Vehicle Claim When Creating Squad

[red zealot]

#1245033044897955841 message
^ Image I made of creation claim UI

• Any vehicle that requires a crewman or pilot kit can only be claimed when a squad is created for that vehicle type. This would remove the annoying race to claim vehicles at main and players fighting over name claim.
• Vehicle claim squads can still support 9 members and there is no restrictions for kits.
• A team will get a specific amount of vehicle claim squads depending on how many vehicles and types there are.
  EXAMPLE: 3 MBTs = 3 MBT squads can be created. 2 IFVs = 2 IFV squads can be created. 1 HELI = 1 HELI squad can be created ect. Only these squads will be able to claim those vehicles from main base.
• Each squad is allowed 1 vehicle in the selected vehicle type.
• If the squad with the created claim doesn't grab their vehicle in 1 minute from main. They will lose the squad claim and be demoted to a regular squad.
• Regular squads can upgrade to a vehicle claim squad if one is available. Vehicle claim squads can also demote themselves.
• Squad leaders can still use any leader kit they want and have other squad members use the crewman/pilot kits. There is no restriction on kits.
• Any other vehicle such as Logis, Transports, Armored Cars, APCs, ect. that dont require crewman or pilot kits are available for any squad and cannot be claimed during squad creation.

-# Removed Suggestions:
-# - Vehicles claimed with the created squad can still be used by other squad leaders if needed but needs approval from the leader that has the created claim.
-# - Squad leaders that have the created claim have priority to force any squad out of that vehicle type to get their vehicle back.

[dawn prawn]

Isnt this already a server thing?

[red zealot]

No currently its just a made up rule that can only be followed if admins are online. I'm talking about making this an actual feature when creating a squad.

[next sable]

Besides the unnecessary restriction of kits for those squads this is a good idea. However, it should be an optional server setting.

[red zealot]

wat do you mean? this idea wouldn't restrict any kits.

[next sable]

"Squad leaders can still use any leader kit they want and have other squad members use the crewman/pilot kits." This sounds like squad members would be restricted to pilot/crewman.

[red zealot]

oh no thats not what i meant. It just means the leader isn't forced to be a crewman. maybe i should word it differently

[next sable]

Yeah but it sounds like other squad members would be

[red zealot]

not wat i meant by it tho. just means any member of the squad can be a driver or pilot. doesn't have to be the leader. this idea wouldn't have any restrictions on kits. just gives them claim on a vehicle.

Edited original post to clarify this.

[next sable]

Okay nevermind then

[toxic hound]

dont think this is really that important

people could make squads for a certain thing and not get in it and troll

let servers decide how they want to run things

[next sable]

This is what admins are for. If admins can manage vehicle claiming rules, they can also manage rare occasions when trolls create vehicle squads to intentionally block armor.

[red zealot]

I thinks its important. Its a fair functionality for claiming vehicles and makes things smoother instead of racing to grab a vehicle.

[toxic hound]

That’s part of the fun

Fighting to get claim

[red zealot]

there is nothing fun about that.

[toxic hound]

It is when you load in first

[red zealot]

and then someone spawns in after you but gets a closer spawn 😎 👎

[red zealot]

Even in the past week I've seen multiple moments where server rule name claims prove to be silly. Seeing 3 people make a heli squad when only 1 heli spawns but they all fight over it anyway. If you're lucky an admin will be on to referee the situation. Even for first come first serve whoever spawns closer to the vehicle gets it. Vehicle claiming is just a inconsistent random mess. Lol

Also new addition to the idea:

• If the squad with the created claim doesn't grab their vehicle in 3 minutes from main. They will lose the squad claim.

[quick zealot]

I think that this only serves to overcomplicate things. It's not so massive an issue that it requires anything more than a server rule to really address it.

Additionally solving and moving past conficts is a significant part of the teamwork that determines whether a team wins or loses. IMO such a system would only serve to partly automate an aspect of gameplay that would otherwise be a stumbling block/test only for bad teams.

[next sable]

There are multiple servers with really stupid rules, like "The claim only applies if the squad is at main with all members when the vehicle spawns", or "The squad which waits the longest time in the main and has name claim will get the vehicle". A standard system from OWI would encourage sticking to this system instead of having 50 different name claim systems.

[red zealot]

Isn't all the different rules across servers over complicating things? Lol If anything my idea simplifies vehicle claiming.
It would pretty much be an official name claim system that actually works without needing an admin to enforce it.

The game already uses this for kit restrictions.
Imagine if you couldn't claim your kits at the spawn screen and everyone had to spawn in and run to an ammo box to claim a HAT kit?

You make a squad you claim a kit
You make a squad you claim a vehicle

Just remember this would only be for vehicles that require crewman/pilot kits.
Any other vehicles would be free for everyone for more flexibility the way it currently is in game.

[timber oyster]

Would the system be vehicle agnostic within types? Let's say there are 3 IFVs, do I create an IFV squad and get IFV #1 where I have a specific IFV I can grab, and then when it dies I have to wait for it to respawn to get another IFV? Or could I just grab any IFV wherever or whenever I want to?

[red zealot]

Maybe but its not something I personally thought about. Probably not necessary i guess? Should it? Idk.

I think im on the side of you can claim 1 whenever 1 is available. Doesn't have to be your specific 1 you died with.

[timber oyster]

Some faction/layer combos mix different models of vehicle within the same type. Like IMF getting both BMP-1 and BMP-2; TLF having MG, HMG, and autocannon equipped APCs; MEA having T-72s and T-62s; etc.

There is also the case of crews that lose their vic before another crew and that other crew taking their vehicle when it respawns.

[red zealot]

Hmmm i see what you mean.
I guess Similar to how you choose different kits in the medic category. Scope or no scope.
You would select your specific vehicle in that vehicle type. And yeah that would be yours only.
If you claimed the T-72. The T-62 squad cant take it. Is that fair? Hmm

[timber oyster]

I'm not sure which way would be better, I was just asking your thoughts.

[red zealot]

I think it makes sense when there are different MBTs and weaponry. You claim a specific one. But if its 3 IFVs that are identical then it doesn't matter much.

[red zealot]

addition:

• Regular squads can upgrade to a vehicle claim squad if one is available. Vehicle claim squads can also demote themselves if they dont want it anymore.

[balmy knoll]

Wow, that would be great!

[celest wren]

Its works in Post scriptum (Squad 44) I dont see why they havent just added the system to Squad

[red zealot]

im not a huge fan of how Squad 44 does it because it has some restrictions. In Squad I'd prefer squads still have the freedom to be a regular squad just with a vehicle claim attached. No member limit or restriction on kits.

