XOOM

Why don't small squads, merge to become bigger ones?

79 posts in this topic

I'd be curious for the community's feedback on this matter. Do note it is something I am purely curious about. I see multiple small squads being counter productive in many respects to the overall health and functions of the game. Not because of the loyalty or history associated with them, I get that's a primary reason why they exist.

Squads as we know it is the core foundation to the game, and specifically teamwork. In many cases, it is the very definition for some why folks stay around, I am not oblivious to that good stuff.

How would some of these smaller squads, merging together or into bigger (existing) squads, benefit or be a detriment to the game?

And in addition to that, how can we pump existing squads upwards to have more personnel within them so that they are a bit bigger, a bit more full of life and such, etc.

This is a late Friday night thought I had, so if you fundamentally disagree with what I am saying try not to freak out, it's not policy, just worth discussing as it's been weighing on my mind lately.

S! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Many players don't play for their side to win...they play for personal psychic income. 

Some of that latter type of player get psychic income from being the leader of a unit.

Merge two small squads, and one of those leader-players is no longer getting that psychic income.

2. Some players that join squads are looking for camaraderie and buddy experiences. Take two small squads and merge them, and now the squad members are part of a larger group. Initially they won't know half the group, so they won't get the type of psychic income they want from gameplay.

In the longer run, they could get to know the other squad members, but what if the two groups aren't quite compatible? Maybe there was a reason why the members of squad X didn't join squad Y in the first place, and vice versa, so combining X and Y may fail for that reason as well.

3. If all the customers here were identical, and all played only for their side to win irrespective of their personal fun, there'd only need to be one squad per side. But there's a lot of variety among customers.

4, Consider the game when Schilling and Badger ran the sides. There was a difference in fun delivery that caused the game to have larger squads, in addition to having lots more customers overall. I don't know exactly what all the differences were, but in addition to being worth identifying from the perspective of overall customer population, those factors also go to your question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jwilly said:

psychic income

$$$

 

....................

I think it's always been my  asumshion  that the vast majority of the  Player base was not affiliated with a squad,  is that not the case? Just courious...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of us are desperately hanging on to the past.  The amazing memories and friendships.  Thus we cling to that thin sliver of hope that maybe one day...one day...our old friends will magically log back in, and bring our squad back to its former days of fun and glory. 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there were more perks for squads that rewarded size, they would probably be larger like other ww2 uniforms or other cosmetics changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot speak for WWII Online experience, but I can try from my personal experience as a general player.

 

 

 

Teams even if they have the same side doesn't always see eye to eye because of difference of maturity, or just because member got trouble with another member of another squad, and suddently both squad point there gun at each other. It doesn't even require a SERIOUS reason to have rivality between same-side squad.

There is also the question of goal, some squad are EXTREMELY hardcore and very professional and tend to dislike "Casual" behavior, like just doing stuff because you like, and sadly some people are very intolerant. But usually they are also very good at the game in question. Merging a small group of casual with a small group of "tryhard" won't help either squad. And don't forget that because a squad exist, it got his little history, his own character. If you merge squad, that history basicly disapear, same goes for the character. And the reconstruction will take time -if it work!-

 

 

You have also different way of thinking about the same goal. How to cap a city? Multiple option exist, some organised, other less organised.

You ALSO have different preferred gameplay, here in WWII OL, you have player who focus more on the Planes (4Wings I believe is a good example) and other are more into the Infantry like the 13th.

Does it mean they can't co-habit? No, but it means they have there own specialisation, if you merge them together, the mix could not be that pretty because members are not guaranted to be ok on everything. (And now I am seriously worried about 4Wings because I fear to offense them in some way for using them as example! FORGIVE MY ENGLISH! I JUST EXPLAIN! DON'T HIT ME GUYS I LOVE YOU! :'( )

 

Also, last but not least: Someguy just play with there friends and that's it. And don't even really want to work with the others. They just want there little piece of fun.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an excellent topic!

 

As CO of Windhund I've grown with this squad for quite a long time so there's the issue of "investment" in a squad.  Working up through the various positions and helping the squad grow.

In our case we almost became extinct when the game began to come unraveled and  we suddenly found ourselves down to a small handful of players.  

I look at Windhund as a legacy.  Its been here since day 1 and part of the Axis community and I owe it to the players that came before me that carried this mantle and pushed through the hard times.

Those of us in Windhund feel this way and although we play alongside some amazing squads (looking at you 91st) the name of Windhund must continue and will continue.  

