XOOM

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

79 posts in this topic

I am hoping that Squads reach out to their old team mates and try reforming their Squad. It would be a perfect opportunity to bring back the old guard and with an expected player number increase, a much more enjoyable experience for all.

We'll do our part to sound the bells off for everyone too, but Squad mates reaching out to their old friends and getting them back in will be far more successful than any newsletter we can send out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind Xoom also asked what you feel could make squads a more important part of the game.  I know a couple pointed answers towards this, but would like to find more answers to discuss and look at on that part of the subject.  The loyalty towards a unit is important and we realize this.  What tools or features would help improve this?  Of course it can not isolate other players at this point due to lower numbers.  This is something we are looking at for today and also the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a lot of hard work to maintain a squad. You cannot do it alone. You always need a bunch of active leaders to keep the squad alive. Heck, it is even a kind of art to keep the members entertained. If the players cannot find what they are looking for due to whatever reason it is nearly impossible to keep them entertained / around. And the drama. There is no squad with no drama. Even though it is one of our main statutes, it still is inevitable.

Currently there are 17 squads ot ouf 49 on the map movers list with 9 active members or less. With the upcoming steam release every squad has to ask itself if they and how they want to benefit of it. But then again, this cannot be done by one single person. It is too demanding and probably is going to end in a burnout. So in that regards, yes, maybe it would be wise to merge the smaller squads. Right now the game is going to need every single veteran. Without the veterans we cannot teach the greentags. If the greentags have nothing to affiliate with, they are going to be gone rather quickly.

On a sidnote, personally I'd love to have some kind of squad badge on the uniform, additional to the name and squad tags above their head already. It maybe helps to identify with a squad. A recruit "should work hard" before earning the squad badge on his uniform.

I never participated in those in the past but we had some kind of squad vs squad events on the event server. From what I've heard those were quite good. A healthy competition raises the quality within a squad.

What else can be done to improve squad / squad play? It is quite hard to think about improvements because we have been stuck at a dwindling population for years. Now trying to imagine that there's a chance for the population to increase by 2, 3, 4, n times - it is a whole different game. Therefore I think ideas will flow as we go later on.

 

bb

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a step forward would be som kind of "squad declaration", where players can se what a squad stands for.

Like was explained above, different squads have different focus and rules. For example, a squad that only do inf play is not for me.

If people try a squad and dont like the squad for what ever reason, all involved have wasted a lot of time.

So If we could read about all squads in one place , then it would be much more likely that I/we join a squad that do and behave to our liking and stay, both in the squad but also with the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a minimum on either our website, or our forums, maybe we can promote Squads better than we do now with the intent to drive more traffic to them.

The Host Squad program is a great way but seems to be a little unpopular because the ability to filter them out is done manually, and the energy or interest isn't always there with squads to do all of that.

We need to come up with more ideas to build squads and drive traffic to them so at least their commanders have options coming through the door.

Bigger squads (not mega dominating ones) are healthier for the game and the retention of users. This is just one of those things we're going to have to talk out and see what we can do. Either way, we need to do something and not ignore it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe bump up the squad creating limit to a higher number say 10 persons

Have all "new" players who join the game default into a "beginner" squad until they find a squad of their choosing or find 10 guys they like in the default squad and form their own.

Share this post


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

 

Have all "new" players who join the game default into a "beginner" squad until they find a squad of their choosing or find 10 guys they like in the default squad and form their own.

This was tried  before (The Weasel's)  and all it did was put them all in one squad with really no leader / Mentor.  If any squad wants new players all they need to do is turn on their recruiter flag on and they will be listed if a recruiter in the squad is online. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my experience the Host Squad program is well-intentioned,  but unfortunately doesn't really work that well in practice.

Most new players when just starting a brand new game need some time by themselves to figure out the game.  They don't even know what side they want to play yet usually.    They need more in-game tutorials or in game wikipedia probably. 

Throwing them into a squad the first second they join the game just leads to a lot of frustration for both the Host squad and the new player.  Why?  Because the new guy get poked almost immediately and gets pestered into getting on Squad voice chat, and the squad people sending the messages  get frustrated because 98% of the new guys never respond to the person trying to contact them.  The result is the overwhelming majority of new guys are kicked out of the squad, or leave the squad on their own within the first few days.  Not a great way to start off their first squad experience.

It might be better to create more incentive to encourage lone wolfs to join squads:  there can be lots of ways to do this:  bonus experience points if your in a squad, or special equipment available to squads only, or allowing  squad-only missions, etc, etc...  There are lots of things - just need to be creative about it.

