PR COOP Rules Discussion

[Double_13]

I say we should watch out with getting a protocol for everything, because it gets a point that everything will become over complicated. There will always be a Gray area but it's for the Admin who is there to make a judgement call for that specific situation for that player at that moment. I say use common sense and you define 99% of the rules. 

[Jersans]

@=VG= Melon Muncher Thanks for clarifying. Most of them are pretty obvious and make sense are consistent with how I admin, but I am a bit surprised about the non-existent 'join a squad' rule I would swear that there was always a message in the past that says 'you must join a squad' - I personally don't force people to join a squad because like you said why cause bother if it is not necessary.

On the other hand basically what happened yesterday was purely because of probably the majority of the players soloing or otherwise not assaulting as a team. So in that case it would make sense to ask players to squad up if you ask me. But fair enough. 

@=VG= Double_13 Well yeah I agree but I am asking because not just from that conversation yesterday but also while talking to other admins those subjects have come up. I believe it was you even who said that while it's cool to have a squad of 8 very experienced veteran players who basically cut through a map like a hot knife through butter it's also a bit of a shame that we often don't split up in more teams and teach the newbies how to play the game with the most fun and effectiveness. 

Hence I was asking to clarify a few points mixed messages regarding managing the server. 

Thanks for reaffirming what I already thought.

On a different note what's the story on the maps you edited? Will they be launched this year or will it take more time?

[=VG= Melon Muncher]

1 hour ago, Jersans said:

On the other hand basically what happened yesterday was purely because of probably the majority of the players soloing or otherwise not assaulting as a team. So in that case it would make sense to ask players to squad up if you ask me. But fair enough. 

If they don't join a squad and play as a team what makes you think forcing them to join a squad is going to make them anymore of a team? 

If the server is full and there are no afk players, and there are people on TS who want to join, I think it's fair to say the unsquaded can be kicked, but only when those conditions are met which is next to never

[Jersans]

@=VG= Melon Muncher Well isn't it because a lot of them simply don't know how to play the game? I have had plenty of newbies joining my squad sometimes after I asked them if they want to join and teach them how to play. Which in my experience they enjoyed. I guess forcing people is pointless but motivating people to get the best out of their PR experience could be very helpful. Again just thoughts.

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

Encourage them but do not force them.  Like Double_13 said, you can't make a rule for everything, and part of the skill of a good admin is learning how to clarify grey areas within the guidelines that have already been established for you - ya gotta learn to mix the "spirit of coop gameplay" with the letter of the law, all while keeping a cool head and giving people the benefit of the doubt cuz these are just games and not IRL life or death situations.  You have time to give leeway - to trust your gut and go with what you know.  If a public non-squaded player becomes a problem, then you can address it - otherwise, trust your feelings and relax a bit.
"Beyond study and instrumentation, there is instinct"

6 hours ago, Jersans said:

a lot of them simply don't know how to play the game?

This is true for a certain portion - and some of those don't even have headsets yet, may not speak english confidently (or at all), or are very new to PC gaming in general and aren't sold on voice communication (or even paying attention to the chat rolls).

Remember, most people in Battelfield style shooter games do not use microphones as a rule because most of the time all you hear on public servers is bullshit or N-bombs and trolling.  To some people, online gaming isn't the social or cooperative experience we've come to expect from our online gaming here.  Since we're different and more managed than an average public online game server, they won't get that here, but we can't force them to change or to participate - only encourage them.

[Risiko94]

Tow Humvee and minimum squadmembers.

 

On Maps with no heavy armor, most notably muttrah docks, the Tow Humvee is the strongest anti armor weapon available.

With HAT being limited and CAS being as reliable as CAS on a public coop usually is, the Tow Humvee is essential.

You need 1 driver and 1 gunner. According to your current rules I wouldn't be able to lock the squad.

What are the other 2 supposed to do? Play as a 2 man infantry squad? Sit inside the Humvee doing nothing and wait til you get blown up?

If the Server is full it's not a problem. You have 6 guys on the ground and 2 providing AT support.

But good luck trying to form a full squad with 12 people on the server.

Proposal: Switch the Tow Humvee to the apc category. It can still be claimed by  infantry squads, but you could also make a dedicated 2 man tow squad.

