Squads

[Athanasios]

Do we have any info about the size of the squads? Is it going to be fixed (eg. 4 squad members) or adjustable?

Also, if there are going to be any tools for easy comms between Squad Leaders? Eg. coordinated attackes with attack points/routes visible in the minimap of both squads would be very handy.

[Mastachief]

0-10 man squads so far. At the moment i'm not sure if platoons will be back (3 x 10man squads)

Typically people join outfits (clans/guilds) and have comms to co-ordinated but there will also be a mission system for leaders to utilise.

[KiddParK]

platoon leaders of decent rank (was it CR2?) could draw on the map and commanders of any rank could place up to four waypoints if i recall. We used to get CRAZY drawing all sorts of strat on the map for the different divisions, different outfits would designate different colors and such. Teamspeak was hopping.

Was there a PL chat where you could chat with everyone else who was running a platoon, or SL chat where you could do likewise? I'm having a tough time remembering but I'm old.

[Athanasios]

Thanks, i wouldn't like PS2 to follow BF downhill (6 > 4 squads).

And yes, obviously clans use TS3 and other voip programs, but we're not going all to be in the same clan; so, coordinating something with another SL with a simple minimap-commands would be very helpful :)

[Xyntech]

At the moment i'm not sure if platoons will be back (3 x 10man squads)

I don't have the source, but I seem to recall them initially saying they were not in, then after some fan outcry they said they would probably add them.

I could be talking out my ass though.

[KiddParK]

I don't have the source, but I seem to recall them initially saying they were not in, then after some fan outcry they said they would probably add them.

I could be talking out my ass though.

YIKES.. no platoons would be rough. Though it would force people to find a way to use their VOIPS in order to organize more. Lord knows we made it work before platoons, and could again. It's just going to be a ton of work with that many people on the battlefield methinks.

[Mastachief]

Platoons where only really handy for know where the members were.

It is hard really for me to be objective as i'm more of the opinion that you should be in an outfit so outfit squad and outfit comms etc. I think higby mentioned that you would see outfit members on the minimap.

If you have say an average sized outfit online in prime time you probably will have some 80 or 90 player to co-ordinated so platoons could help. Comms would have to be managed with the likes of teamspeak channels and channel commander.

So far as i'm aware the in game voip stuff allows for squads to form a voip channel to help you co-ordinate if you are running with randoms.

[capiqu]

Squads will consist of 2 to 10 people. During the height of Planetside many outfits where able to easily make a platoon of 60 people( 3 squads ) since many outfits had 100 to 200 members. Heck some outfits had 300 to 600. However smaller outfits would join a platoon with other outfits.

[SKYeXile]

I don't have the source, but I seem to recall them initially saying they were not in, then after some fan outcry they said they would probably add them.

I could be talking out my ass though.

as far as im ware there is no platoons. Either way, i think your ass is right.

[Furber]

I think I recalling hearing them mention Platoons in an interview not too long ago, though I have no idea which one it was.

[Hamma]

Squads are 10 and platoons were part of our Q&A that will be released next week but nothing official on that.. yet ;)

[Really]

platoon leaders of decent rank (was it CR2?) could draw on the map and commanders of any rank could place up to four waypoints if i recall. We used to get CRAZY drawing all sorts of strat on the map for the different divisions, different outfits would designate different colors and such. Teamspeak was hopping.

Was there a PL chat where you could chat with everyone else who was running a platoon, or SL chat where you could do likewise? I'm having a tough time remembering but I'm old.

People actually drew useful stuff with battleplans? I'm pretty sure we just used it for drawing cocks all over the place :p

[Toppopia]

Then you are a useless leader. :rolleyes:

I wonder if they will go more detailed, like maybe placing symbols like a tank symbol to show that they want a tank there, would be cool to see your map with plane symbols moving on the map in relation to where commanders wanted them and where they actually were and stuff. Like a real war room. But with holograms.

[Bags]

10 people, T-Ray seemed to think platoons would be pointless with the new mission system, but I think we made them reconsider it.

