Lone wolfing solution

[RHYS4190]

Just a quicky.


Heres a interesting alternative to removing rallies. Don't laugh it crazy but it might just work,


My idea to get rid of lone wolfing and poor squad cohesion is to make it so that squad members have to stay within a certain distance of there squad leader, Or else they get the out of bounds penalty and die.

And my idea to get the team to work together (as in stay together co-ordinated and work together in a unit) is that the squad leaders have to stay within a set distance of at least one other squad leader, or they get the penalty.

So in a nut shell the principle is that every one is hand cuffed to every one else and there for have to work together in a co-ordinated unit.


It riddled with problems but i think it a much better idea then Beta,

People in supply trucks, or other vehicles get special privileges,


Any thoughts criticism.? Or if you want to add to this idea and improve on it please do.

[Iceman01]

its a good idea but the problem is u cant always spawn near your squad leaders.....IE kashan is huge

[[R-DEV]Ninja2dan]

So basically, you want the size of the maps to be limited, and you want infantry-only combat in confined spaces such as a small MOUT map?

While in real life a squad will usually remain close together, with fireteams spread apart no more than maybe a few hundred meters, this isn't always the case. Sometimes a squad member might be temporarily assigned/attached to another squad in order to provide support to them, or might need to remain at a checkpoint or with a vehicle.

Unfortunately, this is one of those ideas that takes away from realism and starts changing gameplay to fit the poor attitudes and tactics of the players. My opinion is that the game should slowly and constantly make things more realistic (yet balanced) and teach the players to perform those tasks correctly. Perfect examples are the Sniper kits, everyone knows how poorly and unrealistically those are used currently.


The fact is that this game uses Combined Arms operations, where members of squads might not always be working in the same area. Sometimes you might have a squad broken down into separate fireteams, or you can even have an "Engineer" squad that simply hops around the map to the different FOB's and main to repair and build assets and make supply drops for other squads. With your idea, this type of support would no longer be possible.

I think this is similar to squad linking system from America's Army? It's been a long time since I played that game, but I recall something similar. But those were smaller maps with limited or no Combined Arms assets.


Besides, the new changes to the RP system work very well in my opinion, and not because I wear the DEV (MA) tags. This is a change that I feel will greatly improve teamwork and the overall focus of the game.

[Iceman01]

pr doesnt have to do everything inorder for it to be as real as possible...lone wofing is not realistic so if u are and say pr couldnt stop u from it and blame them for no realism....so if u commuicate and interact like in live combate then you'll have a good game....the players have to contribute to the realism of game play too

[Alex6714]

You can limit the players as much as you want but you still need the players to want to play realistically or you get nowhere.

[Iceman01]

Thats my point..if there are more players focus on contrubing to game play then the devs and modder can spend more time on newer and cooler shit.....do what we can to support pr after all its all free for us...they work hard on this

[arjan]

I barely see lonewolfers these days :S

[Rudd]

kick them from your squad and play on servers where you have to be in a squad or get kicked, and have admins to ensure SLs are leading their squads.

In such an environment, lonewolfers cannot exist.

[CAS_117]

Guy's here is the problem with lone wolfing and squadding: People have different levels of both skill and talent. Yes it is a form of teamwork what we have, but what we are ultimately doing is forcing people into units regardless of qualifications or standardization training. The system where a squad leader can control 5 other people where his only requirement is the click of a button is not one that reliably produces success. The only real time you can or even should force people to play together is when they are part of a third party such as a clan or community which they agree to and put time in and organize certain tactics and make agreements about behavior.

But when you try and modify the game itself to be that third party to modify the behavior, you get something that is completely unrecognizable from reality, such as the OP's suggestion where you die if cut off from a squad (God help you if you miss a chopper).

And the thing is that direct behavior modification never works. Or at best what you get is 5 more unrealistic behavior patterns that people follow. And for that matter the only way for it to work is to basically dam up the game entirely. Every single thing that is unrealistic but designed to modify behavior has backfired.

Think about this. Suppose the game itself is a dam, the gameplay is the river, and the players are like water. When you build the dam right, letting water in and out, you can add a turbine you get power. But when you start trying to change how much water gets in and out you can end up with pressure and a breach. The point is that you cannot simply change the laws of physics in a reality game to suit your needs. 2 plus 2 must equal 4 or else your throw the whole thing out of whack.

War isn't a natural phenomenon, but everything is created for a purpose, and the best way to balance a game is to make it as realistic as possible. A manipulation on this weapon's damage here, a removal of a capability there, some penalty on something that "wouldn't be done in reality" somewhere else and eventually the game is no longer based on "Reality" but based on "A reality". And the results are never what you expect.

All of this stems from one single problem: The overall theme is not physical reality, but a kind of reality that is based upon impressions and stuff written down in a manual somewhere. I know that because the game is based on the military the idea is for the players to act as "military" as possible, but the problem is that military regulations themselves are artificial. Laws, at least good laws are based upon existing principals in the physical world. Let me give you an example:

In Operation Allied Force, the rules of engagement gave many altitude restrictions that bomber's could fly (read A-10's over Kosovo). I think it started off at 14,500 feet but after a terrible catastrophe involving an AFAC (airborne forward air controller) directing a group of strikers onto a civilian convoy, the altitude restrictions were lower. They were raised later on when an SA-6 radar was detected in an previously safe area. Another example is in Afghanistan, after the spring offensive in 2006. Apache pilots were given much more freedom to engage targets of opportunity at their own discretion. The point is that rules of engagement, military regulations, and other codes of conduct must have a basis within reality. When the regulations do not match the situation, they must be discarded (I wish the real military was like this).

When you force a realistic behavior in an artificial world that does not match our own, what you end up with is insanity. I could list more examples but I have bored you enough if you bothered reading.

[rampo]

Just as rudd said just kick 'em, try to communicate them and if they do not respond kick 'em haard!