squad system idea

[Guppy35]

My squad has somewhere around 60 members and I know each of them as individuals, they are all good friends. It has taken over 6 years to grow that size. At first there was only a small group of us, about 10. Then slowly we found new members who fit in well and got to know them all. As it stands now the average members online is between 4-6 and sometimes reaches as high as 10-15 at one time. All we ever really do is fly fighters with the occasional bomber formation or jabo mission. Not interested in taking bases at all. We much prefer to hold air superiority of a sector away from the bases if we have a good turn out at the weekends. Just in it for the fun and to laugh with some buddies when we play AH.

Each and every one of them is a class act and I would never want to change a thing about it. I could count on every single one of them to stick it out with me to the death in any dogfight..

The size of the squad roster does not automaticaly make the horde. It's the mentality of the players that make a horde.
 

The key here is your Squad is more then one.  There aren't 60 members in a squad as it's limited to 32.  It would be better if it was 71, 121 and 133 then you'd play the history with 3 squads   As is it's 2 squads named the same thing

[The Fugitive]

I have an idea.

Anyone can check the roster to see how many ClaimJumpers are on.

Even an NOE raid flashes a base crossing the dar ring.

A small percentage of the time spent complaining on the forum could be put to use developing a counter-horde, anti-ClaimJumper strategy.

A few guys take turns scouting flashing bases for horde raids.

You need very little climbing time to meet an NOE force, if you are willing to fight without a huge alt advantage.

With so many like minded CJ haters, it should be easy to marshal a large force against them.

It could arguably be a more realistic strategy game of one side trying to figure where the other was going to strike next and trying to deploy quickly enough to stop them, and lead to some epic co-alt clashes.

There ya go!

I don't have a problem with large squads, I have a problem with how they run missions.

Having 30+ guys hitting one base is a waste of resources, and kills the fun for both the attacking team as well as the defending team. Building a mission has two purposes, completing a mission objective, and two.... and I think the more important one... to have fun. How much fun is it for players 20 thru 30 of that bunch? If the first 19 have any skill at all, the town is down, VH is down, and the field is deacked and is most likely abandoned due to the vulch light being lite. So the last 10 guy circle doing nothing WOW !!! loads of fun there !

Building and leading a mission, it's your responsibility to have a good plan, work to get it executed well, and to make it fun, for both sides.  Running a mission is basically running a mini senario, it should be fun for both sides, it is a game after all. Nobody really dies, and the base you captured tonight will be milked back in the morning  

As the CO of a big squad (20-25 people for a squad night was normal) my job was to make missions that worked, or at least had a shot at working, and were fun. We didn't have everyone hit one base, capture unresisted and move on to the next one, what kind of fun is that? We did 11 bases in 2 hours one night ...big deal. I knew how many bombs it took to flatten a town, figuring my guys hit at 75% percent that how many I took. If we didn't hit at an average of 75% we didn't get it. It pushed everyone to work harder at doing their job the best they could and when we did it right there was pride in accomplishing the mission.  We KNEW we could use everyone on one base and take it, but that was just too easy. Working for it was always more fun.

Also by not having EVERYBODY hitting the same base it made it fun for the defenders because it gave them the illusion they could stop us   and some times they did, but not to often.

Todays "mega-squads" pool all of their resources into one hit. Sure they can overwhelm a base, but its only due to their numbers. Most don't have the skill to work in smaller groups and hide behind those numbers. Defenders also avoid fighting them because unless your one of the top "uber" players your not going to last long going against 3,4,5 to 1 odds, even against a bunch of skilless players.

This why so many say that this kind of game play is killing the game. Skill level is going down, and horde numbers continue to grow. Why learn how to play better when you can have 3 of your buddies follow behind you to finish off the target you missed? Why learn to fight if you can HO and "win" half the time? If these mega-squads only used what should be needed if all goes well to accomplish the mission. their teammates would get better so they wouldn't "let their squadmates down" and defenders might defend.

Someone posted about a big TT bomber mission. Who cares? You want to impress me, you want to run a good mission? Instead of 40 bomber formations all rolling in and hitting strat one time, have a group of 10 followed 30 minutes later by another group of 10, followed again 30 minutes later by another group of 10, and 30 minutes later the last 10. How much can you take down with 10??? How long can you KEEP it down with the next 10 and so on?  That takes skill, timing. Creates a challange for both sides, creates fun for both sides. See what I mean?

There is nothing really wrong with a mega-squad as long as it does NOT contribute to the decline in game play. Use those numbers to encrouge more fights, more battles, more fun !

[mechanic]

I don't have a problem with large squads, I have a problem with how they run missions.

I am not for or against any of the arguments in this thread Fugi, but i just thought this bit of your post was the most profound. If you don't like how people play the game, it is your problem. Just pointing this out, not arguing about mega squads or gameplay or anything. Just pointing out who has the problem. Your enjoyment of the game might increase if you refrain from having problems that you cannot control.