[SKYeXile]

10 people, T-Ray seemed to think platoons would be pointless with the new mission system, but I think we made them reconsider it.

yea, nice to be able to see people on your map, even outfit members, but that runs into problem with intra outfit ops. unless you can see everybody on a misson and make a mission private or you form some sort of task force for a mission or multiple missions which would essentially be a platoon anyway...are you following any of this?

[ringring]

yea, nice to be able to see people on your map, even outfit members, but that runs into problem with intra outfit ops. unless you can see everybody on a misson and make a mission private or you form some sort of task force for a mission or multiple missions which would essentially be a platoon anyway...are you following any of this?

yes, but I'm drunk (kidding).

At GDC Higby and TRAY say down with MGFalcon (I think apologies if not) and recorded an interview in which they said:
Squads are in Platton are not. TRay interjected and said pretty much that stuff is up for grabs and if platoons are needed they can be put in.
Higby also said you can see outfit members on the map.

Later we heard that Platoons we in!

Like everyone here I think both squads and platoons are absolutely necessary. I'm not sure I need to see non-platooned outfit members on the map. In my outfit we would allow members to take a break from the outfit squads if they didn't feel like doing organised stuff.

VOIP may be useful depending on functionality. We want to hear the important stuff and not hear the unimportant.

Missions: I am not sure how useful they will be. Frankly I can't imagine them working well and especially for outfits not as well as a few good players knowing what they are doing in a well run TS channel.

But we'll see in beta and in the early days of live.

[KiddParK]

If i have the ability to see all my outfit (and the ability to toggle it please) on the field at once and be able to direct then i see that as a good tool and would welcome it. I'm a huge fan of 'never have to much information' which i know can bite you in the ass at times, but for the most part I like to soak up as much as possible. Hell, if my outfit were in an alliance with another one (think VAM for the 3 of you who remember Markov) I wouldn't mind sharing outfit wide info with them so we could REALLY coordinate our combined efforts.

You start having the ability to possibly see multiple combined outfit forces on the map, you've got a serious war table at your disposal. Not everyone would want that I'm sure, but he who coord's the best and plays nice with his fellow faction-mates i believe will win the day (and night it would seem).

kp

[Athanasios]

yea, nice to be able to see people on your map, even outfit members, but that runs into problem with intra outfit ops.
that's an important catch, especially if you add in the "smurfs" (multiple account just to spy on other factions). Truth is that if you want to go COMPETELY covered-ops, ie not even your own faction to know what you're up to, then an option to hide your clan missions would come handy.

[Stardouser]

Seeing friendly players on your map is kind of something that should be automatic, it should simply be there, without having to ask for it. The only question is, in large battles, will their indicator dots block your vision of anything else on the map?

But anyway, as I say, seeing friendlies on the map should be a routine expectation. The real question is how will you communicate with your empire at large? At least, your empire on your immediate continent.

[ringring]

Seeing friendly players on your map is kind of something that should be automatic, it should simply be there, without having to ask for it. The only question is, in large battles, will their indicator dots block your vision of anything else on the map?

But anyway, as I say, seeing friendlies on the map should be a routine expectation. The real question is how will you communicate with your empire at large? At least, your empire on your immediate continent.

Just to note.
when higby said we'd see outfit members on map he wasn't too specific. See them as what? A green dot?

What about non-outfitmembers + non platoon members would you see them on the map, if local? In PS you would see all friendlies on the map with the vacinity as a green dot - this hasn't been confirmed for PS2, just squad/platoon + outfitmembers.

[Stardouser]

Just to note.
when higby said we'd see outfit members on map he wasn't too specific. See them as what? A green dot?

What about non-outfitmembers + non platoon members would you see them on the map, if local? In PS you would see all friendlies on the map with the vacinity as a green dot - this hasn't been confirmed for PS2, just squad/platoon + outfitmembers.


I suppose we have to remember that PS1 had what, 150 per empire per continent? PS2 will be 666 and even though the area is bigger, that still technically means you can have 666 in the same area.

So...if that becomes a problem with blocking out the map, maybe they could adopt a system that does this:
1. View 1: Shows squad leaders only, with a color that ranges from light to dark based on whether they have between 2 and 10 members nearby
2. View 2: Shows squad leaders per 1, but also shows unsquadded players individually(a hybrid)
3. View 3: Shows every player as a dot, period.