[Double_13]

Well As for the Tow Humvee. 

I sort of agree that the Tow Humvee is considered as an asset that can have its own squad on muttrah. I do it myself many times as I find it more affective to be alone rather then been in a infantry squad depending on the SL for giving you intel thats shared over SL chat about potential armour. Further having to stay in a larger squad makes the humvee less mobile and an easy pray for the seeking bot rockets and morters as you often have to stand still to be near the INF squad. 
Seen that muttrah is a relatively small map I personally find that the inf can easily walk or take trans to the next flag. Further more i seen many squads just using tow as a transport asset and abandoning it as they take trans out or been blow up by morter shells aimed at the INF. 

So far I have not seen any complains about the dedicated 2 man tow squad I run most of the times as they see we do our job properly without wasting the asset . I do this because it gives me the ability to coordinate better with my gunner/driver and creating 2 free spaces in probably the only functioning INF squad . 

This brings up the main issue.
Often the tow is manned by 2 random people and a gunner that most of the time doesn't know how to use it. This makes the job of the driver and or SL harder as they either have to explain the gunner how to operate the tow, or ask him to leave the gunning position so someone capable can do it. BUT as we all know people in coop listen so well that half of the time its like talking to a wall. 
 

I do not think that any dedicated rule should be made for this situation as its a specific map issue. And that its up for the admin online to allow or not allow the dedicated tow squad.  
Because already someone could still create a unlocked tow squad and keep kicking people out the squad as there are no defined requirements/rules for kicking people out of non asset squads.

One of the base rules I always look at when people running a -4 man squad is if they are contributing to the progress and if no other squad is available for unassigned people to join. 
A 3 man squad can be more effective then a 8 man squad, as the number of people doesn't say anything about the ability and effectiveness of the squad. (random people that do not listen spawn on you shoot 2 rounds triggering all the bots to shoot you and your squad) 

[SerEvergreen]

@Risiko94, there are several flaws with your proposal that need to be addressed.

 

Firstly, your entire proposal only mentioned and dealt with HMMWV TOW which is not sufficient, as there are other assets within the Anti-Tank Vehicle category to deal with, including SPG-9 Technical (which works similarly to the HMMWV TOW), Spandrel, Shturm-S (which work more like light armors), etc. In order to have a proper implementation, the entire category of ATV and all of their involved nuances need to be addressed as well.

 

5 hours ago, Risiko94 said:

You need 1 driver and 1 gunner. According to your current rules I wouldn't be able to lock the squad.

What are the other 2 supposed to do? Play as a 2 man infantry squad? Sit inside the Humvee doing nothing and wait til you get blown up?

In the case of the HMMWV TOW (and by extension, the SPG-9 Technical as well), having more than just the driver and the gunner will provide long-term benefits to your squad. Most basic kits can work like this, but the typical scenario for this case, assuming a locked 4-men squad, is to have the Officer driving, a Rifleman manning the ATGM, a Medic to heal up the squad, and a Combat Engineer to fix the vehicle. By composing your squad of these roles and using them effectively, it can help prolong your engagement and loiter time by increasing your chance to survive and reduce the need to retreat all the way back to base, for example.

Furthermore, the most important point of this aspect is to manage and lead your squad properly as a squad leader. If you cannot coordinate between yourselves properly, instead resorting to lone-wolfing the asset recklessly and neglect to increase your survivability and versatility, it can result in excessive and unnecessary wasting, becoming a detriment to the team as a whole considering your role in context is to be the only dedicated anti-armor platform on the ground and help carrying the infantry forward.

 

5 hours ago, Risiko94 said:

If the Server is full it's not a problem. You have 6 guys on the ground and 2 providing AT support.

But good luck trying to form a full squad with 12 people on the server.

Since our locked infantry squad rule only demands a minimum of 4 players, I am not sure about the relevance of citing an actual full squad of 8 players into this context. Regardless however, server population should not be relevant to your point here, as during a low-population period, the likelihood of players unable or unwilling to form/join squads properly should already render the need to lock your squad unnecessary. Unless you are deliberately trying to violate this rule for some lone-wolfing reason(s), if there's a chance of someone joining your squad that you don't want, it is your responsibility to manage your own squad and expel those you don't need, per the point above (which would also extend to a full server scenario anyhow).

