Outfits need to be bigger on Miller - Page 2

bpostal · 2013-06-09, 11:26 AM

Hmm, I hadn't realized that the situation looked so bleak (I'm not a big numbers guy). Still though, I'm glad we're not afflicted with massive outfits because then it seems to become 'If you're not part of the outfit you're just wasting your time' (simply because at that point you're in the minority on your own faction) and the opposing faction has to use most of, if not their entire pop to focus on slowing down one opposing outfit.

The coordination and use of CR6 alliances seem, to me, to be a good compromise of this. For the most part each outfit can work together, or work separately and if we need coordination on a large scale we can run a TRAM Op.

I'm not sure where the idea comes from that Miller is some kind of server with a totally different skill set requirement from every other server out there. The only thing I can think of is that a majority of players can look at the map and 'see' how everything is flowing better than the average player on say, Connery or Mattherson (Those are servers that still exist right?). Thus reacting, responding and going more in depth on a strategic and, once they get there, tactical level.
It's simply summer and if I had to guess, a lot of people are out enjoying it or working their balls off so they've got money to do so. That natural downswing, coupled with a lack of retention among new players, although I have shot me a few BR 1/2/3's recently so that's promising, makes it look worse than it is.
Of course, that could also lead to a downward spiral so...

ringring · 2013-06-09, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by Aveox

PS1:
1 squad = 10 players = 7.5% of continental population cap (133 players)
1 platoon = 30 players = 22.6% of continental population cap

PS2:
1 squad = 12 players = 1.8% of continental population cap (666 players)
1 platoon = 48 players = 7.2% of continental population cap

In PS1 a single squad had a much larger impact on continental strategy because they would be nearly a tenth of a continent's population. In PS2 with a much higher popcap you would need 50 people to reach that 7,5%. So if an outfit ran with 1 squad in PS1, it needs to be a full platoon in PS2 to have the same effect as in PS1. So squad = platoon.
Looking in-game I think that is about right. My outfit used to field a full squad in PS1, which was more then adequate in most situations and could tip the balance against a bigger force if we did things right. In PS2, 10 people barely make a dent in anything.

.

True but you also need to factor in that on any one continent there are more targets in terms of bases and outposts than there is/was on a PS1 continent. Also add in things like hossin/seahus working warpgates and inter-cont lattice and the picture changes again. Perhaps the effective outfit will be those that can look over the whole 'world' and move to where they are needed most. Again.

Eggy · 2013-06-09, 11:57 AM

heh. I was just talking to my buddies on TS this morning and saying there should have been a maximum size limits on outfits to stop the massive un organised and unfocused play.

I spent an hour on Miller this morning in an alert and was getting increasing frustrated at wathching large groups of the same outfits ghost cap, avoid fights, ignore stuff on radar and hang back not getting stuck in.

Theres never anyone on where you need them to be engaging the enemys that your spotting like mad becuase 99.9% of the time they are 1 hex back, bored, shooting empty base turrets or chatting on TS for 3 mins while an empty base caps.

I appreciate that some of the above is tactical play, but you dont need a full platoon of tanks, sunderers, harrasers and mosi support to cap a base with 0 enemies.

We have plenty of pop, it just seems to enjoy spending lots of its in game time doing boring shit.

I came to the conclusion that lots of smaller outfits and better commnication/organization is the way forward.

If you bring in a full platoon on Miller however, there's no competition unless you get overwhelmed by an unorganized enemy zerg, so no need to bring your A-game.

This is the biggest problem at the moment on Miller. Every time I leave a hex to advance I have two outcomes hit a zerg or ghosttown.

Aveox · 2013-06-09, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by ringring

True but you also need to factor in that on any one continent there are more targets in terms of bases and outposts than there is/was on a PS1 continent. Also add in things like hossin/seahus working warpgates and inter-cont lattice and the picture changes again. Perhaps the effective outfit will be those that can look over the whole 'world' and move to where they are needed most. Again.