I think after a player has been playing the game for a week or so, then that is a better time to give them an option to join a host squad or pick another squad.  The first  hour of the game is way too early to shove new guys into squads I think. 

Edited by krazydog
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been noted that the different squads have various "styles". Some are serious, disciplined and accomplishment oriented, others are just here to have fun. Some new customers are going to fit right into one of those two squad types, or some other one. Other new customers aren't a good fit for any squad--either because they like solo gameplay and don't want a social context, or because they don't have the maturity or social experience to fit well into adult gameplay. There are lots of other variants. Maybe one useful step would be to provide every new player with a list of the squads that are willing to consider new players, with a brief characterization of the "type" of the squad. No bragging or declarations of being the best. Just plain factual information as to what kind of player would find that squad to be a good fit.

That kind of directory would be useful not only when players are ready to consider joining a squad, but also when they first arrive and know nothing about the gameplay culture here, to inform them of what kinds of gameplay are "valid".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another barrier that has to bo overcome for many of us, is the language barrier.

Not all of us are native speaking English.

A good idea is to some how promote/market/show squads who speak other languages than English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, atgman said:

Another barrier that has to bo overcome for many of us, is the language barrier.

Not all of us are native speaking English.

A good idea is to some how promote/market/show squads who speak other languages than English.

This man is onto something!

Make all the elite players in the game learn Esperanto (if they aren't fluent in it already, doh) and make a super Esperanto speaking squad from all different communities.

I got a name for it, "Lang Gang".

Who is with me?!

tenor.gif

Edited by lightning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2017 at 9:39 PM, B2K said:

Which would accomplish exactly what?

Nothing, that I can think of. Besides a bunch of upset vets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you created a second-tier of squads (let's call them "divisions" for now), it would be possible for squads to converge and diverge at will.  These divisions would essentially be a "squad for squads."

 

Squad leaders would be able combine forces and make alliances with other squads, but if it doesn't work out, they can just leave their division and continue to act independently, or join another division.

 

Squads within a division could communicate via a division channel, while simultaneously maintaining their squad comms with their squad channels.  

 

In this way, squad identities would be preserved, but forces would still be able to come together better. 

Edited by capco
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, capco said:

I think if you created a second-tier of squads (let's call them "divisions" for now), it would be possible for squads to converge and diverge at will.  These divisions would essentially be a "squad for squads."

 

Squad leaders would be able combine forces and make alliances with other squads, but if it doesn't work out, they can just leave their division and continue to act independently, or join another division.

 

Squads within a division could communicate via a division channel, while simultaneously maintaining their squad comms with their squad channels.  

 

In this way, squad identities would be preserved, but forces would still be able to come together better. 

I like!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

101st is the only thing keeping me from losing interest.  13 years of memories and the on going once-a-week good times. 

Edited by lipton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

***  think if you created a second-tier of squads (let's call them "divisions" for now), it would be possible for squads to converge and diverge at will.  These divisions would essentially be a "squad for squads."

 

Or, maybe have a method for squads to temporarily join into a... platoon !  (up to 4 squads maybe.....)

They could then share the same radio - and maybe be different hues of the same color on map for recognition.

Other ideas, a platoon tab to see all the members or way to 'tag' members into teams, etc.

3 people like this

Share this post


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

I think if you created a second-tier of squads (let's call them "divisions" for now), it would be possible for squads to converge and diverge at will.  These divisions would essentially be a "squad for squads."

 

Squad leaders would be able combine forces and make alliances with other squads, but if it doesn't work out, they can just leave their division and continue to act independently, or join another division.

 

Squads within a division could communicate via a division channel, while simultaneously maintaining their squad comms with their squad channels.  

 

In this way, squad identities would be preserved, but forces would still be able to come together better. 

 

That indeed sounds interesting.

bb

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, capco said:

I think if you created a second-tier of squads (let's call them "divisions" for now), it would be possible for squads to converge and diverge at will.  These divisions would essentially be a "squad for squads."

 

Squad leaders would be able combine forces and make alliances with other squads, but if it doesn't work out, they can just leave their division and continue to act independently, or join another division.

 

Squads within a division could communicate via a division channel, while simultaneously maintaining their squad comms with their squad channels.  

 

In this way, squad identities would be preserved, but forces would still be able to come together better. 