 

5 hours ago, Risiko94 said:

Proposal: Switch the Tow Humvee to the apc category. It can still be claimed by  infantry squads, but you could also make a dedicated 2 man tow squad.

This proposal neglects to address the following flaws:

1/ Enforcing ATVs as part of APC squad means that unless the only light armor asset on the map is an ATV (which to my memory, there is no coop map so far with such a setup), you will still have to keep your APC squad opened and regulate the usage of the other assets, which already goes against your desire to have a dedicated 2-men squad.

2/ Assuming a scenario which allows you to create a Mech Inf squad to claim the ATV, your Mech Inf squad will still be subjected to the same locked infantry squad rule of 4 players minimum, preventing you from making that dedicated 2-men squad.

3/ It would have made more sense for you to suggest that ATVs become a claimable category, which would have addressed the two flaws above. Instead, you made this proposal and sabotaged your own agenda regarding this matter.

4/ By extension of the flaws above, you are still in violation of locking rules, which means your desire to make a dedicated 2-men anti-tank squad is not feasible, unless you are willing to risk administrative actions for it.

 

While I take no pleasure in addressing any issue in this manner, I will still say it as I see it if it has to be done: Please avoid purely "self-centered benefits" lines of thought and take into consideration the nuances involving how the game works, how it would affect other players and the team's effort as a whole, and how the process would work in relation to the server and its rules, before you make any proposal plan.

[Risiko94]

I fully agree with Double.

Response to @SerEvergreen

I was mostly talking about Muttrah since it seems to be the most popular and most played map.

We are talking about a scenario where the server isn't full, so having 2 more guys that serve no real purpose hurts the team.

You need to return to base anyway for ammo.

It does not result in "excessive and unnecessary wasting".

So you propose to kick everyone that joins the squad instead of just locking it? Isn't that kinda ironic?

1.)APCs usually don't have to coordinate beyond the "help here, enemy there, need logi"

2.) You would create a apc squad, not mech inf

3.)Simply switching categorys instead of making a new one is easier.

4.)"Don't change the rule about squadsize, because it is against the rules" wat?

 

"self-centered benefits " such as

>more people in squads where they can actually be useful or

>preventing newbs from wasting important and hard to use assets

Even if i absolutely do not agree with your arguments, thanks for responding.

 

 

I brought this up because i met an admin with a different opinion, and the ingame chat isn't the place to discuss this.

You don't follow rules for the sake of following rules, you follow rules because they make sense. If they do not, they need to be changed.

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

1 hour ago, Risiko94 said:

You don't follow rules for the sake of following rules, you follow rules because they make sense. If they do not, they need to be changed.

But we cannot make a rule for every little thing.  It would be very difficult to have and enforce map specific rules, on top of that.  

Besides the fact that I think you are confusing this humvee with something that would be used as a front line asset, and though it may be employed that way on Mutrah often, it's a paper thin defensive asset at best when used as it was designed, and might be well used as a member of a humvee group that moves soldiers around the map.  Putting it into it's own group would segregate it from the other humvee mobile infantry groups, wouldn't it?

[SerEvergreen]

@Risiko94, firstly it is possible that I might have worded it wrong in parts or in its entirety which might have led to misunderstandings, and if it did occur that way then I sincerely apologize.

While it is completely understandable and fair to insist that the rules should be a sensible and reasonable guideline to base judgement on instead of following it to the letter without flexibility, the fact of the matter is there will still be nuances and exploits to consider whether it is changed one way or another, and what can be determined to "make sense" also has to be based on a particular context that is suitable to what is being enforced in the first place (in this case, reliable coop in order to contribute to the team's effort a la Project Reality's spirit for the most part), otherwise it can easily fall down the slippery slope of determining benefits instead of privileges and responsibilities. Furthermore, between our duty to use experience and understanding of nuances when passing out judgements while enforcing the rules at the same, and the players' responsibility to conduct themselves within this limit, it is a two-way relationship that needs a common working ground: not just admins "admin-ing" and players "playing", but us interacting with each other in this play space with full understanding that a limit has been set and will be enforced/respected (this is why I made a point about needing a context for the rules and its enforcement to base on above).

To address your current points:

 

2 hours ago, Risiko94 said:

I was mostly talking about Muttrah since it seems to be the most popular and most played map.