[stone basin]

Very good idea man

[shadow acorn]

I like this suggestion. Would avoid those social problems at main lol

[sly root]

creating a squad and automatically claiming it without having rely on people to follow the rules would be amazing

[tough field]

ok so only the ones who load fast enough will be able to claim a vehicle....great.... The way it is now is good enough, it literally doesn´t need to be changed.

[halcyon carbon]

This is a very bad idea.

• People with more powerful computers will always get claim.
• How will you transfer claim of a vehicle from one squad to another?
• Will those players be stuck with the same vehicle all game? What will happen if they die/disconnect?

[timber oyster]

It is tied to the squad, if they want to leave or die it can be handled just like when someone joins a different squad.

[next sable]

This can easily be solved by adding a cooldown to create vic squads, so that people with slower loading time have equal chances.

[red zealot]

Its a very good idea

• Vehicles claim/spawns could have a delay on them
• This is explained in my post. Other squad leaders can ask for permission to use a vehicle but the squad leader with the created claim can kick other squads out of the vehicle when getting back into it.
• This is also explained in my post. Vehicle claim squads can demote themselves to a regular squad or promote themselves to a different vehicle claim squad.

[halcyon carbon]

To much gymnastics. Current system is great.

This whole thread seems to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist imo.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.

[red zealot]

Simply claiming a vehicle when creating a squad is too complicated? 😅

[red zealot]

If there is no problem then why do admins have to enforce name claim rules? lol

[balmy knoll]

Too*
Current system promotes issues not mentioned here. Like having many people sitting in main waiting for a vehicle to spawn just to fight for it. Kits don't have that issue and vehicles could be the same.

[red zealot]

This idea is a beneficial quality of life feature, not sure what is confusing about it. There would be no fuss to vehicle claiming if this was implemented into the game. There wouldn't be multiple SLs waiting for a vehicle to spawn and racing for it all at the same time, no one can grief or steal a vehicle from you, no one arguing about what the rules are, admins dont have to get involved at all.

Just simply create a vehicle claim squad for a vehicle if its available and its finished. There is no gymnastics needed to grasp this simple idea.

[next sable]

There are many issues with the current "system", because there is no native system in the game. It has to be handled by admins, while it can easily be automated.

[north light]

because they want a method to control who gets to use vehicles. eg clan members.

servers don't just turn into anarchy without name claim.

[halcyon carbon]

The only reason claim rules exist are -

• to make sure vehicles are being utilised effectively. You don't want a 9man squad crewing a BMP because it's a waste of 7 people.
• To stop people from fighting over vehicles.
• To make sure that one squad is unable to just take every vehicle available

Some servers consider administering claim rules annoying and use a combination of First come first serve and No mech-inf rule

[halcyon carbon]

It's doesn't NEED to be handled by admins.
Admins CHOOSE to put those rules on the server. Plenty of servers without name claim rules that run fine.

Current Vehicle claim mechanics work very well with the game. Just because some servers choose to have claim rules doesn't mean that the system is broken.

• It's like saying increase main base radius because servers have main camping rules. (This is bad because now people will still cry about main camping, just slightly furthur away)
• servers have no team killing rules. Should we also remove friendly fire from the game?

You see what I'm saying? Just because servers have rules for something doesn't mean the mechanic is an issue.

Mose rules exist because -

• Server wants to protect new players from getting shit on by experienced players (eg - main camping rules)
• Making people play together and share assets instead of one group hoarding everything (eg - vehicle claim rules)
• To make sure people are not being assholes (eg- OWI COC or toxicity/ism rules)

[red zealot]

This squad creation vehicle claim is a simple idea with obvious benefits.

It would remove the obnoxious race to spawn in and grab a vehicle
It would remove the situation where multiple SLs are waiting for a vehicle for 10 minutes and whoever's foot was closer gets it.
Those 2 points alone make it worthwhile.

Just recently I was with a buddy at main waiting for an IFV to spawn for 5 minutes. When out of no where someone else showed up just before it spawned and happen to be closer and took it from us. Wasting that valuable time just for someone to jump in is silly and inconsistent.

This idea just makes the process smoother and straight forward for crewman and pilot kit vehicles. I have no clue how complaining about main camping rules has to do with anything. I dont care what rules servers have for team killing or main camping or whatever. I just want the process of claiming a crewman/pilot vehicle not to be a battle royale race at main.

[balmy knoll]

True, admins don't need to do this. The game could just handle it instead by making a claim system like OP said. Servers that "run fine" is a low bar. Nothing better than spawning into main to get a vehicle and then having to suicide because others got it first.
Do you admit there are problems with not having a claim system?

[north light]

Largely imagined problems. You’re talking to admins and regulars of servers that do not use name claim systems.

It doesn’t turn into anarchy or chaos. Rarely do you actually run into issues with counter claims

[red zealot]

These aren't imagined problems.
I'm not even a name claim server type of player. All my favorite servers are first come first serve and even I feel bad when i take a heli from a guy who was waiting there longer than me

[red zealot]

Even if these are rare issues. Implementing this would make those rare issues non existent.
Does anyone have any real opposing point to say about this or?

[north light]

If you think this makes issues nonexistent I’m afraid we’re not operating on the same plane.

No solution is as simple as you wish it would be. What happens when I maliciously claim whatever vehicles I can?

[red zealot]

I'm fairly confident my post covers pretty much everything. let me know if you see any downside.

[north light]

Claim tank at start of round, don’t use it, ????, profit.

It’s a solution to a problem that barely needs solving.

3 minute timer or not it is still open to disruptive behavior.

[red zealot]

Someone could grief and not use a tank at the main base as it is currently.

[north light]

Sure. My point is that it’s not some perfect solution that meaningfully improves any aspect. It is just another way for it to all go tits up

[red zealot]

Its actually a really good solution. Do you have any reason why it wouldnt be or?

[north light]

It meaningfully improves nothing, still requires moderation, and replaces a system which works about as well with near zero moderation that has worked since this game’s inception and every similar game since ever.

[red zealot]

It meaningfully improves a lot
It removes the obnoxious race to claim a vehicle which is annoying
And removes multiple SLs waiting to claim a vehicle

you have to have a point you cant just say random stuff. Im genuinely curious if you can come up with something here.

All i see is pros. No one has brought up a con yet other than 'it works alright as it is' even tho it doesn't.

[north light]

“Obnoxious race to claim a vehicle which is annoying” honeybunches, that’s exactly what claim systems do. This isn’t a merit system. Whoever creates the squad on a nameclaim server has won the race. Hence why people resort to console commands to create squads and cheese the system.