Absolutely correct. But even though there are far more targets now, there are still not enough targets to get to the same population density where a single squad can matter. Each continent in PS1 allowed for around 2-4 targets at any given time. Since PS2 has 5 times the number of people on a continent, you would need 5 times the amount of targets available. So in PS2 that would mean you should have 10-20 options to attack at any time. But it is far less, even with the hex system, which means you automatically have more people fighting over each target. And that simply means you have to throw more bodies at it to win and that small outfits, no matter how smart they play, will simply be outnumbered.

Also, we are still stuck with 3-way "cyssorside" on each continent. In a 2-way fight (like most fights in PS1 were) you can spread your forces across the continent to fight an equal number at most, and not like we have now were you reach a certain point where you always fight double your numbers. The intercontinental lattice will change that for a large part, but that is still too far off.

Fara · 2013-06-24, 03:50 AM

More than anything I'm looking forward to Outfit vs Outfit play on the battle islands. Be really interesting to compare not only numbers but quality of gameplay that outfits will bring to the fight.

Also I'm going to assume this will branch out beyond your own server and probably let you play against other Outfits across the whole PS2 server group.

Lord Mondando · 2013-06-25, 04:09 AM

I think the 'its better on Connery/Matherson' stance is an outright fallacy.

A lot of the outfits on both servers (not all, some notable exceptions) have little more organisation than 'GO TAKE THAT' and 'GO HERE' and unless the squad lead happens to be particularly good or the PL has a talent for mircomanaging without being outright smothering. It's usually only a few steps above and organised zerg.

I can only speak for NC, but where we lack in individual outfit numbers, we regularly make up for in Inter-outfit cooperation. Deliberate nights for which are going on at least once a week, and as much as 4 sometimes.

Overall its an example of the success of a decentralised command structure over a centralised one. Its simply easier to run 2 or 3 squads properly as it is 2 platoons. We in DL* also make a point of allowing within our platoons a huge amount of independent command on the part of a SL and increasingly even more decentralised than that.

Thats not to say we are not intent or growing, or indeed that we are now (both yes).

Yet I see no advantages and several disadvantage to suddenlying gaining 40 members every night, running 2 platoons and from that point simply not being able to build unit cohesion, drilling them effectively and raising a properly competent officer core to command them. We've grown at a snails pace for months now (but steadily) as despite all our stupid bullshit (myself especially), growing a pace always a step behind that which we could effectively train and incorporate into our e'spirit d'corps has always been our ethos.

We also don't like the idea that members of the outfit might be complete strangers to each other and this is what a lot of our month long trials are devoted around. Else people who squad with 'team A' don't work as well when they are in 'team b or c'.

Not that we would not one day like to be twice the size, but I fail to see how trying to get twice or even thrice the size as quickly as possible would serve our goals.

This is why (in part) an idea for merging sections of the NCTO together was rejected some months ago. Its 1) unneeded, everything in terms of force mutliplication and organisation can be acheived with inter-outfit cooperation (if we've won an alert underpoped at prime time, its something to do with the NCTO) and 2) largely counterproductive to organised team play.

*And i'm not trying in all seriousness to make ourself in this as some sort of super elite space paratrooper regiment. Far from it, but we are on the 'pretty good' side of competent.

Thunderhawk · 2013-06-25, 07:25 AM

I attest to DL being frickin annoying at times, and by that I mean good when fighting NC. One of the few outfits I consider "good" on Miller NC and always cause me a whole lot of headaches trying to counter what they're doing.

What you describe here is what the VS have been doing recently, some nights more effective than others (depending on whom is in charge of the individual outfits) and I totally agree with the individualism of each outfit being left to prosper whilst allowing the collective unit of the Alliance to achieve the main goals......

Have a Zergfit should never be the goal, I don't really care what other outfits do on other empires, but having an outfit of a FULL Platoon or two every night is just a lot of people to manage effectively beyond pointing them at a base and taking them to "take it"....

Sure its effective to Zerg facilities, but really is that what fun is about for you guys ? having to clamber over each other to shoot at the few defenders who decided to stay at a base ?

My personal preference is having 2-3 Squads MAX to manage and organise, its just the right amount for my personal tastes and would not enjoy playing in an outfit with 2 full platoons running at prime every night, not enjoyable at all.

Rolfski · 2013-06-25, 09:45 AM

With the upcoming battle islands, I bet you that we are going to see a lot of outfit vs outfit events outside MLG. As these islands are specifically made for platoon vs platoon fights, 48 players ingame effectively becomes the golden standard for outfits.