When addressing your proposal, I was looking at the entire thing, which did in fact make a point about the minimum inf squad size rule inconveniencing the ability to have a 2-man locked squad in order to dedicate their only squad space to manning a single ATV asset and becoming a frontline anti-armor force. This is not exclusive to Muttrah (as you can run into similar circumstances on maps with similar asset setup), nor is it a fringe enough situation to warrant its own case (as Double_13's point has already alluded to). Combining that with your suggestion of merging the ATV into APC squad, which is its own claimable category with their own nuances, led to my thought process in addressing the whole situation as a rule implementation case regarding ATV assets. Additionally, I believe me and Double posted our piece at the same time, preventing me from looking at his point beforehand and potentially made redundant arguments.

 

 

2 hours ago, Risiko94 said:

We are talking about a scenario where the server isn't full, so having 2 more guys that serve no real purpose hurts the team.

So you propose to kick everyone that joins the squad instead of just locking it? Isn't that kinda ironic?

 

"self-centered benefits " such as

>more people in squads where they can actually be useful or

>preventing newbs from wasting important and hard to use assets

I will group points together to address them simultaneously when I believe they are related.

As I have repeatedly mentioned in my previous post, the emphasis on your responsibility as a squad leader is vital, as you are the one who both have situational awareness of your squad and the power to regulate such situation to your need (in line with the goal of contributing to the team's effort, of course). By actually putting effort into this, you will be able to identify the "people in squads where they can actually be useful" as well as the "newbs" and make proper decision in whether you should retain them to benefit your squad (and the team by extension), or expel them from your squad to "prevent wasting important and hard to use assets". Furthermore, it is through these actions that you yourself are contributing half of a lifeline into the effort of ensuring the game is being played cooperatively and properly, as it is unreasonable and impossible even for admins to either constantly going around and dictate what squads are useful to be around and what their compositions are, or constantly checking to ensure that every single player in every squad is playing properly and no incident is happening out of their sight/mind (and god forbids situations where we also have to address incompetent players that are in squad lead position...).

To this end, it applies equally regardless if the server is full or not, and it is entirely up to you find out whether or not the 2 extra guys (that might or might not join your squad to begin with) are useful to keep, or "serve no real purpose" and should be expelled. Furthermore, I am not sure why you would want to kick literally everyone from the squad unless you want to make sure that only you and another player that you absolutely trust to operate with you should stay segregated in this one squad space, implying at an unwillingness to either cooperate or put in the effort to play cooperatively. Not only is it hard to not see this as "self-centered benefits" when conducted in such a manner, it also makes the notion of this scenario being "ironic" confusing to me.

 

2 hours ago, Risiko94 said:

You need to return to base anyway for ammo.

It does not result in "excessive and unnecessary wasting".

You will always need to return to base to reload, but whether or not in between such period is you loitering on the field for as long as possible and dispensing as much fire support as possible while staying alive, or you having to constantly retreat due to being peppered by enemy fire or getting into multiple fights/getting the assets destroyed due to lack of support/etc., is what I am talking about. After all, your purpose is to provide mobile anti-tank capabilities to the infantry at a moment notice, and if you are not willing to ensure that you can survive and be available as long/much as possible, either through neglecting to bring support with you, or neglecting to cooperate with the infantry/other squads, recklessly lone-wolfing and putting yourself at greater risk of being destroyed, it can be constituted as wasting, especially if we notice that you get destroyed too frequently in too short periods of time (barring unfortunate circumstances like ambushes, team-killing, etc., of course).

 

2 hours ago, Risiko94 said:

1.) APCs usually don't have to coordinate beyond the "help here, enemy there, need logi"

The same can be said for almost any type of asset in the game that can provide offensive/defensive fire support. In fact, "help here, enemy there, need logi/repair/ammo/support" might be the very baseline group of action that you need to take to both provide the basics of your asset functions and to stay alive yourself. Unless we are discussing some specific fringe situation (which would warrant its own discussion anyway), or you are not willing to even provide the very minimum of what you are supposed to do, replacing APC for Tank/ATV/AAV/CAS is not going to change how it works, nor contributing to the point at hand.

 

2 hours ago, Risiko94 said:

2.) You would create a apc squad, not mech inf

3.) Simply switching categorys instead of making a new one is easier.