Nothing will remove multiple people wanting to use the same vehicle. People want to play what they want to play. Your system does not remove their incentive and motivation for fun.

[red zealot]

thats a lot of words to say nothing

[north light]

Genuinely, nothing is better about a system like this other than it’s now buttons.

You can sip that koolaid all you want

[red zealot]

Let me kno when you have a point. Im passionate about this idea and am open for any discussions but you gotta actually have some sort of con or something

[north light]

I think spending development time implementing a feature that does nothing is not a pro.

[red zealot]

"Nothing will remove multiple people wanting to use a vehicle"
My idea has nothing to do with removing peoples desires for vehicles
"Your system does not remove their incentive and motivation for fun"
I didn't say it did?

[north light]

Yes, you did

[red zealot]

It does do something. It makes vehicle claiming smoother and straight forward. Like claiming a HAT kit on the loadout screen. An SL claims a vehicle when creating his squad.
Huge quality of life pro.

[north light]

Like, verbatim. "And removes multiple SLs waiting to claim a vehicle"

You cannot remove desires from players.

[red zealot]

It is not my intention to do so. Im not sure what you are saying can you explain?

[north light]

Then perhaps be more decisive with your wording.

You stated your system removes the desire of multiple players wanting to claim the same vehicle. That's obviously impossible.

[red zealot]

That is not what my post says

now you are just making stuff up

[north light]

Just because they can't click the button anymore has not removed that desire or made them feel any better about being beaten to the punch.

You literally said those words.

I quoted you.

You can take back that or clarify what you mean, but I am merely operating on what you have expressed.

[red zealot]

you did quote me yes and then made up something irrelevant

[north light]

lmao

I responded directly to the content of the quote.

[red zealot]

My idea removes the posibility for multiple SLs sitting at main waiting for a vehicle

which is a pro

Having multiple SLs waiting for a vehicle only 1 of them can use is a waste of time and players.

[balmy knoll]

Maybe you have reading comprehension problems but the post lists what it improves.

[red zealot]

You are operating with your misinterpretation of what i said.

[north light]

I'm operating on what you have said. Be clearer.

[north light]

Ackshually I have 60th grade reading level bud have you even finished the hungriest caterpillar I think not

dork

[red zealot]

He has resorted to name calling. we got em

But jokes aside

[north light]

Ah yes, I started it

because "maybe you have reading comprehension problems" is a good faith comment

[balmy knoll]

facts though

[north light]

Let's be real here fellas

I'm under no misguided impressions that you are capable of changing your opinion here

[red zealot]

Well tbh bro i dont mean to be rude but i think you are having a hard time comprehending what i explained in my post

[north light]

No, I understand and comprehend it. The magic here is that we don't agree

Radical concept I know

You can maintain your opinion as can I

If you wanted an echochamber I'm so sorry to have burst that bubble

[balmy knoll]

Whats the benefit of not having claim built in? I remember kits in PR and this system is better.

[north light]

Kits in PR were FCFS lmao

Kits in Squad are FCFS

[balmy knoll]

Vehicles in this recommendation are FCFS

[red zealot]

Yeah but do you have to race for them and run to an ammo box?

No you can claim them on the loadout screen.

[north light]

Vehicle assets are the only system where we have invented a new solution to the same problem

[north light]

Loadouts are tied to the player character, vehicles are not.

[balmy knoll]

Did you even read the OP?

[red zealot]

Can you imagine all the players running to an ammo box to claim their kits and how silly that would be? thats exactly how vehicles are right now.

[north light]

I don't have to imagine it, it existed in PR and still exists after spawning

Have you ever traded around HAT kits in game?

[red zealot]

So anyway if you have any discussion on what is wrong with my idea please feel free to share it so we can discuss.

and if you are confused, ask me and i will explain if something in my post isnt clear.

[north light]

Ah, the in one ear out the other strategy

Please enjoy your feedback thread

[red zealot]

I will :]

60 upvotes 7 down

[north light]

Oh damn I didn't know that people upvoted bad ideas in this forum

[red zealot]

7 people want to play rock paper scissors at main with all the SLs waiting for 1 vehicle
not sure why

[red zealot]

Oh whats bad about my idea? did you come up with something?

[north light]

Will of the (very small selection of the) people is always right

Look, you don't have to change your mind. It's an open feedback forum. People may express other opinions than you.

[red zealot]

It is an open feedback forum. Please share what you came up with.

[north light]

Your inability to grapple that disagreement is a personal issue

[red zealot]

no i can grapple with disagreement. Just curious what you disagree on.

[north light]

You can read my statements again to learn

It's clear though that explaining them further will do nothing

So it can just be that

[red zealot]

Oh, you didn't have any point tho so I gues you dont have anything.
yeah i guess we done then, let me kno if you come up with anything

[north light]

big brain

feedback I don't like doesn't exist 😠

[red zealot]

its an open forum for whenver you feel like explaining

dont be shy

thanks for bumping my post

[north light]

yeah, bumping does nothing

I don't mind at all

[red zealot]

It does actually. whenever you comment in here it puts my post at the top.

[north light]

Yes. Which does nothing meaningful.

[red zealot]

It does actually, more people see it when they open the feed back section

[north light]

OWI doesn't implement features based on reply counts or updoots.

[red zealot]

Oh? do you work there? how do you kno this?

[north light]

Just as nothing meaningful improves as a result of your suggestion so to does whether it has had a recent reply improve it's chances of implementation

but if all you like is things changing for the sake of change well you have two things to ruminate on now

[red zealot]

I dont like things changing for the sake of change. I like changing for the better :]

For anyone new who hops in this thread
This squad creation vehicle claim idea takes the best of FCFS and NAME CLAIM into one feature.
Whoever creates a squad for a vehicle type first gets the vehicle (FCFS) but also doesn't have to worry about racing anyone else for it (NAME CLAIM)
Let me know what you think and share any ideas or issues.

[next sable]

It is a meaningful improvement for any community that uses claiming rules, so like 50% of the player base.

[north light]

In that you click a button instead of type "BTR" or "TANK"?

It's miniscule. The rules around it are more complex, just as exploitable, and require just as much server moderation.

For a ruleset that is flawed to begin with.

I don't think it's beneficial to spend development time on this when there is so much more that can be done.

[next sable]

Maybe you should read the proposal befor commenting, because this is just one aspect of it.

[north light]

I have read it. It's not rocket science.

It's a lot of fluff for nothing.

[next sable]

It removes the requirement for an admin to manually enforce this rules.