Because no matter how you look at it, a single outfit platoon is by design a more effective fighting unit vs a platoon that's made up of 2/3 outfits that occasionally play together.

Gimpylung · 2013-06-25, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

With the upcoming battle islands, I bet you that we are going to see a lot of outfit vs outfit events outside MLG. As these islands are specifically made for platoon vs platoon fights, 48 players ingame effectively becomes the golden standard for outfits.

Because no matter how you look at it, a single outfit platoon is by design a more effective fighting unit vs a platoon that's made up of 2/3 outfits that occasionally play together.

Let me get this straight, you are suggesting that the playerbase adapt themselves to how SOE are developing the game. That is, merge smaller outfits into larger more impersonal ones so that this MLG and battle islands stuff works.

Hmmmm, maybe, like many have argued, it would be better to scrap these plans and develop the game around how the playerbase is actually playing the game. Because developing the game around 48 player ingame outfits seems rather foolish in light of the fact that many many outfits haven't a prayer of mustering that many players, couple that with the significant amount of no-outfit players and the issues become apparent.

A tiny niche collection of outfits will dominate these matches and the vast majority of the playerbase will never see them and likely resent the fact that SOE put so much resources into it and not into the core game that we all play.

PS2 should have a role for outfits of all shapes and sizes.

I find it rather alarming that SOE seemingly have no clue where they are goin with this game beyond the MLG stuff. They need to be at least discussing and fleshing out proposals for intercontinental and strategic stuff, coz we seem to be stuck with 3 map Team Deathmatch until at least the winter. I'll wager that Hossin will mean it becomes 4 Map TDM because I'm pretty certain little thought will be given to inter-continental warfare even by then.

bpostal · 2013-06-25, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Thunderhawk

...
What you describe here is what the VS have been doing recently, some nights more effective than others...and I totally agree with the individualism of each outfit being left to prosper whilst allowing the collective unit of the Alliance to achieve the main goals......

...having an outfit of a FULL Platoon or two every night is just a lot of people to manage effectively beyond pointing them at a base and [telling] them to "take it"....

...

My personal preference is having 2-3 Squads MAX to manage and organise, its just the right amount for my personal tastes and would not enjoy playing in an outfit with 2 full platoons running at prime every night, not enjoyable at all.

*formatted quote for emphasis*

You're right, for one person to manage a platoon like a squad is just too much, that's where the leadership hierarchy comes into play. You have to have SLs you can trust. Leading a group of 48 people comes a lot easier if the PL focuses on the strategic side of things (what base to assault next and why) while the SLs focus on the tactical side of things (how to assault this base and what needs to happen to make that a possibility).

Running with two squads is all well and good, it's partially how BRTD is structured (Each 'Reaper' consists of up to 24 people), as it keeps crosstalk to a minimum and tightens everything up but the issue comes into play when the unit is spread out geographically. Alpha squad may be north, while Bravo is down south. As I'm sure you know, splitting up your forces weakens them but helps you project your force across a wider area if one can pull it off successfully. I know you know this, but it bears repeating, y'all in ISK fuck me often enough when I'm trying to lead by doing this kinda shit

TLDR: Management and leadership styles are what really sets the different outfits apart. Large or small, neither is wrong. What IS wrong is the fact that the smaller units and outfits are having a hard time finding their place on the battlefield outside of acting as highly disciplined, tight knit, shock troops.

Originally Posted by Gimpylung

...the vast majority of the playerbase will never see them and likely resent the fact that SOE put so much resources into it and not into the core game that we all play.

PS2 should have a role for outfits of all shapes and sizes..
...

Amen. Don't even get me started on fuckin MLG. Sure players will need to adapt to the game, that's part of being 1: A gamer and 2: an MMO player. The focus of MLG is, in my mind, the exact opposite of what this game is supposed to be about. SOE's changed the tagline to 'Size Always Matters' and then have taken away the size bit.
Still, It's SOE's game and like some kinda retarded parent, I want to let them give it a go to see what happens. Maybe PS2 will reshape MLG and what it means to play competitively but...maybe it'll flop and we'll be fucked. Stuck with a game that's changed it's focus so much to be unrecognizable from what we enjoy.