Because your proposal is that we treat ATVs as APCs, it means you will also need to claim an ATV asset like an APC, which dictates that either you operate an APC squad, or operate a Mech Inf squad and manage to gain permission from the existing APC squad to use the ATV. This is only one of the nuances that would occur if we implement your proposal, among the others that I have already expressed above, and ignoring them is not going to change how things are going to work, nor is it "easier", as you are trading one approach with its own pros and cons for another also with its own pros and cons, and we need to determine whether the pros are more than the cons, or the cons are acceptable enough to be tolerated.

 

2 hours ago, Risiko94 said:

We are talking about a scenario where the server isn't full, so having 2 more guys that serve no real purpose hurts the team.

4.)"Don't change the rule about squadsize, because it is against the rules" wat?

Firstly, I am not sure if its a misunderstanding or a fabrication, but I have never stated nor even implied anything similar to or in spirit of "Don't change the rule about squadsize, because it is against the rules", so I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Furthermore, I share pretty much the same experience and sentiment as Double_13 stated above, hence I also fully acknowledge the inconvenience that the current 4 players minimum for locked inf squad rule can cause, and would even advocate for alteration to it where possible. However, that does not mean we can just change it to whatever, as it has to be sensible and reasonable so that admins and players can agree on to enforce it, keeping with the spirit with what you said about the rules making sense. And in order to do this, we need to address the nuances related to it, like whether or not it should even be in place, at how many players minimum, and why it has to be enforced at this amount and not any other amount, taking into account the enforcement of no locked one-man squad, the previously enforced 2 players limit, and the responsibilities and privileges of both players and admins participating in this community's server.

To this end, I will also have to pose the question to you about whether or not you are ready and willing to work with us in tackling the above. Because if you cannot be arsed to do this, not only would it not work, but the agenda behind calling for the proposal itself is highly questionable.

 

At this point, I believe the proper way to go about this at the moment is to honestly and transparently state what we really want out of this. By knowing what everyone involved wants, its easier to navigate the discussion and reach a proper compromise where the benefits and trade-offs are as balanced as possible.

[=VG= m823us]

All Humvee Lives matter!

On a more serious note, as noted before, I personally use the TOW as a skirmisher unit.  Meaning they would be attached to a squad commanded by a gunner/driver and then fight APC's from the rear of the unit while the boots on the ground did the dirty work and they could come in for the kill or snipe the APC's from a distance.  I do not foresee making this unit an asset that can be claimed due to how much little it is used.  I do agree with the frustration that people would use it as a "transport", (same as logi trucks) and then abandon it.  As some admin that do see the asset waste, they will deal with it appropriately, since we can work this out.  

I do appreciate the effort and thought that you have composed into the proposal @Risiko94.  I do appreciate the effort and the communication you provide to making the server a better place.  I also appreciate @Serevergreen and your response.  

Keep up the good work all,

 

Cheers,

M8

[Double_13]

I personally make a 2 man tow squad and so do many other admins on muttrah. And I think all follow the simple unwritten rule of "if you are helpful to the team without causing problems it is fine" 

 

similar discussion we can have about FOB squad,logi squad, AA squad. As far I know the guidelines , they are not claimable and still people make them. Also no admin acts on this when the squads mentioned above are under 4 people. 

 

But it now we at this discussion I want to ask a other similar issue. VAB-VTT and FUCHS (the advanced shitboxes with wheels) are both assets a crewman is need to drive the asset. And as the guidelines say all squads that need a crewman kit need a squad. But on nujema/marlin/silent eagle, and a few others they also have a larger APC brother. I find it that these assets do not fall exclusively under APC and can also be used by INF squads if there are larger APC parts on the map

[=VG= Inch]

TOW Humvee for me, is claimable assets to any squads (except dedicated squad like Tanks, APC, IFV, CAS, Trans etc. but, i dont think i can agree with regrouping AT Vehicle into APC/IFV squad.. that's just unnecessary, in some situations/maps) because it is reasonable for Inf/Mech Inf squad to gain their power/advantage not just relying to other dedicated squads, preventing them down from enemy ordinance and as a mobile attacker/defenser when capping CP's at frontline without any supports available..