[north light]

Describing implementation details like the squad can unselect a claim doesn't change anything at all

[next sable]

Which is like the main point

[north light]

No, no it does not

It doesn't do that in the slightest

[next sable]

If only one squad can claim one specific vehicle, it does.

[north light]

jfc... No, no it does not.

I don't understand how everyone in this thread can be so simple minded and think that's the start and end of how this functionality works and is moderated.

Look, just agree to disagree.

I don't know why you all have to circlejerk because you don't understand what I'm saying but I'm tired of explaining it to bad faith responses

It doesn't solve the loading advantage, it doesn't solve griefing

It solves one very specific case, a second squad also naming themselves the same thing

Whoopdeedoo. FCFS solves this by checks notes only having one squad being able to claim the vehicle in the first place.

A system to prevent this already exists, and has all the advantage here, but the main complaint against it is "it's obnoxious to run and claim the vehicle"

If you don't understand this perspective I don't know what to tell you.

[next sable]

It solves vic stealing without relying on admins manually kicking people.

Which is like the main advantage

[north light]

OK, I claim the vehicle in a locked squad.

Just me. I obviously can't one man the tank out of main.

Solved right? We're all happy with me hogging it?

It doesn't change moderation. It solves one specific case at best, which is already solved by the existence of the actual claim system in game. It's a ruleset that just adds additional obfuscation and abuse.

[next sable]

There is no system to prevent this in game

[north light]

FCFS is a perfectly satisfactory ruleset that works just fine. Nameclaim is a scourge.

Oh, I didn't know that two squads could get in the same vehicle right now

[next sable]

This is your opinion, not a fact.

[north light]

Because that's what happens right now, right?

Holy... it's like we're sharing opinions in this feedback forum

No shit sherlock its an opinion

[north light]

.

Let's all move on from this discussion thanks

Please enjoy the feature suggestion, I am so sorry to offend all of your sensibilities to suggest that another stance exists out there

[next sable]

What is your point then? If you prefer FCFS, this whole proposal is irrelevant for you. No one suggested focing it for every server.

[north light]

I didn't suggest that it did, please if you're going to continue this discussion at least comprehend things I've already said directly to you

[ashen aspen]

This FUCKS. Love this idea tbh

[north light]

@next sable Look, let me spell it out. Do you agree that something like this requires a developer to spend time implementing it?

[next sable]

Yes, and it would make life easier for 50% of the player base, if such a system is implemented properly.

[north light]

Do you agree that servers can choose an alternate ruleset like FCFS that would not benefit from these changes?

[next sable]

So it would be absolutely worth the effort, especially since most of the required systems already exist.

[north light]

You have already presupposed the answers. Just answer the question.

Put the diatribe away for a second.

[next sable]

Of course.

[north light]

OK.

So we understand some common ground here.

[red zealot]

I'd just ignore nvvy. hes been trolling and trying to derail this post since yesterday

[north light]

My stance is that this does nothing but spend developer time for something that helps, at best, "50% of the player base", in what I would say is a pretty minimal way personally.

So 50% of the player base is receiving no benefit at all here.

[cosmic narwhal]

so we shouldn't have spent dev time adding cross team voip just for admin cam?

[north light]

I think there are a LOT of better tools that are higher priority than something like this that will have both a much larger impact, and be applicable to all servers.

[red zealot]

Thank you yes! just as easy as choosing a kit from the loadout screen.

[north light]

That is a much lower impact change than this would be.

[next sable]

If something affects 50% of the player base and the people who run servers, it has much more value than a new weapon or a new vehicles that is used by a few people at best.

[cosmic narwhal]

Having served as a admin for a vic claim server, something like this suggestion would be just as useful as cross team voip

[north light]

Oh yeah totally no, only 1% of the playerbase has used the M1117 of the WPMC

You're right we shouldn't have wasted time on adding that.

Very good argument thank you

[next sable]

How many % of the player base is actively using helicopters?

[north light]

Look, we disagree. Neither of us are changing our minds.

[next sable]

20% maybe?

[ashen aspen]

And it's something a lot of servers do already anyway through claim names. Perfect fit to be codified imho

[red zealot]

Uh yes it does? This is very important to the idea. If you create a squad with a claim you should be able to remove the claim otherwise you'd have to delete the whole squad.

[ashen aspen]

have a toggle to make it optional

and bam, you're gtg

[north light]

Deleting a squad is only required in a world where a server adds the ruleset on top of the functionality that already exists in game.

This is a self imposed problem.

I understand yall like nameclaim. Keep liking nameclaim.

[ashen aspen]

the amount of "claim fights" I have seen devolve into hissy fit team killing... it's at least a once a week occurance

[north light]

I could have stopped talking 46 hours ago with "yeah i don't think this is worthwhile" but you keep egging it on as if it's going to change

[red zealot]

I dont like name claim at all actually. At least the way its used in most servers currently. I like FCFS servers more.

[north light]

On a nameclaim server? Absolutely.

[ashen aspen]

On FCFS, too

[north light]

People fight over nameclaim all the time because it encourages antagonistic behaviors

You're talking to an admin of an FCFS server.

It doesn't happen anything like you portray.

[upper dock]

its daily thing where people argue about having name claim

[ashen aspen]

on your server

[north light]

You can't kill the driver of the abrams.

It's not an issue.

[ashen aspen]

but that's not all servers. I'm speaking to my own experience as someone who hops servers

[north light]

The literal worst we deal with, which is extremely rare is people driving over another person at main

because you can't TK in main anyway

[red zealot]

Just curious which FCFS. I'm always looking for more to add to my favorites.

[north light]

It's an extreme FUD argument

[north light]

You already been there bb, it's TT.

[red zealot]

Aww :[

was hoping to have a new one

[north light]

"bro they TK like crazy" meanwhile, main protection:

[next sable]

Allowing people to join a server and steal a vic from other players that spend 20 minutes waiting for it without consequences on the other hand does not promote toxic and antagonistic behaviour, right?

[north light]

like it doesn't exist

[ashen aspen]

Man, I used to play on TacTrig all the time

had some clan stacking issues, so I switched

[red zealot]

This is also one of the big things i wanted to fix with my idea.

[ashen aspen]

but good staff for sure

[next sable]

Just like skipping the line at the supermarket does not cause issues with other people.

[north light]

It doesn't happen nearly with the frequency that is assumed.

[next sable]

It does. On many servers without name claim I play it is actively done by the admin clans almost every game.

[red zealot]

It happens enough to where a quality of life feature wouldn't be the end of the world. I'm not sure why this is such a big deal to you lol

[north light]

This is a really incorrect perception. TT staff is constantly evaluating balance and active in admin chat swapping clans and tags. Not all TT members are tagged--I for example do not wear tags. We also coordinate with many non-TT tagged clans.