S!

[mechanic]

The key here is your Squad is more then one.  There aren't 60 members in a squad as it's limited to 32.  It would be better if it was 71, 121 and 133 then you'd play the history with 3 squads   As is it's 2 squads named the same thing

No, it is not, it is one squad. Please don't presume to tell us what would be better for us.

S!

[Guppy35]

No, it is not, it is one squad. Please don't presume to tell us what would be better for us.

S!

Don't misunderstand me.  It's up to you how you call it.  My point was that squads are limited to 32, so to have 60 members you need more then one squad.

I didn't make the limit, but I recognize it

[The Fugitive]

I am not for or against any of the arguments in this thread Fugi, but i just thought this bit of your post was the most profound. If you don't like how people play the game, it is your problem. Just pointing this out, not arguing about mega squads or gameplay or anything. Just pointing out who has the problem. Your enjoyment of the game might increase if you refrain from having problems that you cannot control.

S!

I don't see why you would quote that out of my post, seeing as everyone here is posting their opinions as I did. I don't let the hordes bother my enjoyment, I just play less than I use to because there just aren't that many good fights anymore. I still have my fun, and like golf you always get that one great shot that makes you come back and play another round. If all you got out of my post is "how I don't like how others play the game" I think you really missed the point.

Basically all I was pointing out.... as many others have pointed out is the "horde" is killing game play. I made a few suggestions as to what a mega-squad might do to avoid becoming a horde. Either we can play like we are all 500lbs bombs, or we can play like we are a nuke. A bunch of 500lbs bombs can get the job done as long as they are used skillfully, or we can just sling around a bunch of nukes until there is nothing left. Which way would be more fun in the long run?

[Ack-Ack]

The 479th is going to go on a massive recruiting drive.  Our target is to increase our squadron ranks by 100% by April and if it succeeds, we should have 12 members.  Beware AH, a new mega-squadron is coming your way soon! MUHAHAHAHAHA!  MUHAHAHAHA!


ack-ack

[mechanic]

Don't misunderstand me.  It's up to you how you call it.  My point was that squads are limited to 32, so to have 60 members you need more then one squad.

I didn't make the limit, but I recognize it

To me it would not matter if there was no such thing as squads in the game, the group of uf who enjoy each others company would still fly together.  You may be correct that there is a limit of 32 players but that is purely semantics. We fly as one squad, all part of the same thing. We do not have a negative affect on gameplay (infact alot of people would say we have a possitive one) so whats the big deal with us calling ourself one squad or two?

The point im trying to make is that being part of a large squad is not 'destroying gameplay' it is the attitude of individuals or of groups of individuals however large or small that is having a negative impact.

I don't see why you would quote that out of my post, seeing as everyone here is posting their opinions as I did. I don't let the hordes bother my enjoyment, I just play less than I use to because there just aren't that many good fights anymore. I still have my fun, and like golf you always get that one great shot that makes you come back and play another round. If all you got out of my post is "how I don't like how others play the game" I think you really missed the point.

Basically all I was pointing out.... as many others have pointed out is the "horde" is killing game play. I made a few suggestions as to what a mega-squad might do to avoid becoming a horde. Either we can play like we are all 500lbs bombs, or we can play like we are a nuke. A bunch of 500lbs bombs can get the job done as long as they are used skillfully, or we can just sling around a bunch of nukes until there is nothing left. Which way would be more fun in the long run?

Sure I understand exactly what you are saying. I was just quoting the most profound part of your previous post, that the problem is 'yours' and that if the people you are complaining about are having fun in what they do then no ammount of postulating is ever going to get your world view to stick with them. Again please note I am speaking as a devil's advocate and not as someone who enjoys steam rolling undefended bases or fighting in 10-1 odds in my favour. All I am saying is that you are wasting your time in this crusade to 'save aces high' because people are going to do what they enjoy, and clearly some of us enjoy taking bases by any means possible. My advice to everyone in your possition is stop making it your problem and get on with what you enjoy.

[Guppy35]

To me it would not matter if there was no such thing as squads in the game, the group of uf who enjoy each others company would still fly together.  You may be correct that there is a limit of 32 players but that is purely semantics. We fly as one squad, all part of the same thing. We do not have a negative affect on gameplay (infact alot of people would say we have a possitive one) so whats the big deal with us calling ourself one squad or two?

The point im trying to make is that being part of a large squad is not 'destroying gameplay' it is the attitude of individuals or of groups of individuals however large or small that is having a negative impact.

I'm looking at it more from a historical standpoint, in particular with squads that are based on a historical identity.  That was why I mentioned 121 and 133 Squadrons.  The Eagle Squadrons combined barely had 60 pilots together at any one time.   