 

Same goes to Anti-Air Vehicles, few of them are claimable to Inf/Mech Inf, but not the Heavier ones, plus.. realizing that using the AAV are mostly using Crewman kits as well as the AT Vehicles (so, i guess it's better to make a dedicated squad for AT/AA Vehicles that uses Crewman kits)

 

All of this (mostly Heavy ATV/AAV) can be used in dedicated squads, like making ATV or AAV squad since theyre capable of destroying specific types of vehicles (ATV for ground armors and AAV for aircrafts/helicopters), i had no problems about this atm.. i see it's not even breaking the rules..

 

For Inf/Mech Inf, i do agree that they can use Lighter AAV/ATV's (in case if there's no dedicated squad available, have to ask the admin in-game about the usage/allowance of Heavy AAV/ATV's first). It's going to be great if someone has to do it..

 

Pretty confusing about AT Vehicles since there are lots of them.. like:

- TOW HMMWV, SPG-9 Technical (claimable for all or making dedicated squad)

- BRDM-2 Spandrel, 9P149 Shturm-S, ZSL-92 ATGM (dedicated squad)

And AAV's like:

- Avenger AAV, Fennek SWP, Ural SPAAA Truck (claimable for Mech Inf, dedicated squad)

- 9K35 Gopher, 9K22 Tunguska, Stormer HVM, Type 95 SPAAA, ZU-23-4 Shilka, MT-LBM 6MA "Beast", BRDM-2 Gaskin, ZSU-57-2, M163 VADS (dedicated squad)

 

Crewman Kits are needed mostly for heavier AT/AA vehicles, i think it's better for make one dedicated squad for that

 

For things like light ATV's (TOW HMMWV, SPG-9 Technicals/equivalents) and AAV's (Avenger (exception for Mech Inf), Ural SPAAA Truck/equivalents), as long as they're not using Crewman (or light sized) seems to be allowed and used by Inf/Mech Inf or making dedicated squads..

 

Cheers,

Inch

 

"There is a Alvis Stormer HVM in Co-Op Vadso City LRG, check that out-! Great to see one of this btw "

[Jersans]

17 hours ago, =VG= Double_13 said:

... I find it that these assets do not fall exclusively under APC and can also be used by INF squads if there are larger APC parts on the map

Mechanical infantry is fine for this. I never saw APC squads whining that it's their asset. I don't see the issue. Call yourself Mechanical infantry and go for it.

On a sidenote. I am no fan of the APC squad gets the assets rule because there's far more 'fun' in a Mech squad and it's more effective. Especially because most people only 'tank' with APC's anyway. I would be in favour of bumping Mech Inf to being the first priority for these assets. 

But obviously that's just a suggestion

[SerEvergreen]

If we wish to give more priority to Mechanized Infantry, I think we can take a look at how PRTA implemented it, as from what I can see on their rules, they revolve around putting emphasis on infantry as the core element of the team and ensuring other assets and elements supplement this role, not supplant it. With this approach, they implemented Mech Inf ruleset on the same basis and elevated Mech Inf's priority above APC squad, hence its possible there are useful things we can learn from their implementation and adapt them to ours.

[Double_13]

That's exactly the issue so on those maps we will have to make mech 1/2/3 squad and only then they can use the assets.

What I would like to see that inf are allowed to use those assets without having to be a mech squad. As now the issue is that if the squad moves up in a troop truck then, gets killed, and respawns at main, they are technically not allowed to use the 5 VAB-VTT/FUCHS assets without first renaming the squad to mech inf.

And yes we can go to the way as well you can ask the APC squad and use it based on that use it, but last time I did that a other admin kicked the person I allowed to use that asset as he thought it was stealing. 

I am not suggesting we need rules for this and that. But I would more bring it to the admins attention that more then often the guidlines are just mere guidlines and can't always be enforced the way they are written. 

 

Note te that I specifically use the word guidlines and not rules as I still follow the old rule set in where it stated that the rules are mere guidlines and up for admins judgement to enforce them as they are. However over the past year that section has been removed for no apparent reason and I would like to see it back. It also grants the admin the option to ignore certain areas within the guidlines for special cases as brought up before. 

logi/tow/assets 

[=VG= Kavelenko]

48 minutes ago, l3RY4N said:

If we would make the APC/IFVs available to all inf squads and a "lone wolf" squad gets hands on the APC would just be like wasting the asset.
I agree that having Mech Inf squads instead of "pure" APC squads are more efficent and fun.