[north light]

Yes! ON NAME CLAIM!

[next sable]

No, on FCFS.

[north light]

"On many servers with name claim I play it is actively done"

[next sable]

Because nameclaim does not have this issue

[north light]

Ok.

[ashen aspen]

this was at the time I played. Not incorrect, because I saw it when I played

[north light]

TT has been this way since inception. It's all a bunch of ex-Tactical Gamer members who suffered the same claims when TG was active despite the same exact thing

Laymen don't understand what work is being done to balance the server.

[ashen aspen]

clan stacking, to me, means non-server clans stacking as well, if that provides clarity

[ashen aspen]

that's a bit insulting, yeah?

[upper dock]

that’s what this post was about so people can have claim without having to deal with name claim or fcfs problems

[north light]

How is that insulting?

You don't have access to admin chat, how would anyone expect you to know what is being discussed?

[red zealot]

Ok lets not start talking about clan stacking. i was simply curious if there was a new FCFS i could play on lol 🤣

stay on topic lol

[ashen aspen]

Yeah, sorry to open a different topic

[north light]

Look, I'm happy to shut the fuck up and leave. All you have to do is not ping me asking for more or arguing further.

We have differing opinions! And thats okay.

I'm not telling you you're a bad person for wanting this.

[ashen aspen]

Exactly!

[north light]

Please do not take my experience with FCFS not being as chaotic as some of you have apparently experienced as some slight against you or the way you like to play.

Happy to chat if there are more curiosities around my stance but obviously no progress is going to be made in any direction here.

[next sable]

So why are you arguing against a system that does not affect your experience in any way then?

[red zealot]

Btw nvvy. Did all this come across like I was being anti FCFS? Cuz I genuinely ONLY play on FCFS. I dislike name claim rule servers.
I just wanted vehicle claiming to be more stream lined in the menus to avoid fighting over vehicles and racing for them across main ect.

[next sable]

What you describe is basically a name claim system lol.

[north light]

Because the list of features desperately needed by server admins is far longer than it should be already.

[red zealot]

I kno. my idea does sorta end up like a new name claim system but much better in my opinion.

[next sable]

Most admins of name claim servers would disagree.

[north light]

I would prefer to continue to prioritize those, as I think the effort here involved is actually sneakily large compared to a lot of those features that have been put to the wayside.

I think that, having spoken to many of said admins, that you're just incorrect on the perception there, but pop off.

Neither of us can prove what the desires of others are. So who cares.

[north light]

Eh. I never came in with any intention of disparaging you for whatever opinion you had regarding whether FCFS/Nameclaim is better. It's not a personal attack, never has been.

This kind of feature is not uncommonly requested by proponents of nameclaim, which is why you have Der and others arguing in favor of it, primarily.

[next sable]

I can tell what myself and other admins have expressed what they would like to see in game

[north light]

Look, I don't care. I can do the same thing to you, and I know you won't care. Just be happy liking the feature suggested.

You can like the feature, I'm not trying to change your mind

It is my own opinion being expressed, you're not going to debate it out of me

[next sable]

What purpose serve your statements then? Arguments are supposed to convince others.

[ashen aspen]

yeah, I don't know why ya'll can't just disagree

[north light]

Brother, if you think people debate because they are trying to change their opponents minds I think you misunderstand debates

Debates are spectacle for an audience. They rarely make meaningful change between the two actually arguing, because they both have convincing evidence to themselves towards their ends.

[red zealot]

I mean nvvy hasn't even debated anything really. He has some sort of opinion but doesn't explain it.

[north light]

I have explained it.

A number of times. Would you like me to do so once more?

[red zealot]

Youve spammed so many dramatic replies it kinda gets lost

[ashen aspen]

I think this is getting a little too much over a suggestion by a player

[north light]

Dramatic? Oh brother.

[red zealot]

yeah i honestly dont kno what i did to trigger this guy

[red zealot]

bro read what you're saying in here LOL

[north light]

Read your own? I expressed an opposing opinion and you repeatedly replied that I was making shit up, touted your upvotes, and kept telling me I had no point.

[red zealot]

You were making stuff up

[north light]

Ok.

I don't know what got crawled up your ass and died over all of this.

[red zealot]

you aren't dramatic tho are you? LOL

[north light]

Am I? I wouldn't say that anything I've said has been pretty dramatic, but you're looking to get some own over drama and LOLs.

This whole time has been trying to moderate that we don't have to beat the horse to death.

Advocating for us to agree to disagree.

What's dramatic about that?

[red zealot]

How many more paragraphs you got in ya

[ashen aspen]

this is so gay

[north light]

I type for a living, a lot.

It really seems to me that you just want to troll. You're ecstatic to point out the upvotes and thread bumping.

[red zealot]

I mean like I said i appreciate the bumps but i wish it was more normal discussions instead of making things personal and dramatic

[north light]

Since when have I made the discussion personal?

Can you find an instance of a personal attack from me?

[north light]

besides this one, its funny

and a direct reply to someone being obviously antagonistic

I think you obviously put effort into the suggestion, and I genuinely think that that's good that you are willing to experiment with thought and try to come up with novel solutions.

[ashen aspen]

I think if anything, this behavior is an indictment of TT if you're an admin and this is how you act outside of that role

just saying, this is cringe

[cosmic narwhal]

What has he really done, yeah he unconvincing argued his opinion but not much in the way of improper behavior

[north light]

I advocate for the server he thinks teamstacks.

I was a bad guy from the start!

[cosmic narwhal]

Ah, the true worst crime on the internet, like something I dislike!

[north light]

I think it just goes to show that people are a bit emotionally attached to the idea and that disagreement is not tolerated.

[ashen aspen]

I said they teamstacked when I was on the server, not all the time nor still do. Don't misconstrue my words, man

[red zealot]

so dramatic! like poetry!

[north light]

Look back at what I've said and you won't find me reacting out of pocket to the people who are saying I have reading comprehension issues and otherwise.

I made a goofy joke about the hungry caterpillar book.

[ashen aspen]

maybe they were just trying to get you mental health help

[north light]

lol, there it goes

It proves itself

[ashen aspen]

I mean that was a joke, very clearly

[red zealot]

... guys... come on

[north light]

Ah yes, I was only pretending to imply you have mental illnesses.

The based defense.

[ashen aspen]

I wasn't really implying lol

[north light]

idk dude just read back the thread and see it's all the same.

I genuinely hope you all enjoy the suggestion thread but to pretend I'm the dramatic one in this is pretty weird.

