of teamwork (most of the time). I wasn't implying that they would take a "free for all" approach when playing the round (though some do, they just join a squad for the skill unlock and go off and do their own thing). I was describing the process by which some people will choose a squad. For instance, you have a 10 player team, 1 of which is the commander. 10 - 1 = 9 subordinates. All 9 subordinates join squads. 4 of them join Alpha... 4 of them join Delta..., and Little Johnny (the left over subordinate), rather than joining one of the two squads (Alpha or Delta) in which he & they could gain a mutual benefit, joins some off-the-wall squad like Juliet, and receives no benefit. He has therefore taken the "free for all" approach when selecting a squad. He could even be completely teamwork oriented by helping out his teammates, but he still chose to join some squad for whatever reason that doesn't give him the benefit of a skill unlock, and which doesn't help Alpha or Delta have one more person to be helping earn squad points. That's what I meant. I tried to make it clearer...