So my suggestion would be that we prioritize the type of squad like this:

1. Mech Inf
2. APC
3. [Regular Inf squad]

That way Inf squads would have access to apcs and be able to use them but if a squad is created that really dedicates itself to APCs or even better (best case scenario), a squad for INF and APCs with damn good Teamwork.

2nd suggestion:

Make it available for all INF squads and if someone just goes "lone wolf" and wastes it admins just make the call and warn him to work with his squad/team. But the problem here is we admins cant keep an eye out for everyting on the battlefield.

We've already discussed this idea in a previous post:

http://veterans-gaming.com/index.php?/forums/topic/7798-about-the-brdm-vehicle-rules/#comment-76020

Not too many people were that interested unfortunately.

Perhaps its time?

cheers,

Kav

[zero_tolerance_s]

Regarding TOW Humvee: 4-5 crewman are always better than 2:

SL - communication, coordination, spotting, building defensive/denial means

Gunner - well... 

Engineer - for repairing the vehicles/ laying mines, fixing various denial structures

Medic - as the gunner (and the rest of the crew/near by infantry) gets often injured

HAT/LAT - maybe it's a bit redundant but redundancy can guarantee a successful kill in this situations

Besides this, the rest of the crew can ensure the safety of the TOW Humvee against enemy RPG, C4, etc, when is camping as well as contributing to capture the flag faster, defending a flag/position. Lets not forget that Humvees have good mobility, going places with a relative autonomy. Why not be all you can be and not just an rocket shooter? I would encourage a wider range of capabilities for this special squad. 

 

Now regarding the Mechanized Infantry, on the most servers I've been playing, this squad has the right at ONE single armoured vehicle and it has priority. I was convinced that this is the situation on VG server as well. But I was wrong. I found that in a very unpleasant manner.  Right now I feel that Mech Inf is treated like some sort of second hand squad that have to kiss the asses of the APC squad, begging for a vehicle.

On the side note: you never know when the APC squad is reclaiming the vehicle just because they lost theirs, instead waiting in line for the new one to spawn. 

I would plead for having this simple  (and common sense) rule for VG server. The efficiency of a mechanized infantry squad are so obvious that don't need to be mentioned here.  Not to forget that most of the time, the APC squad member are forgetting what APC acronym stands for which is Armoured PERSONNEL CARRIER and not a tank. 

 Peace,

ZT

[=VG= Fastjack]

34 minutes ago, zero_tolerance_s said:

Medic - as the gunner (and the rest of the crew/near by infantry) gets often injured

Disagree on this. If Medic dies the MedicKit get lost.

[zero_tolerance_s]

5 minutes ago, =VG= Fastjack said:

Disagree on this. If Medic dies as  the MedicKit get lost.

I meant the medic for healing the rest of the crew as well the nearby infantry. Not the medic doing the gunner role.

[Jersans]

41 minutes ago, =VG= Fastjack said:

Disagree on this. If Medic dies the MedicKit get lost.

That's up to the individual squad leader. Personally I see an 8-man outfit for effective TOW usage as such:

One TOW humvee. For tank-destroyer purposes. Driver, gunner and medic. (Medic evacs always on target)

One .50 cal. humvee. For anti-infantry support and transport. The rest of the team. 

Team is:

Two medics. One for each vehicle.

One heavy AT. Back up for TOW 2nd vehicle. 

A machine gunner or AR. Second vehicle only for infantry engagement.

A combat engineer. Fix the cars.

A rifle man. Supplying. 

A grenadier. Bomb the shit out of infantry. AT units. 

A squad leader. The moron that is tasked to take charge.

Pending on the maps. But typically yeah it is a combination for the win. At least I think so.

[Jersans]

But back on track. All in favour of focus on infantry and thus priority is set on utilizing APC's in the most effective way meaning Mechanized Infantry. Say Aye. Those who are opposed say Ney. 