[red zealot]

Its not pretend

[north light]

lol

[red zealot]

Hes well aware how hes acting. he just wants to continue and get attention i dont get it.

[north light]

It started off with calling my reading comprehension into question because I disagreed on a fundamental level.

Read your own messages back.

[ashen aspen]

Yeah i think mine are pretty funny lol

[red zealot]

All I want out of this thread is to discuss the idea above in my original post.

[north light]

Pats on the back perhaps.

[ashen aspen]

ratio'd

but nah, this 100% made my opinion of TT worse and I haven't played there in months

so good job i guess

[north light]

Nothing of value was lost then

[ashen aspen]

trust, I know

[red zealot]

not dramatic or personal are you?

calling people nothing of value in a thread
just move on nvvy...

[ashen aspen]

very much a discord admin kind of personality on nvvy

[north light]

He literally doesn't play there already.

Nothing changes.

[ashen aspen]

And thank God

If I did play there, I'd be sharing these to others because this was cringe

and very funny

[north light]

"I already dislike X, but now I'm going to dislike X even harder"

It doesn't make any difference.

[ashen aspen]

I mean I didn't dislike them

I literally said "good staff"

now I very much don't have that opinion lol

If you're the standard, TT has bad staff

[north light]

Regardless, you don't patron there, so what would it matter. The needle hasn't moved.

Your insult has no value

[ashen aspen]

as does your server in mine, however much time or emotional investment you have in it

literally pointless

[red zealot]

:]

Anyone have any ideas or suggestions to the post or.

[upper dock]

damn bro just wanted to talk about a feature he wanted added and both you mfs just started yapping

[north light]

its always yap

[upper dock]

yeah about something that’s not the subject at hand

🤣🤣

[north light]

go check who brought it up lol

[ashen aspen]

I like it. Like I said before, I love the screenshot mockup

[cosmic narwhal]

this happens to most suggestions that go beyond like 10 comments/posts/whatever you call them

[north light]

.

[upper dock]

idc bruh it takes two to make a conversation

[north light]

.

[upper dock]

basically

[north light]

.

[ashen aspen]

Dude, why are you still bringing things up if you're complaining about who started it?

[north light]

I am very dramatic and responsible for the direction of this conversation 🙂

[ashen aspen]

I want to talk about the OP

like post, not poster

[north light]

OK. Do it.

[ashen aspen]

I did!

I'm tired of fighting with you over this dumb shit lol

[north light]

I'm not fighting, I've said multiple times that I'm not trying to continue arguing.

Please, continue the thread. Just stop pinging and insulting me.

[ashen aspen]

Fair enough 🚪

[red zealot]

:]

Anyone have any ideas or suggestions to the post or.

[ashen aspen]

.

[red zealot]

i shouldve used a period instead

[red zealot]

.

[ashen aspen]

I'd like to see a way to see it on the squad screen somehow, so the players are still able to name it differently individually. Like, "Experienced CAS" or something along those lines

like an icon next to the squad number

[red zealot]

you know how the commander squad gets a special icon and a star? You could have an MBT or HELI icon for these vehicle claim squads. Alongside the squad name of course

[ashen aspen]

Oh that's cool! so make it like a tank icon, then the squad number inside of it

I love that

replace the squad circle and make them individualized

INF would be a sergeant chevron, commander would be a star, and icons for vehicles after

[halcyon carbon]

So be a nice guy and share 😂
Thats literally what we do.

[halcyon carbon]

No, first come first serve is perfect.
If you don't get claim you don't need to just respawn. You can go with a squad and run logistics for them waiting for other things to spawn. A 2 man squad with a good rally can patrol an angle at defence cap. Just because you have an issue with something doesn't make it an issue with the game mechanic.

I don't think we are gonna agree here. Whatever.
I have a fast SSD so it doesn't matter to me. I spawn and create squads first anyway 😂

[stone basin]

Yeah sure

We don't need that. It's ok when 11 people waiting on mainbase for 1 cas helicopter))

Imagine amount of people on mainbase when some bigger cas will realease

There is no problem guys. Just 1 infantry squad is afk

[halcyon carbon]

They're all stupid

Play on better servers lol

[north light]

And what happened after the CAS was claimed, exactly?

This isn’t an everyday occurrence, more like when the update just released. And it resolves itself immediately after the heli spawns.

It’s also important to recognize that, in any claim system, the vehicle being claimed in no way guarantees that those others who wanted to use it are going to do something productive instead. Oftentimes people will simply leave the server if they do not obtain the claim they want and seek another server to get what they want.

You know what also could improve this situation? OWI not giving 3 helipads for 4 helicopters on this one specific unit.

Literally could be fixed by removing the useless Loach scout from this unit. This solution would take a fraction of the time it would take to implement this claim suggestion.

[red zealot]

GG thank you for showing this haha.

if the game had my squad creation claim idea this wouldn't happen. Whoever got the CAS HELI claim squad would be the only one at the heli pad and the other SLs would move on to their own roles that are actually available to them. but because of how the game currently is 7 SLs can sit there all hoping to take the vehicle from one another. How can anyone defend this? 😂

[north light]

You’re only shifting that problem in time for a single unit. Fixing that units spawn fixes the problem all the same.

No other unit in the game has this problem

[red zealot]

No unit would have this problem if my idea was implemented. 👍

[north light]

As stated, fixing this spawn would correct the problem

Your fix shifts the timescale of the problem from vehicle spawn to squad creation time. It doesn’t change outcomes

[red zealot]

Squad creation and vehicle claim on spawn time is extremely different.

[north light]

And takes quite a bit more to implement comparatively.

[red zealot]

Squad creation would be instant (with a delay for fairness to accomodate loading times) any number of people can sit waiting for a spawn timer. Squad creation doesn't have this problem. Mine would fix. 👍

[north light]

Okay, so now we’re adding a delay squad creation to solve another problem created by the solution. Player spawn delay already exists.

[red zealot]

Exactly player spawn delay already exists. Thats why it would be no different. Thank you for understanding.

[north light]

It is different—you are adding a new delay which includes delaying squad organization. There is no problem with squad creation on non-name claim servers

You’re inventing a new solution to a problem invented by the system

[red zealot]

Hmm interesting...
one could say the delay of player spawn and running to a vehicle and having 5 other SLs sit at a vehicle spawn waiting for the timer is a delay of squad organization.

[north light]

CAS heli isn’t even on a timer though, that’s the problem.

OWI chose to give 4 helis while only having 3 spawners which forces helis to leave the pad before CAS can spawn.

The Loach scout is also an extremely niche (or less charitably, useless) asset that can be removed from this unit with very little impact to their functionality or power.

