Can Platoons be Outdone? OR: Are Platoons "So 2003"?

[Grognard]

Originally Posted by kaffis

I'm not against platoons, guys. An awesome mission system can co-exist with platoons plenty peacefully.

What I don't want to see is operational advantages given to platoons that aren't available to the mission system.

My only beef with platoons is that lots of people want to castrate the MISSION system in order to make their ability to round up 30 guys, or 2 groups of 30 guys, or whatever create a barrier to entry for the "strategic game" so that smaller groups of players are at a disadvantage. And *that's* the mentality that bothers me.

Creating a hierarchical mission system allows for such commanders to be completely scaleable, and facilitates cooperation with strangers towards sensible objectives, so the brilliant strategist who's part of an outfit that fields, say, 20 guys can have his good ideas be just as valid and gain just as much support as the leader of the military-regimented 200-man outfit in command of 4 platoons from his outfit. If the smaller-outfit guy's strategy is as good or better, why not create a mission system that helps him lead without resorting to mass recruitment of strangers? Nobody loses; the empire benefits, and the big outfit carries on as before.

Finally, a mission system along the lines of what I propose is actually a tool for organizing MORE people than platoons allow, because it has no cap on the number of squads that can participate or support a given mission. My suggestion is about opening up the game to MORE massive organization that doesn't have to resort to centering around the outfit.

Well, now this sounds much more reasonable to me. Unfortunate that this wasn't the original post, because, to me, it came off as very bitter to larger outfits. So, with this clarification, I can finally agree to the jist, here. I dont think that a large organization should have any more advantages, per se, than a small one, save for those that are simply inherent from raw numbers. It is just a fact of conflicts, that numbers do, in fact, count, other things being equal, which is rare. To address your concerns though, I agree there should be a system that has the ability to reflect a sort of... "per capita" contribution, and I think the mission system will, from what I have seen so far.

However, if some hypothetical solution also was to incorporate the disfranchisement of organizational structures (platoons/companies) so necessary to larger groups, that we will certainly have... then I am fundamentally against it. It conversely projects onto larger groups, the very inequality that you percieve for smaller groups... where is the fairness in that? It just does not make sense to me, to make things more difficult for larger groups, so smaller groups have an undue advantage, in an FPS that stresses balance and scale. I do think that per capita parity is important, since that is just another way to say "fair", regardless of numbers...

At any rate, I can agree to the idea of the mission system not taking a back seat, and I dont think it will. I think it will be complimentary to small, as well as large groups, precisely as it should be.

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Grognard

At any rate, I can agree to the idea of the mission system not taking a back seat, and I dont think it will. I think it will be complimentary to small, as well as large groups, precisely as it should be.

Exactly. I see in the mission system the opportunity to be a really scaleable resource for organizing both friends and strangers in a much more elegant system than simply cramming more squads into a platoon.

[The Kush]

Rofl why would you eliminate platoons? The threads I have seen on here in the last few months have slowly started to get worse and worse.

[acosmo]

ideally all war machine organization should be at the discretion of the OL.

[SgtMAD]

if you don't like platoons then don't join one, quit trying to nerf everyone that wants to organize more than a damn squad,this is ridiculous.

we better nerf any third party voice programs too,I have heard a rumor that the organized outfits all use them and that makes them more powerful than a single squad.

and 30 coordinated ppl are always going to be more powerful than a single squad and there isn't anything you can do to stop that.

I like being able to glance at the map and see where all thirty guys are without having to ask anyone,its so effective that the US military is now doing it.

I want to see the ability to have three platoons on my screen,make it like the old PS HUD with the three squads showing but make each of the displayed squads the first squad in each platoon so if I click on any of the PL leaders I can then only see the three squads in that platoon. then you can manage 90 guys instead of 30

[StumpyTheOzzie]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

i can only see 4 of my squad on screen in the map of GW2, you know what this makes me?!?!! ANGRY!!!!!! warbands and platoons are pretty fucking vital in every mmo iv played. I think SOE practically invented raids didn't they? not having them in a game over 10 years later is pretty fucking stupid.

You always manage to perfectly summarise what I want to say.