TLDR: I feel ya man

Rolfski · 2013-06-25, 04:39 PM

I'm still on the fence on how the effects of e-sports play out.

Their are short-term negatives to it for sure, like the ones you said but with the game now being released in China (already the highest player base within a day) and Russia upcoming as well, plus added console support, I can see positive effects on the long run as well.
All the added markets SOE is going for will probably make e-sports for PS2 more viable: More audience = more Twitch viewers = more MLG $ = bigger tournaments = more popular PS 2 = longer lasting game = more features to make it as good as PS1 was.

For the short term though, we just have to accept that one platoon is becoming the outfit standard. (As bpostal said, a single platoon is not that hard to manage)

Mastachief · 2013-07-06, 04:10 AM

We don't want anymore than 30 guys on TS and we are recruiting with that in mind. Imo that is the most effective number for skilled communicative players.

People will say oh you can have multiple channels or squads etc but then you are ruining your community feel and banter thus ruining the fun.

Zergfits are bad and i am yet to come across any 100+ member outfit on vs or tr that does anything tactical to win a fight instead of simply throwing numbers at a problem.

bpostal · 2013-07-06, 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by Mastachief

We don't want anymore than 30 guys on TS and we are recruiting with that in mind. Imo that is the most effective number for skilled communicative players.

People will say oh you can have multiple channels or squads etc but then you are ruining your community feel and banter thus ruining the fun.

Zergfits are bad and i am yet to come across any 100+ member outfit on vs or tr that does anything tactical to win a fight instead of simply throwing numbers at a problem.

There can be no other answer!

Maarvy · 2013-07-06, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by Mastachief

We don't want anymore than 30 guys on TS and we are recruiting with that in mind. Imo that is the most effective number for skilled communicative players.

People will say oh you can have multiple channels or squads etc but then you are ruining your community feel and banter thus ruining the fun.

Zergfits are bad and i am yet to come across any 100+ member outfit on vs or tr that does anything tactical to win a fight instead of simply throwing numbers at a problem.

You can always create a communal channel where each group can drop in phantoms and have alt binds . Best of both worlds ... well apart from having to explain how to set up alt keys and phantoms to everyone for whichever voip you use .

Adenn · 2013-07-06, 08:45 AM

As part of an outfit that in the past 2 weeks has had around 200 new recruits, and I kid you not, I agree with many things I read here and disagree with others.

- Is there a feeling of strangers with people in the outfit? No. Not at all. It feels like we were together all our life. Some newbies are more timid then others but all in all I don't notice the "stranger" feel you all seem to imagine you get.

- From being a usually airborne infantry outfit we now have all sorts of divisions. Now we always had the divisions but we could never fill them so we all usually were in the same squad (Usually 2 squads, more was rare). Now with the extra 200 members we can have armor and air squads up on some continent while the infantry is on another and with 3-5 guys playing casually with harrassers and with several solo players all at once.

Now the question is...is this a good thing? Older members who always liked tanks can now actually tank. But there is more segregation. Due to our outfit policies we can't enforce 1 game style as well. So it depends on your personal opinion.

-We now also have many more squad leaders. While a plus, many of these squad leaders are new and not as good as older ones such as Hadouken, Chauma and me. But only way to get better is by leading I suppose.

-I personally run daily bootcamps now. Every single day I spend 30 minutes fighting with the new recruits convincing them and helping them set up TS and showing them the basics of the outfit. It sucks but it's my job I suppose.

-A lot more idiots in the outfit who don't apply on our website, always go solo or go in pubbie platoons etc. But all these people will be kicked in our outfit clean up which is every 2 weeks.

- Are we less skilled/tactical? Depends who's in the squad and who's leading it. I'm not going to go into more detail. But I think we're doing nice considering how many noobs we have currently.

-Was it worth it? Yes. Our community was "dying" before this recruitment boom. More and more members got burnt out and we never got new members to make up for our losses. The new recruits along side the morale boosts thanks to all our victories the past week (We won alot more then we loss) led to even old members rejoing our ranks and while we have many problems, it's worth it.