Just removing this would fix the issue being shown here, as would adding another helipad

Either solution fixes this issue, because the issue primarily concerns these weird spawns

[red zealot]

What happens when a vehicle is on a timer and has a place to spawn? Multiple SLs sit there waiting for it.

[north light]

The only other vehicle with similar behavior is the tank

All others spawn at start

[red zealot]

What if OWI adds a 4th heli pad and gives the CAS a 10 minute spawn. You can bet money more than 1 pilot is sitting there waiting for it.

My idea fixes that. and thats all i care about.

Now remember if the devs decided to implement my idea. I encourage that they give server owners the choice to enable or disable squad creation claim. If people want FCFS where 7 SLs sit at one heli pad. they could still do it. No one loses anything.

[north light]

Yes, for a problem that doesn’t exist perhaps it could be problematic.

[red zealot]

Similar to how they made map voting an official feature but server owners can still choose to have it or not. Everyone is happy

freedom of choice :]

[north light]

Plenty of people have mixed feelings about map voting even when regularly playing on or moderating servers that use map vote.

Problems can still be solved poorly and degrade overall experience

[red zealot]

I dont want to derail the thread too much but its kinda on topic based on feature implementation. but im curious as to you being an admin on a server. Do you think map voting was implemented bad or is it a server owner problem?

[north light]

Implementation, for sure.

[red zealot]

Cuz i will admit i hate the way map voting is playing the same stuff over and over. Is there not a way for server owners to simplify and reduce the occurances?

[north light]

We have tried very hard to utilize the system and have been forced away from it to achieve our goals.

I still hope that some day they will properly support our usecases. Visually it’s very cool, but it’s simply not very functional for us

[red zealot]

I like map voting and it can be fun choosing a faction or a unit on a map. But things get bad really quickly when everyone just votes for US and Mutahah over and over.

[north light]

tldr the configuration is not good

Unfortunately even with the option to disable it, it still means we get people complaining we don’t use it. Which is kind of whatever, people complain about anything.

People expect their experience to be consistent when it comes to the actual game functionality. It’s much easier for a server to run nameclaim or FCFS and avoid controversy—but disabling something like this will inevitably result in people frustrated at us for not utilizing it.

[red zealot]

If a community enjoys FCFS as is and they dont mind multiple SLs competing for vehicles. I wouldn't imagine it would impact all that much.

i dont think implementing this feature would suddenly change the mindset of FCFS players and all of a sudden they'd be begging for name claim. If they like FCFS then they like FCFS.

[north light]

You can imagine it all you want. We experience more than just one monolith of player. We don’t control the opinions of random players joining our server

Just as we have people who occasionally still comment on that we don’t use the official map vote (sometimes they don’t even know we do chat map voting), we would absolutely get people wondering why we don’t use a vehicle claim system if they see it in use elsewhere.

Which is barely the problem, allow me to be clear. People are gonna be dumb and loud about being dumb, who cares.

Just saying its not all rainbows just because it can be disabled

[red zealot]

Yeah people are already like that even now. People join FCFS and for whatever reason expect name claim to be enforced 😅

[north light]

Ya, they def do. In that scenario at least “that’s not the rule here” ends the convo

It is what it is. My contention isn’t even necessarily that your suggested implementation is poor.

[red zealot]

yeah i tried pretty hard to cover any loose ends. I think i did a good job 😭

[north light]

I think you did too! I said before and I’ll say it again, I think you made obvious effort to be thorough and inventive.

My worry is mostly down to the fact that it’s impossible to prevent every abuse or misuse of these systems and that the existing claim system is already 90%+ satisfactory, and these enhancements can come at compromises of other systems.

Unfortunately even making these things optional isn’t a perfect solve either. It’s possible for some effects to bleed over unintentionally like the squad creation delay. Even putting aside that possibility though, QA doesn’t have infinite time to test every possible server setting combination. There is a cost to features even after they’ve been implemented.

I just don’t know that it is worthwhile to implement such a solution that fixes a specific issue like everyone being hyped about CAS. Tanks have delayed spawn but how often do you see multiple people waiting in main at round start? It definitely happens, but its pretty rare these days and frankly even on our FCFS server we don’t even have one person waiting in main for it—they take another vehicle or hitch a ride with someone else to do something useful for the 10 minutes.

[north light]

In that kind of case they might claim an unused Stryker or BTR. But with your system for example they couldn’t because they can only claim one crewed vehicle type?

[red zealot]

im not necessarily focused on just the staging phase. It could be early game, mid match, late game. It just comes down to competing with your own team for vehicles is unpleasant whether its a rare occurance or not. Even if you're on a name claim server, absolutely nothing is preventing someone else to step their foot in front of you unless there is an admin online. I think its a worthwhile implementation.

[red zealot]

I did think about Strykers and BTRs and just accepted that any vehicle that requires a crewman/pilot requires their own squad claim.

If a LAV squad decides they dont want to wait for the LAV and would rather take a Stryker. They'd have to give up their created claim on the LAV and take the Stryker claim.

Which is why in my idea i included the ability to demote and promote to different vehicle claim if necessary or available without having to delete the squad.

[north light]

My point is that regardless of game phase there are still niche usecases and exceptions. I wouldn’t say its objectively better for example that the tank squad holds the claim while not at main base.

Sometimes they’re on their way and it would be obviously more courteous to wait (and, in our experience, people often do. But not always, sure). Other times they are dawdling and thus causing the team to suffer their asset sitting idle.

[north light]

It is my belief that that would worsen the problem of idle players, as the tank squad isn’t going to want to risk losing their claim!

Whereas in our server they can safely leave main with the LAV.

[red zealot]

I see nothing wrong with the squad that owns a vehicle to wait for that vehicle.

[north light]

I find that quite odd given existing frustrations around idle players when the claims conflict. Both cases are a detriment to their team.

The LAV is better in use for their team than not.

It is my opinion you’re trading one possibly bad scenario for another bad scenario.

We can disagree, that’s just how I see it.

[red zealot]

I never had any frustrations with the idle heli pilot or tank crew waiting for their vehicle that they own. Just when multiple squads are competing for a vehicle only 1 of them can get.

[north light]

Frustrations or not, do you think it is better for the team for a LAV to sit idle in main or no?

In FCFS the tank squad could just as easily use it until the tank spawns. But if I understand your system correctly, it is my belief they would likely not abandon their tank claim and thus the LAV would sit idle even if no one else would desire to claim it for themselves.