We're now up to 10-12 regular players who work amazingly well together and HC always knows if Windhund is given a task you can rest assured knowing it will be done.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am for merging squads into bigger ones. Been doing some work with 91st recently and it reminds of the days when windhund and KGW were big. I wouldn't suggest squads that have a steady 10 regular members online to merge but more so those who are around 5 or less members. Typically those squads don't have much influence since the chances of having multiple members online at the same time are considerably lower. Those who have your 10 or so members make great FB bust squad, moles, ect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, forrest said:

Some of us are desperately hanging on to the past.  The amazing memories and friendships.  Thus we cling to that thin sliver of hope that maybe one day...one day...our old friends will magically log back in, and bring our squad back to its former days of fun and glory. 

This. 

 

I've found that smaller groups are held together by genuine friendships and banter that helps get over the frustrations inherent in the game. When you lose that, the frustrations tend to lead to conflict and disagreements as egos come to the fore

 

its a real shame, as the game mechanics are founded on the AO as the building block/vehicle of gameplay. Other aspects of the game really should align to AOs by design, be it HC, map units or squads

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of the main squads are merged I know lancers where a coming together of a few squads and then Keysie joined with her squad so its a combination of quite a few squads in total I would always be happy to chat with any smaller Allied squad CO

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I probably don't know all the details, but in the Old Days several large squads dominated gameplay. For various reasons, CRS made changes to the game that made squads less dominant. Eventually AOs were added, I think originally as a continuation of that business determination that CRS needed to have a greater degree of control of gameplay. One reason was so as to assure more-even delivery of game fun to squad and non-squad customers.

There's been some thought since then that while the delivery of game fun became more even, there was a negative business impact.

Since then, there have been maybe a hundred posts here suggesting that squad gameplay would be more fun if squads could set AOs, so as to have a greater degree of control over what their members do. It strikes me that those posts and the OP may be talking about the same problem as seen from different vantage points.

Perhaps CRS could set a squad or group-of-squads membership-logged-in threshold of X subscribers, at which point the highest-level logged-in player on a submitted list of leaders for that squad or group-of-squads would get to set a that-squad-only AO. 

I'd think that benefit would motivate squad joining, increase turnout for squad nights, and ultimately motivate subscriptions.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There could be other details...maybe a green tag could be invited to an op by a squad. I assume the mechanism would need to be more selective than all-green-tags-can-join-squad-AOs. Whatever their orientation (laid back, adult-serious, military-serious, often drunk, whatever), squads need to be able to assure that they don't have incompatible green tags on their ops so that the squad members can reliably have fun--which is essential to achieve the OP goal. Some mechanism for evaluating the "type" of a particular green tag player would be needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 replies and no mention of squad missions. The squad scene in this game really is dead.

On 5/12/2017 at 9:35 PM, XOOM said:

And in addition to that, how can we pump existing squads upwards to have more personnel within them so that they are a bit bigger, a bit more full of life and such, etc.

Squad missions. They're a basic feature in MMOs and the company removed them years ago.

 

There is no real in-game benefit to being in a squad and I'm surprised that there are even a few symbolic and ghost squads left.

 

17 hours ago, jwilly said:

Perhaps CRS could set a squad or group-of-squads membership-logged-in threshold of X subscribers, at which point the highest-level logged-in player on a submitted list of leaders for that squad or group-of-squads would get to set a that-squad-only AO. 

I'd think that benefit would motivate squad joining, increase turnout for squad nights, and ultimately motivate subscriptions.

It's the right idea but too complicated. Just have the server count players within a certain proximity to town and then set or remove an AO based on that.

 

Going by # of squad members logged on could be gamed by logging in a bunch of accounts and just having them sit at the brigade screen. It would also give unorganized zergs a benefit that they don't deserve, and it would prevent several smaller squads from pooling their people in order to get an AO. If you need 40 players near a town to get an AO then get 40 players near a town, it doesn't matter how you do it but people will figure it out if given the opportunity. It could involve growing the squad, cooperating with other small squads, or setting prep missions and then spamming side chat when the time is right in order to get pubs to flood in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of us already took the step, potthead, nkelly, thefsg and myself moved from 3rd panzergruppe to 644.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Squads tend to be collections of individuals, each with their own ideal of how things should be done- the larger the squad the more difficulty in getting agreement.

As pointed out earlier by others, squads have little control over play, so i suspect many people decide that a smaller, more controllable squad suites their needs better at this time.

