Squads: How many?

[Zarparchior]

Squads are awesome. They'll be the people whom you'll be working with the most. Twas the same with groups in EQ, as it not (you EverCrackers you, :D)? But... how many people is the maximum limit per squad? When will your outfit have to break into two squads for an assualt because it is simply too big?

I ask because on large raids I figure more people than what your squad consists of are going to be attacking with you. If you kill them, you get grief points. Also, only the commander of the squad that takes the base will get CEPs. What if it was teamwork with 3 or more sqauds? What about the other commanders?

[Incompetent]

10 people a squad, 3 squads in a platoon. i wouldn't be suprised if they implement a way for platoons to link up and form a company tho.

[Flashingfish]

Do you mean how many the game allows, or how many is an ideal limit for winning?

I assume you mean the latter, and I would think that teams of about 6 would be good, as you could have a medic, a hacker, a pointman, an antivehicular trooper a max and a driver/pilot. It's not very well thought out ;p but I see a group that is versatile as big enough. And when you have several of these groups, then you have an effective team.

[Zarparchior]

I actually meant the prior. If it was stated someone, it was a long ass time ago and has subject or probably already undergone change. :p

For winning, doesn't it all depend on the amount of opposition and the roles people are playing? ;)

[Hamma]

Im not sure if platoons have been implemented - they were talked about tho

[Ex70]

That would suck if you couldn't have more than 3 squads linked. 30 vs. 30 isn't that big of a battle. If you could link 2 platoons that would nice, 60 vs. 60 :D

[Serbitar]

As I see it only squads are implemented yet and platoons might be (which is a MUST in my opinion . . .)

10 people is NOT enough for the biggest suported tactical unit !

[DiosT]

can you imagine the LAG when you're talking 120 people fighting? =p

They say PS is 'latency friendly'.. but to what extent? most FPS's allow a max of 32 =p we're already talking 60 at least, and now 120 ;-P


now, I personally would like 60vs60 battles, just watned to bring up the latency issue since it's a possible reason why it's not implemented yet(if they do even implement it)

[Hamma]

There is no way from stopping 2 60 man teams from fighting in this game - other than providing incentives in areas that have a higher threat level

[DiosT]

oh i know it's POSSIBLE, but... latency would be insanely high(i'd assume)... =p so might not be something they want to encourage since modem players would be left out to dry

[Ex70]

In EQ its not uncommon to have raids of 60 or more people in a very tight area. With Cable/DSL the lag is fine though. So I don't see why huge battles in PS would be any worse, especially since there isn't all that spell data coming and going.

[DiosT]

nope 60 isnt unusual....


but how about 120 people...


120 people all trying to kill eachother (requires very good latency or the person doenst know he's dead for nother 3-4 seconds)..

in EQ 80 people in 1 spot was somewhat fine, you typicalyl dont die from 1 hit(unless your the MT)... so lagging behind 2-3 seconds is no big deal...

but in a FPS, you need latency times seriously under 1 second or you get lots of 'choppyness'...


Note that i'm using the technically correct LATENCY time, which is the round trip of data from me, to the server, to the target, back to the server, back to update me.... "Ping" times are really just sending 32 bytes of data to the server & back, no processor use of the server really, and the data cuts off half of the traveling it does.. but LATENCY is more important, this is what causes an entire FPS server to 'crash' when a 28.8 connects(though im sure this wont be a problem with PS, they'll prolly let the modem user lag behind so others can continue to play