[Grognard]

Originally Posted by kaffis

Exactly. I see in the mission system the opportunity to be a really scaleable resource for organizing both friends and strangers in a much more elegant system than simply cramming more squads into a platoon.

There is more than one way to skin a cat, squads for some, platoons for others, even companies... All the while, the mission system coexists, neutrally. What you call "cramming more squads into a platoon", I call "organization". Again, the mission system, and platoons/companies are in no way mutually exclusive.

To be perfectly clear... In my opinion, the mission system should support whatever organization is in effect, whether that be a single lonewolf, to a full company. The mission system should not supplant unit structures, rather give goals, rewards, and feedback to those structures.

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Grognard

To be perfectly clear... In my opinion, the mission system should support whatever organization is in effect, whether that be a single lonewolf, to a full company. The mission system should not supplant unit structures, rather give goals, rewards, and feedback to those structures.

I don't disagree. However, we need to not get so caught up in trying to make it easy for the entire empire to organize under one outfit and have the entire thing fit into a DIVISION!!!!! that we ignore tools to facilitate smaller units working together without feeling like they have to submit to each other to do so.

I mean, when was the last time your outfit invited a pick up squad to their platoon? Probably never, I'm guessing.

But I bet that pick up squad wants to contribute, and I bet they even have something to contribute. I want to make it easier for them to contribute in a useful manner, so that the outfit is glad to have them around, instead of deriding them in command chat and trying to figure out how to just funnel them via global.

[Grognard]

Originally Posted by kaffis

I don't disagree. However, we need to not get so caught up in trying to make it easy for the entire empire to organize under one outfit and have the entire thing fit into a DIVISION!!!!! that we ignore tools to facilitate smaller units working together without feeling like they have to submit to each other to do so.

That seems reasonable to me, too.

Originally Posted by kaffis

I mean, when was the last time your outfit invited a pick up squad to their platoon? Probably never, I'm guessing.

Its sorta funny that you should mention this scenario... very interesting... since, the outfit I am contemplating running (and I have fleshed it out already - took two over months to do... sitting, waiting for me to pull the trigger on membership), will have a dynamic specifically for "pick-up" squads, and individuals...

Without giving too much away, I operate on a different paradigm on in-game organization than I have seen in other outfits. This is part and parcel of why I am so adamant in my stance on this subject.

Originally Posted by kaffis

But I bet that pick up squad wants to contribute, and I bet they even have something to contribute. I want to make it easier for them to contribute in a useful manner, so that the outfit is glad to have them around, instead of deriding them in command chat and trying to figure out how to just funnel them via global.

My eggs are not in one basket, but even Rome put auxiliaries to good use. The trick is to incorporate them in such a manner so as to not lose cohesion with your outfit troops. There are ways to do that, but platoon/company structure is necessary.

Personally, I would welcome pick-ups. Then again, this outfit will not be auxiliary-phobic.

[Novacane]

I'd like to see Platoons be expanded. Why not implement companies, battalions and regiments.

Squad = 10 Players
Platoon = 3 Squads (30 players or 3 Squads)
Company = 3 Platoons (90 players or 9 Squads)
Battalion = 3 Companies (270 players or 27 Squads)
Regiment = 3 Battalions (810 players or 81 Squads)

Have the higher commanders be able to issue commands to the next lower member.
The higher commander can see everyone under them on the map, all the time.
Lower commanders can only speak in one level above them (voice or chat).
Ability to command a higher level is directly related to the command cert.

The higher the commander, the more of an RTS style map they would have.

This would satisfy the largest single outfit operations.
If you wanted to support a larger alliance style organization you could throw in:
Division = 3 Battalions (2430 players or 243 Squads)

I'd assume that this would work better than just having people that are trying to lead just yelling over chat calling everyone idiots cause their running around in circles like decapitated chickens.

[Xyntech]

I hope Smedly wasn't just misspeaking in that one interview and that platoons really can be comprised of up to 10 squads. If you want smaller platoons, cap yourself at 3 or whatever, but I like the idea of having up to 100 players in a single unit.