Reform the role of squads and i suspect you will see squads merge to deal with the new situation. I guess the famous line applies- "Build it and they will come"

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of us ( squads) have an identity and a reputation that we are fiercely proud of.  The friendships made there are the only thing that have kept many of us playing.

Hopefully this is not some kind feeler to force a change.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, david01 said:

There is no real in-game benefit to being in a squad and I'm surprised that there are even a few symbolic and ghost squads left

There are plenty of benefits, someone to cover your 6.  Resupply ammo , actually do things that require planning and team work. 

Squads do all that every day. You might not see it but trust me it happens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd posit that most 'old' squads which currently exist in game are the end result of mergers (some quiet, some not).  

My own squad for example.   

7thAST as it exists was a merger of 7th Army and Allied Strike Team.  

I can't speak towards the AST side, but the 7th Army was created when several small squads merged. Then a few years later a few other squads merged in.  We bumped into AST early in the game, and worked some of the same areas for a long while (zeelands, V and III Corps back when geography mattered).  Eventually we agreed that coming together under a common squad ID (and new name) was in the larger best interest.

IMO squads are a result of the differing social preferences within the game.  Some squads exist for a sole singular purpose (flying, sniping, tanking, social, etc), some exist to focus on a specific tactic within (or significantly more rarely in support of) an attack/Defense (I'm personally looking forward to .36 and the .reports of me hacking/cheating as I've towed my ATG behind the german frontline to turretpop Pnz as they naively trundle up the road in rear->front resupply).  Some squads are social gatherings, where the exact tactics don't matter as much as the experience.  Some exist SPECIFICALLY for a tactic.   

People join squads looking for a specific something, and either like what they find with existing squads, or if they are not satisfied will created their own.  So for as many differing preferences as there are, there will be that many squads.  Some will be fairly large where there is a broad appeal, some very small and niche where the appeal is to a specific aspect. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2017 at 6:55 PM, forrest said:

So, before STEAM...we reset the squads and start again?? 

God no, that would alienate your old base who is the heart and soul of the game. Reset the squads and you could get someone hijacking a day 1 squad who has no affiliation. Would be pointless.....and good long time people would leave.

 

I haven't been around since day 1, but I'm at 10 years, and I can tell you the 101st is the only squad I have ever been in, and outside of starting my own, there is no other squad I would join. The fun, the laughs, the good, the bad its a part of the experience. Sure our numbers have fallen off over the past 4 years, but we have that bond you don't find in many games at all.

You can't force people to merge and expect them to be best of friends. You get resentment.....abandonment....and a unknown, but hey it could also work out in the positive, and if people want to merge that is cool too. Point is, don't dictate what people should be doing.......let us play our game, our way, our style with our friends.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you bring the little green men from Steam, some of the "smaller" squads will swell again. And the ones that are really small, might become irrelevant, or want to join bigger ones at they own will. Or remain small and elite. I know for instance, back in the day there were flying squadrons with different philosophies. Bose, was blotting the sun, while say JG52, had fewer, but really elite pilots. So, I would think this 'merger', if it ever happens, it has to be natural, and left to the squads to decide. 

Edited by bogol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, raven4 said:

let us play our game, our way, our style with our friends.

And if there are enough of you, or if you get to a threshold number by temporarily or permanently combining with another squad, you get an AO to place.

Makes sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Sat May 13 2017 at 5:55 PM, forrest said:

So, before STEAM...we reset the squads and start again?? 

Which would accomplish exactly what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hondo said:

There are plenty of benefits, someone to cover your 6.  Resupply ammo , actually do things that require planning and team work. 

Squads do all that every day. You might not see it but trust me it happens

You're right about the benefits of team play but I was referring to benefits that were coded in to the game. If you are apart of a squad then in this game you just get a private text channel, a tag by your name and a roster that doesn't update reliably. It's nothing. The squad CO/XOs don't even get some extra map icons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hondo said:

Some of us ( squads) have an identity and a reputation that we are fiercely proud of.  The friendships made there are the only thing that have kept many of us playing.

Hopefully this is not some kind feeler to force a change.

Not at all. I thought I was pretty upfront about not making that the case. Please see my below quote from the original posting.

On 5/12/2017 at 6:35 PM, XOOM said:

This is a late Friday night thought I had, so if you fundamentally disagree with what I am saying try not to freak out, it's not policy, just worth discussing as it's been weighing on my mind lately.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.