There are other ways to do this besides what I listed, I just didn't think of any more. And as for squad leader only view, the range on that could be say, 200 meters, squad members farther away from their leader than that could show a dot as if they were unsquadded(since they may as well be if they aren't even going to be in the same battle).

These are of course OPTIONS open to players.

[kaffis]

10 people, T-Ray seemed to think platoons would be pointless with the new mission system, but I think we made them reconsider it.
I'd rather T-Ray be right and the mission system does a good job of delegating granular objectives in a coordinated attack than have meta-squads.

[SniperSteve]

Squads are 10 and platoons were part of our Q&A that will be released next week but nothing official on that.. yet ;)

When you say released next week are you referring to their internal release cycles or the beta? o.O

[Stardouser]

I'd rather T-Ray be right and the mission system does a good job of delegating granular objectives in a coordinated attack than have meta-squads.

For me the platoons are not so much a mission coordination issue, but simply grouping people together for a text chat and VOIP channels.

I say text chat, but I really mean more like "announcements", like, personally I would like to be able to broadcast in text to the entire platoon "enemy tank column incoming from southwest, at least 30 units", etc.

But - perhaps there is a MISSION CHANNEL! A mission text channel and VOIP channel would be interesting...it includes every squad and player who is attached to the mission, so instead of sending your text broadcast to the platoon, it sends it to the mission. Perhaps a PS2 "mission" has tools like that similar to an Everquest "raid"?

[Xyntech]

When you say released next week are you referring to their internal release cycles or the beta? o.O

He's referring to the Question and Answer session he just had with the devs. He's not allowed to release much info from their visit until next week.

[ringring]

For me the platoons are not so much a mission coordination issue, but simply grouping people together for a text chat and VOIP channels.

I say text chat, but I really mean more like "announcements", like, personally I would like to be able to broadcast in text to the entire platoon "enemy tank column incoming from southwest, at least 30 units", etc.

But - perhaps there is a MISSION CHANNEL! A mission text channel and VOIP channel would be interesting...it includes every squad and player who is attached to the mission, so instead of sending your text broadcast to the platoon, it sends it to the mission. Perhaps a PS2 "mission" has tools like that similar to an Everquest "raid"?

Hmm, for me platoons are exactly for mission coordination.

All they do in PS terms is show where people are on the map, show their health / armour. But this is enough for the Platoon Leader to work with and ofc for each member to know where his buddy is and whether to expect help or not.

RE: in-game VOIP, I suppose I have no great faith in it.

(I reckon I am writing all of my comments from the perspective of an outfit working together and that primarily squads and platoons will be outfit only or outfit alliance only and not random people).

[Stardouser]

I guess the question must arise: What is a mission? Will we be limited to macro-level missions? Like...Attack Amp Station Zurvan.

Or can the mission be subdivided into subsections:
Attack Amp Station Zurvan - Infantry Capture Point Team
Attack Amp Station Zurvan - Suppress turrets
Attack Amp Station Zurvan - provide air support
And so on. This would both serve to tell people who join subsections both what to do and what to spawn as/what vehicle to pull.

But if missions are going to be Macro only, like "Attack Amp Station Zurvan", then there's little difference between a mission and a platoon.

[Marinealver]

0-10 man squads so far. At the moment i'm not sure if platoons will be back (3 x 10man squads)

Typically people join outfits (clans/guilds) and have comms to co-ordinated but there will also be a mission system for leaders to utilise.

We will need platoons. There definatly needs to be some sort of higher echelon orginization for this game to command. Outfits and Squads only get you so far for your orginization. Mabey an Outfit Alliance or a Contenant Task Force could help with better orginization and planning.

So Far PS 1 only has this.

Squad Base group, 2-10 people with squad leader.

Platoon 2-3 squads. 1st SqdLeader serves as the Platoon Leader.

Outfit, a perminate orginization basicly designed to find friends and like minded players to easliy form squads.

Empire: the faction/team players choose to play for.