Remember that even if they do try to take measures to split up the 2000 players across the map, that's still 20 groups of 100 that can be fighting in different locations. The first game tended to have between 100 to 150 players per empire spread across an entire continent, while Planetside 2 will probably have more like 500 to 700 players per empire spread across a continent. That's at least 5 100 man platoons that you could have rolling. Maybe 2 platoons are working on one base facility fight, while one platoon is taking another hex, one platoon is controlling air space and doing resecures, and another 100 or so players are doing more of their own thing outside of a platoon in smaller squads.

The fact that we have 2000 players instead of four or five hundred players fighting on a continent is really going to make larger platoons have a lot more value than in the first game.

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

I hope Smedly wasn't just misspeaking in that one interview and that platoons really can be comprised of up to 10 squads. If you want smaller platoons, cap yourself at 3 or whatever, but I like the idea of having up to 100 players in a single unit.

The thing that worries me about this is that smaller groups of players are going to feel lost and ineffectual if the norm is for platoons of 100 players to be engaging cohesively under "one command."

Trying to use the mission system to coordinate this kind of thing includes that smaller group of players.

Unless you're in the habit of inviting randoms to your outfit platoons (Hi, Grognard, apparently..), this ends up being very exclusionary, especially to new players if you look to platoon-like squad groups as your main organizational tool.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by kaffis

The thing that worries me about this is that smaller groups of players are going to feel lost and ineffectual if the norm is for platoons of 100 players to be engaging cohesively under "one command."

Trying to use the mission system to coordinate this kind of thing includes that smaller group of players.

Unless you're in the habit of inviting randoms to your outfit platoons (Hi, Grognard, apparently..), this ends up being very exclusionary, especially to new players if you look to platoon-like squad groups as your main organizational tool.

I think the mission system will keep players from feeling left out. Zergers gonna zerg. As long as they are having fun, getting to shoot at something, and are being led by the hand to where they are needed most, I doubt they will be too focused on anything else.

No reason that platoons and the mission system can't coexist.

Platoons will just be helpful for more organized groups who want to keep closer tabs on each other.

[Graywolves]

I'm sorry but missions system, VOIP, and even the ability to see all outfit/squad members on the map still falls short of what you gain from platoons and higher units of organization.

Sure the more organized outfits will just organize themselves, group people up and send them on their way. But then the game becomes a lot of work. Once you've deployed everyone loses focus and it takes a great deal to keep people on the right track. You might have two platoons/two squads going for different objectives and then half of one group gets mixed up and follows 'the other blue dots' on their minimap.

Many outfits are filled with current/retired/former military personnel. They don't want to experience a Charlie-Foxtrot in the battlefied after years of organization. Saying the Mission System is enough organization is like saying Waypoints was all you needed in PS1 and that squads should have just been unlimited in size.


There is so much more to organization then deploying to the objectives. If I need a rez am I going to take up comms for 10 seconds just to describe where I am when I could have easily said "Gold 5" maybe another syllable for company level.

If platoons/higher organization isn't implemented then the players will just implement it themselves with whatever difficulty comes from that until it is added. And no this does not hurt smaller outfits or w.e. If you want to run a small group then don't recruit people who think you 'need' to have 40-50 people running at any given time. People who leave Outfits over not having a full platoon will leave you off of not having the numbers because that is what it comes down to in their reasoning.

[GhettoPrince]

Well, no, not really, three squads make a platoon, under the new idea, three platoons would also make a company.

All that would mean is a separate voice/chat channel for the squad leaders so they could organize a little more effectively. Even in the 500 person fights of planetside things would stagnate into two zergs trying to break each other, just because there was way too many people to organize.

There's going to be 2000 people on a continent now, and most continent fights are faction vs faction, that means you could easily have 1000 people on your side, in that situation, a company isn't a powerful force, it's less than 10% of your total forces. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if people start organizing companies into battalions. (although at that point you would have 27 people involved, and even on a seperate chat/voice channel it would get complicated)

Now I know that something like this will be abused by power mad tryhards who like to pretend video games are the real army , but if it's just a separate voice and chat channel , so that the squad leaders can all communicate with each other quickly than I can see this being really important.