In terms of the rest of the discussion, there is a valid concern about groups that just pile on the numbers to create a horde.  I imagine that is why there is a squad number limit, because it does get abused.  Obviously folks are working around it and in many cases it can be detrimental to game play.  The obvious example being the "squad' that has 10 squads under the same name with 122 players out of a potential 320.  Seems a bit silly. 

There I was flying with 320 of my closest friends!

[mechanic]

I do see your point with regard to history, i geuss we didnt think it through at the time. I also see what you're saying and I think it correlates exactly to my previous quote here:

The point im trying to make is that being part of a large squad is not 'destroying gameplay' it is the attitude of individuals or of groups of individuals however large or small that is having a negative impact.

So we may be disagreeing from the same viewpoint.  

 Please consider this:

No matter if it is a squadron with 120 players or just 120 unattatched players working together, it is the attitude of those individuals that is detrimental. The affiliation of the squad is purely a consequence of like minded people flocking together, not the flocking together causing the attitude.

[jimson]

  The obvious example being the "squad' that has 10 squads under the same name with 122 players out of a potential 320.  Seems a bit silly. 

Of those 122 players, some only fly during the daytime hours, and the most I have ever seen online during prime time is about 20 or so, certainly less than 32.

So if all were disbanded, and a single wing of only the most active 32 players was kept, what would be the difference?

The number of wings/squads with the same name seems irrelevant.

[Guppy35]

Of those 122 players, some only fly during the daytime hours, and the most I have ever seen online during prime time is about 20 or so, certainly less than 32.

So if all were disbanded, and a single wing of only the most active 32 players was kept, what would be the difference?

The number of wings/squads with the same name seems irrelevant.

And completely unnecessary

[Delirium]

I have an idea.

A few guys take turns scouting flashing bases for horde raids.

I'd rather not, that is boring. Granted, not all the time spent by historical aviators was 'entertaining', but I log on to fly/fight and not to hunt down a group that is playing 'hide and go seek'.

I'm not very good in AH but flying around in the NOE base taking horde will really limit your ability to flower any proper stick skills. Last night alone, we pushed a certain horde squad from the base they attacked and all the way back to theirs. Before the fight went south on the horde squad, I was routinely turning inside Spit16 while carrying a full load of fuel. Not because I am any good but because these guys rely on someone else to help them any time they get something behind their 3-9 line.

However, two guys in the area were very good and gave me a good run for my money. Guess what, they weren't part of a squad that had more than one wing.

[BaldEagl]

In 1996 I inherited the Red Barons in Air Warrior about three days after I joined when the founding CO withdrew and handed me the squad.  At the time I took over the squad was about 6-10 people.  In less than a year we had grown to over sixty formed into 3-4 wings (I actually can't remember anymore).

On squad night the best we ever got was just over 20 people.   That always seemed like a dissapointment to me but given it was AW those were some pretty big numbers.  Still, given it was AW many of our squaddies were riding gun positions on B-17's which is why I always hoped for bigger numbers on squad nights.

The plus side to this big squad was that no matter what time of day or night you logged on there was always a squaddie to fly with and yes, I knew every one of them.

The downside was that there was constant churning of the players and, at times, it was a bit like cat hearding but that was OK.  I just needed to implement an efficient leadership organization and a grievance policy to keep personality clashes (cat fights) to a minimum (mostly our squeeker element... but they were mostly good kids).

Everyone joined the squad at the lowest rank (airman) and, based on performance and reliability worked their way up the rankings.  We had a lot of recognition programs.  Every month I'd manually calculate things like K/D, K/S and other stats that AW didn't keep track of (we had a fighter pilot who was always in the 6-9 range in K/D and K/S but for the life of me I can't remember his handle... think it started with a Q) and send an e-mail to every member recapping the month and rewarding those who performed well with a trophy (with their name and accomplishment) on our web-site.  I like to think HT stole this (the stat keeping) from me.

Because skill levels varied from advanced to noob we weren't nessesarily that efficient all the time but we always had fun and isn't that the point?  There's still people from that squad I miss winging with in fighters or riding gun for or having them ride gun for me in a bomber.

There's plusses and minuses to a big squad but in general I don't think sheer numbers are nessesarily a bad thing.

To a few of my long lost squaddies (^RDog, ^Lion, ^Peye, ^egl7, ^Ritz (still here), ^1Way (still here) and others too numerous to mention), <S>, I'll always cherish my time as CO of the Red Barons.

^Crsh

[jimson]

I don't know what to tell ya then.

I usually fly off prime time hours with a smaller group of Claim Jumpers, so I don't care much either way.

You could petition HTC to get the rules changed, or like I suggested, devise tactics to counter the horde, avoid em and fly a different portion of the map, etc.

Anything would be a better use of time than having this same argument over and over again.

 
jimson