What I would like to see.

Alliance: 2 or more outfits that choose to share resources/players in order to form platoons and cordinate tactics for more active players. With the Outfit Leaders acting as the board members. outfit leaders can choose to join or leave at will.

Task Force: A localized orginization of squads and platoons alligned to a certian empire spanning over the area of no more than one contenant in order to cordenate operations of a battlespace. Squad and Platoon Leaders can choose to join or leave at will. Generally a high CR (equivelant of a PS Cr4 or higher) would be in charge of it via petition or nomination or some sort of in game method The Task force would set up missions and or messages for members of the empire that enter the area of operations.

So far Squad would be the base unit.

Platoons and Task Force would be Operational Units (only last for a log in session).

Outfits and Alliances would be administrative units (more perminate units to help orginize events and players just logging in to find the action and get into a role he or she is needed).

And at the Top of the Chain of Command the Empire.

[ringring]

I guess the question must arise: What is a mission? Will we be limited to macro-level missions? Like...Attack Amp Station Zurvan.

Or can the mission be subdivided into subsections:
Attack Amp Station Zurvan - Infantry Capture Point Team
Attack Amp Station Zurvan - Suppress turrets
Attack Amp Station Zurvan - provide air support
And so on. This would both serve to tell people who join subsections both what to do and what to spawn as/what vehicle to pull.

But if missions are going to be Macro only, like "Attack Amp Station Zurvan", then there's little difference between a mission and a platoon.

Well, if the mission (whether it be a generated mission or a platoon leader created one) is attack Amp Station Zurgan the platoon leader would (perhaps after discussing it with senior platoon members)
decide the mode of attack
prepare for the attack
give the order to execute the attack.

For instance in a platoon of 30 people:
-mode of attack could be 2 galaxies of troops with 8 aircraft to defend the approach (need to allow for maxes, heavies and medics).
-prepare for attack would be to call everyone together and group up inorder to move out in an organised fashion.
-the order to execute would be to 'move out' plus nominate the specific target withing Zurgan base to be the objective for the Gal Drop.

the attack would be carried out, everyone would do their jobs, the objective taken or not and there would be a short pause to consolidate and move to next objective, given that the enemy allows you to do that.

I get a little nervous at the thought that slapping down a mission is 'it'. The platoons should be able to ordanise at a more granular level.

[Stardouser]

Just curious, how often did Galaxy drops fail completely and within a few minutes so badly that it had to be done over? For the purposes of this question I am assuming the Galaxy wing doesn't get intercepted and makes it to the base.

I suppose the opposite question is also - how often did bases get defended with enough people to make this happen?

The purpose of those questions is; the initial invasion method could be such a small part of a mission.

[Marinealver]

Just curious, how often did Galaxy drops fail completely and within a few minutes so badly that it had to be done over? For the purposes of this question I am assuming the Galaxy wing doesn't get intercepted and makes it to the base.
.

Gal drops have failed because 30players + 8 MAXs > 8players + 2 MAXs

Wing of Galaxies almost never get intercepted because the Galaxy has such high hit points and armor it takes reavers to take thos things down. Mossie and Wasps as well as allot of MAX AA just dosn't kill it fast enough. Honestly the best counters for say GalGunship is either Vanu Anti Vehicle sniper weapons, Reavers, or BFR with dual AA.

[ringring]

Just curious, how often did Galaxy drops fail completely and within a few minutes so badly that it had to be done over? For the purposes of this question I am assuming the Galaxy wing doesn't get intercepted and makes it to the base.

I suppose the opposite question is also - how often did bases get defended with enough people to make this happen?

The purpose of those questions is; the initial invasion method could be such a small part of a mission.

Quite often, although it partly depends on your definition of fail.

I can remember doing a double gal drop on a heavily defended AMP Station (with CC on the roof). All we wanted to do was get into the CC and stay there and defend until the rest of the TR arrived like the 7th Cavalry ... it succeeded and we went expelled, despite maxrushes to try to dislodge us.

I can also recall doing a gal drops on a Tech Plant (with CC on the roof too) intending to do the same as the above and we would get in, get the hack on but then be slaughtered and the hack taken off. - I count these as sucesses too as even though we were killed the battle was advanced and a stalemate broken.