[TEDF]

All good suggestions and fun ideas, but you gents seem to forget that this is COOP we are talking about. I dont see any of those things working out since the majority of the players we have are newcomers who have just finished downloading the mod and jumped in. How do you expect them to follow all the 100+ tiny rule bits that we have for every smaller thing? How to you expect them to follow up on that super micromanaged 8 man TOW hmmwv squad thingy?

I agree with what Double pointed out - We used to have a line that sayd that the rules are also to be used as a quidline and it would be up to the admins judgement to enforce them or to look the other way as needed. I dont see a problem with having a locked 2 man TOW hmmwv squad for example if they are being useful and get things done. Why force them to have an additional 2 blueberries with them that are just going to sit in the back and be absolutely useless?

The same goes for the shitty APCs such as (for) Fuchs (sake) & VAB - I have taken a view of them as more like a jeep class vehicles since the only difference atm is :

1. Size

2. ability to request kits

3. driver needs a crewman kit.

They dont have any anti tank capalities, rocket launchers or autocannons. Just same machineguns as the jeeps do. If the inf squads wants to use them and there are loads of them just sitting in main, then so be it. 

We dont have to micromanage everything with the rules. There are exceptions where it is possible to close your eyes and let it slip. I saw someone mention PRTA rules earlier - Yes PRTA did try to micromanage every squad and asset with rules and see where it got them. All they got was uproar from the community and hundreds of complaints on the forum until they turned their rules back to more civilized version.

And this brings us to the issue about the APC squad vs Mech inf squad - I'm strongly against the mech inf having priority over APC squad for heavy assets such as IFVs and mightier APCs than the ones mentioned before. Yes, mech inf can be effective at times, but how it turns out most of the occasions is that inf jumps in the vehicle, drives up to the flag, dismounts and abandons the vehicle, caps the flag and then heads back in and rushes the next flag, wasting the potentional firepower and support it can provide. Or second version - INF rushes in, dismounts, gets the vehicle blown up and then complains that APC squad is stealing their asset afterwards. 

To come back to the PRTA example- The current rule there state that Mech INF squads get priority over all the "APCs" and not IFVs. Do you really expect the normal COOP players to be able to make difference between an APC and an IFV? You guys seem to forget that this is not a deployment or tournament server. Of course we could follow the idea that tanks and IFVs go for the same squad but again - it's COOP. There are way more assets on maps than you can fit into one squad.

 

We have never had these kind of problems between APC squads and INF for years. Why is it so much of an hassle now? I rarely see a situation where INF squad gets denied/ignored the transport from APCs when calling in with the radio, so what's the issue?

 

Edit : If someone from the higher ups could move this discussion to a separate thread so it woudn't clog up the rules section, it would be appreciated.

[SerEvergreen]

(Seconding TEDF, it might be a better idea to just pin-lock the Coop Server Rules post and move all actual discussion posts afterward into its own space to not clog up the rules thread itself)

 

Maybe its not so much that this is about hassles and problems, but it is still a good idea to actually express what we think and want within the context of both COOP and our server. After all, if we don't at least maintain a baseline communication between ourselves, misunderstandings or unnecessary frustrations might build up because no one bothers to speak up about it or forgot that it has already been addressed.

For example, as TEDF's sentiment has pointed out, it would be more optimal and healthy for admins to treat the server rules as a guideline and cast judgements accordingly based on common senses and experiences of tangible nuiances going on in the server instead of following them by the letter. However, if we don't actually discuss such sentiment in the first place, especially if it does not come out from the higher ups that can project a more tangible application to it through their power, it can be confusing for the others to figure out and realize which approach is encouraged/discouraged, especially when they start making mistakes and understadably become afraid of potential negative connotations of certain judgements.

Another thing that is not as significant but can still affect us is that, as the game is continuously developed and evolved, the meta aspects and mechanics of the game will change accordingly, and we might need to revisit these things once in a while when that happens, especially if we start to forget whether they have been addressed previously. With 1.4.5.0's implementation of bot-checking all assets, we can no longer use the one-man land assets, reducing the amount of total assets available to BLUFOR and make the situation of having "way more assets on maps than you can fit into one squad" less relevant as time goes on if this change stays in future updates. While admittedly COOP's meta itself is not subjected to frequent changes, I think it is still something to pay attention to, if for no other reason than because it would affect how we handle related nuances as admins.

Hopefully we can move forward in discussion with this in mind to make things easier.