Originally Posted by
Poorlaggedman
Totally disagree on the officer/NCO priority queues as well as about everything else just above. I've argued this many times and almost the entire forum is against me or doesn't care to comment. Not coincidentally most of the forum are company folks and aren't directly hampered by chaotic public gameplay from which to draw recruits from. There's an accepted norm of total and utter chaos being the norm in these types of ambitious games and that's the only reason it's the norm as bad as it is. Literally almost any introduction to this game requires the caveat "It can be real fun if you find a good unit." That is not the standard that should be sought in terms of gamepay. That's a route to disaster I've seen again and again in realism-based games. Realism-based games are difficult to play and need good organization. If you're not even going to try to build that game on a steady and logical platform and instead rely on sponsored and admined events or a pure happenstance of leaders occasionally being in a server then the public gameplay will wilt because of it far worse than it needs to and hurt everyone in the end.
Spawn priority for certain ranks is nonsensical. It's going at the symptom of the problem rather than the problem. Don't want rambos running up behind? Do something about it (I have a video in my signature on this). Why should key leaders be rapidly replaced? Key leaders get killed, that's reality. Shall we have them able to be as reckless as they want with no repercussions because some people think the gameplay is so fragile that we need to? Has anyone promoting this idea accounted for rambo officers or suggested adding a penalty to that? So why the hell wouldn't an officer just run forward, kill, die, respawn priority, and repeat? And who supports what I've proposed on stopping rambos? Who gives a crap when the basis of the game is seen as an admin-enforced environment in the first place. There should be more leader roles in general and the ranks should mean something, which they don't. The ratios are not adequate in the first place nor does the actual ranks make sense (4 First Sergeants and zero Corporals or Sergeants, etc on team with 75 players).
Would it be months of development to make them mean something? Yes. It's badly needed above all else. And not really that hard or radical of a concept though to create a tree of players in a 'squad' system. You literally just join one, fight with one, and respawn on one when they're properly formed. In doing so you indirectly empower whichever person created and ran that 'squad' in the first place. And with each additional member who voluntarily joins that group which he chooses enables more rank and structure within it. In that situation leaders have every reason to do a good job, the sergeants and corporals he promotes have every reason to obey him, and privates have every reason to willingly follow the leaders they selected.
Literally all you're doing is giving players options and letting the players play the game. You're not giving anyone an option when ranks are selected by who seizes them first like happens now. How are you going to do any form of linear warfare in whatever sort of formation with totally random officers? How's a server owner even going to select ranks during an event without micromanaging "[Server] Pvt. Fluffy please kill yourself and change roles from officer to a private." One solution largely solves the other one. But doing nothing makes this all much harder than it needs to be.
My solutions are all by options. You play in a bigger, better formation - you spawn faster. You run off alone at an enemy formation; then you can't melee, you get suppressed badly, and take a long time to recover, and a longer respawn. If enemy in-formation players touch you and you're out of line/isolated, you autosurrender. You play in a smaller formation, you spawn slower. You play with a crappy leader then you walk over to a better-led group and join them by pressing a couple buttons.
I'm absolutely not anti-clan and I give zero rips how it's perceived. I've seen this all before. Event-based games die prematurely. Very few players come to this game to play in the cluster**** that is often the standard current public gameplay and a whole lot of them aren't going to keep returning to play again and again with the issues never being confronted. Streams of players come to a game like this because they want a certain experience. The easier it is to reach that the better we'll all be off.