Now thats an idea thats worth exploring. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, capco said:

I think if you created a second-tier of squads (let's call them "divisions" for now), it would be possible for squads to converge and diverge at will.  These divisions would essentially be a "squad for squads."

 

Squad leaders would be able combine forces and make alliances with other squads, but if it doesn't work out, they can just leave their division and continue to act independently, or join another division.

 

Squads within a division could communicate via a division channel, while simultaneously maintaining their squad comms with their squad channels.  

 

In this way, squad identities would be preserved, but forces would still be able to come together better. 

so one of the original organizational designs for the HC's.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could link my own post asking this question many times over the years.  I have notoriously jumped squads hundreds of times. What i learned is that people have a unique affiliation to side and squad in this game. The same guys who loved me in thier squad tell me to [censored] off and ignore me after 1 map on the other side. I get 400 kills in one night for the axis, all the while being told im scum and "we dont want you here."  Its wild..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This wont make me popular. Sorry in advance. 

This community isn't very educated. We have a handful of "do-ers" and many more sheep. My general observation is that a large number of players have to be told what to do. Though logic tells you bigger squads are more effective, many players here don't fully understand that. 

Yes, i am arrogant.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, capco said:

I think if you created a second-tier of squads (let's call them "divisions" for now), it would be possible for squads to converge and diverge at will.  These divisions would essentially be a "squad for squads."

 

Squad leaders would be able combine forces and make alliances with other squads, but if it doesn't work out, they can just leave their division and continue to act independently, or join another division.

 

Squads within a division could communicate via a division channel, while simultaneously maintaining their squad comms with their squad channels.  

 

In this way, squad identities would be preserved, but forces would still be able to come together better. 

This is actually very good. There are already squads that operate this way with no real official functionality in game for it. BK and DDZ pretty much operate this way. It would be interesting to have the ability to create as hoc mega squads. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Currently there are 17 squads ot ouf 49 on the map movers list with 9 active members or less. "

At present, the Pathfinders have 3 guys who are in the top 5 on the SMG list (and xohorvath is on leave).  On Map Movers, we are #5 with only 10 players active this campaign.  Talk about force projection!   Speaking to the idea of merging smaller squads, to be perfectly frank, I think the results of the unique ethos that attracts people to the Pathfinders in the first place speaks for itself.  One of the only reasons we log on sometimes is to stand shoulder to shoulder with a squaddie.

Now, adding squad tools to the mix and allowing squads to work together better seems like a decent way forward.  I am now just repeating something I've said before:  it isn't just about comms.  If leadership amounts to nothing more than having a big mouth, there is only so much leadership you'll ever see.  Being able to bring something to the table besides boots needs to be enabled.  For example, if squads had their own batch of supply which they could commit to a fight, or the idea of squad AOs, or similar features that give squads something of substance to contribute.  Then, squads might have a reason to coordinate together.  All the squad tools that I've seen are based on organization and communication (eg, squad missions, or squad channels, etc.)  That's only part of the formula, and incidentally a part that could already be done right now, without any changes to the code or anything.  We need something more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2017 at 7:51 PM, capco said:

I think if you created a second-tier of squads (let's call them "divisions" for now), it would be possible for squads to converge and diverge at will.  These divisions would essentially be a "squad for squads."

 

Squad leaders would be able combine forces and make alliances with other squads, but if it doesn't work out, they can just leave their division and continue to act independently, or join another division.

 

Squads within a division could communicate via a division channel, while simultaneously maintaining their squad comms with their squad channels.  

 

In this way, squad identities would be preserved, but forces would still be able to come together better. 

Excellent 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO what the game lost that kept large squads together was a sense of ownership while working together.  There were leaders, not because someone said they were or appointed, they were leaders because people wanted to follow. Often the great ones were also great followers and listened to ideas of the squad. They had plans and thought about what needed done and what was next. They did not micromanage but expected the squad knew what needed to be done. 

 

 

I say say all that to say this, overstock and town supply was key to this ownership. I also believe having a more open front with more AOs available, plus cutting ews range down another 500m would help. Overstock should only have limits on RPATS, and t3 afvs. The ability to overstock should be simple stupid. I should be able to bring up supply from three towns behind the lines to a front line town and it is added to supply.  As for the up and coming Italian and the allied forces the towns ownership and supply is determined by HC, but we should have mixed supply available if we manually supply it. You either log in axis or allied, the country is of no consequence. You click town, make mission select supply. MB mixed supply of another country origin is only available through the AB. ANYTHING, that brings back player ownership will bring back the large squads, and keep them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.