On the other hand there were many times when the gal drop was just slaughter - mostly that's what I see happen in the game today.

**Edit - in both the instances above the TR would already be attacking the base but being beaten back by the defenders. If the TR hadn't been there to rapidly reinforce then they would have been abject failures.
The gal is there, I suppose to create a temporary and local superiority.

[Bags]

Just curious, how often did Galaxy drops fail completely and within a few minutes so badly that it had to be done over? For the purposes of this question I am assuming the Galaxy wing doesn't get intercepted and makes it to the base.

I suppose the opposite question is also - how often did bases get defended with enough people to make this happen?

The purpose of those questions is; the initial invasion method could be such a small part of a mission.

One of the main problems of gal drops are trying to get everyone inside. If your hacker dies on the way down you're all sitting ducks for a few extra seconds. Then there's the tiny doors that made people have to enter single file.

But they often were successful at taking back command consoles on say tech plants (since tech plants were on the roof).

[ringring]

Also in the old days with people on low-ish BR not everyone had other suitable transport so the platoon had to provide some group transport.

Ideally, in those days and I'd imagine in the early days of PS2 you would want someone with GAL Cert, someone with Tank cert and someone with Sundy cert so that your platoon can respond flexibly and if your gals drops aren't working you can go tanking.

The good think about PS1 which I haven't heard mentioned in PS2 was that having certed something you could uncert. So, if you didn't have a gal pilot that day someone could recert for it - similarly for tanks - similarly for Air Cav.

I've imagined there would be a recert facility of some kind, perhaps station cash? OTOH, given that when you cert something you have to then spend time 'training' the skill I don't know.

[MrBloodworth]

10 people, T-Ray seemed to think platoons would be pointless with the new mission system, but I think we made them reconsider it.

Likely because the missions system is to herd cats, instead of promote cooperation between outfit members.

Its just reads more and more like this game is being designed for the Zerg.

One of the main problems of gal drops are trying to get everyone inside. If your hacker dies on the way down you're all sitting ducks for a few extra seconds.

Not seeing a problem here.

.

[Hamma]

When you say released next week are you referring to their internal release cycles or the beta? o.O

Our interview next Tuesday, this is one of the items that made the question list with Matt. ;)

[SKYeXile]

Our interview next Tuesday, this is one of the items that made the question list with Matt. ;)

PSU got the scoop on beta launch despite numerous attempts from media to get the goss first?

[IMMentat]

Gotta laugh at the people frothing at the mouth, associating Q&A session write ups with beta release dates.
(BETA is still some time away folks, first to know will be whoever SOE choose to release the info through, probably Smedley/Higby in a games conference or tradeshow).

OTOH
squads, platoons and missions.

Squads, As long as they 10-man and show some alive/dead notification, YAY!

Platoons, potentially handy but:-
Higby also said you can see outfit members on the map.
Assuming this means the continent map, platoons won't be as important.
Inter-outfit plans were usually "we'll attack here, back us up with Air/MAX units plz (or keep the zerg tied up in XXXX base while we rescue a hack)"

Missions, could be very cool or painfully useless.
They need to be tiered to allow outfit and/or squad only with individual opt in ("I Mr Helpful am doing this mission")..
Empire wide missions for global target could be created by automated selection or by popular/nominated command vote.
Thats in tandem to the waypoints and battleplans used to draw seamonsters, dragons and galaxy approach paths onto the continent maps with.

On a similar note please let there be a minimap thats almost ordinance survey in quality(height gradients, multi colour and clearly marked obstructions) instead of that bland neon blue childs drawing (Alternatively duplicate the SW:ToR mapmaking, which was awesome)

[capiqu]

One Important mission could have been, like in planetside 1, to hit enemy home conts in order to drive them away from a certain continent or base. My guess is that there will be no home continents in Planetside 2. Thats unless each empire decides to claim a cont as a home cont. Kind of how all 3 factions claim Oshur as a home cont just because of its better benefits. So I wonder will link continents have an effect on each other .