This is not an uncommon scenario in our server

Even with good intentions I think there are still going to be flaws to such a system

[red zealot]

If a tank squad wanted to use a LAV until the tank spawns. They could drop their tank claim and grab the LAV claim. No issue there.

[north light]

But, as we see with nameclaim servers, they likely won’t.

[cosmic narwhal]

nvvy is correct here

[north light]

The claim system inherently encourages them to wait until their claimed vehicle is available

[red zealot]

Well if they want the tank then I'd imagine they'd wait for it whether its FCFS or name claim.

[cosmic narwhal]

If they are forced to drop their tank claim to use the lav, they simply will just wait instead of using the lav until the tank spawns

[north light]

But what I’m telling you is that they don’t

[red zealot]

The claim system has no influence here. If they want the tank they'll wait for the tank.

If they want the LAV they'll create a LAV squad.

[north light]

That’s just not the case on FCFS

I see it, and I do exactly that, on a daily basis on TT

[cosmic narwhal]

Also in my view this defeats the purpose of having a claim system. Its there so that the squad doesn't have to worry about rushing back to main/missing out on on using the claimed vehicle

so that they can go fuck off until it spawns with no fear of losing it

[north light]

The tank squad is VERY rarely sitting idle in main on TT

[cosmic narwhal]

That is the fundamental reason CSO uses our claim system

[red zealot]

This isnt true in my idea. There is a timer penalty. If they dont grab it in 3 minutes after its spawned in at main they get demoted.

[north light]

Almost all the time they will take another vehicle and go forward with the team. While sometimes that’s a light vic or truck, sometimes it’s another crewed vehicle

[cosmic narwhal]

did you read what i said

[north light]

So, IMO, and especially when no such light vics remain available, you’ll have more cases of idle players than otherwise

It’s completely normal, encouraged, and benefits the team, for the tank squad to use the otherwise uncrewed vic to help during rollout. They’ll drive back in 9 mins and pick up the tank, nobody is adversely affected

[red zealot]

I was just saying my idea wouldn't protect their vehicle from being stolen. They would lose it if they dont grab it. Thats all

[cosmic narwhal]

The stolen being that another team grabs it before them when it spawns

CSO has a 3 minute timer post spawn where the squad loses claim if they dont grab it

just like your suggestion

we use that exact system

[north light]

Also the vast majority of players will respect that another squad is named for the tank. Just because we don’t have nameclaim doesn’t mean people don’t respect the named squad.

[red zealot]

Oh I see thats cool.

Sorry I thought you were saying players would abuse claim to avoid the responsibility of grabbing the vehicle without any punishment. I see what you were saying now.

[cosmic narwhal]

yeah, my agrguement is that if i have to drop my claim in exchange to make use of an unclaimed vehicle, it defeats the purpose of the claim system

[red zealot]

The purpose of my claim system is so you arent competing with 3 SLs for a heli.

Yes you have to drop your claim if you want a Tank instead of your Heli.

[north light]

But you aren’t solving that. Just changing the terms of competition.

[cosmic narwhal]

exactly

[north light]

Even in your perfect solution of a squad creation delay plus this system, they’re all still vying for the vehicle.

You can still fail to claim if when their squad creation goes thru first.

[red zealot]

Yep exactly. The terms of competition is who makes the squad claim instead of having 7 SLs on 1 heli pad.

[north light]

Sure. But I would say that if your basing such a change on this singular scenario and ignoring the tradeoffs you are making elsewhere then it is a bad solution

Not for your lack of thoroughness or intelligence

[red zealot]

I dont mean to ignore any trade offs. I tried to do my due diligence to cover everything.

[north light]

I understand you did, I’m not saying you meant to. It’s a hard problem to really solve.

There’s a reason you’ve covered bases that CSO covers in their manually enforced ruleset too

[red zealot]

Which server is CSO. Is it a modded server?

Just curious

[north light]

It’s just my opinion that such systems necessitate tradeoffs that are imo just worse for the community (but I also dislike name claim for these very reasons, call me biased ig)

[cosmic narwhal]

Cinder special ops. 1 vanilla and 1 ge

[red zealot]

Yeah with any added mechanic in a game its gonna affect something. ICO and map voting are good recent examples. It is what it is.

at the end of the day we are in the hands of OWI lol

[north light]

Eh, I think that’s false equivalence

Map voting can be good, it’s not a fundamental issue, it’s a configuration issue mostly.

[cosmic narwhal]

As much I would like some sort of automated system for claiming vehicles, as nvvy said, there are many parts that are hard to get down and will likely leave some area of issue. (Such as if using the system is required to actually use a vehicle, some vehicles may be left unused since the armor players don't want to lose their MBT/IFV that has delayed spawn)

[north light]

Hot take: balancing assets with delayed spawns kinda sucks anyway and it would be better in several ways including for claims if they weren’t

[cosmic narwhal]

i agree but thats a whole different can of worms

[north light]

Ya for sure

[red zealot]

i hate all the different spawn times. They try too hard to balance vehicle numbers and timers. its hard to grasp it all.

[cosmic narwhal]

The least intrusive change owi could make for admins on claim servers would just be the ability to remove someone from inside a vehicle w/o killing them or removing them from their squad

[north light]

!kill is objectively funny, tho

[cosmic narwhal]

Still manual but would at least give a tool to the admins to enforce their rules

[cosmic narwhal]

true

[north light]

(Just a joke, you’re 100% correct)

This would also be helpful even for us on FCFS, believe it or not

[cosmic narwhal]

true

soloing rules too

[north light]

Exactly

Much easier to implement, useful for all servers

Quite poggers, actually

Anyway that’s enough ranting. I hope you can understand where I’m coming from better now, Frank. Glad we could have a more civil discussion this time.

[balmy knoll]

Don't you feel like a armor goblin taking an APC while having a tank reserved? I do.

[cosmic narwhal]

Not if its unclaimed or being used by the team

[north light]

Yeah, it’s one thing to greed so hard you’re taking away someone else’s fun. But it’s not that uncommon that there’s an extra asset at main. Especially in 8.2 with all the Moto divisions now having 4 IFVs!

[cosmic narwhal]

well technically those (besides caf/adf) are apcs

[north light]

BTRs and LAVs, all of which are IFVs

[cosmic narwhal]

I forgot that btr82s are counted as ifvs and not apcs in squad

cause IRL they are considered mostly as apcs

[north light]

Autocannon is the main distinction. I believe that’s what NATO used to distinguish them. BTR80 APC, BTR82A IFV, despite the same chassis/hull.

[cosmic narwhal]

yeah

I did not realize that strykers were 10 tickets

why is a stryker considered equal to a m2 or bmp or btr82 even

while btr80s are 5 tickets