Denied Revert the Squad and Company System

[Eisenhower]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Revert the Squad and Company System

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
See response below

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- Time needed to undo the changes with the Squad and Company System

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
In the month following the update, it is clear that the Squad/Company System has been detrimental to the structure and organization of regiments, affecting things such as activity and player retention. I propose that we return to the old system. See my reasons below.

1. Squad and Companies are redundant.
They are redundant. Squad and Companies are only names written on a spreadsheet that is far removed from the majority of the community. I am confident in saying that a lot of players do not even know what their Squad or Company is and a lot of regiments do not enforce RP within them.

They lack any form of special duty, equipment, speciality and anything to that effect. Before I get told I can make them have specialities, Cloak himself said "They [Companies] also need to not imply that one company has a specific duty over the other, companies are just for organisation & management and not for saying one company gets to do things that another company doesn't (e.g. piloting in UAF/SWB)." Since the companies are only for "organisation and management". So, why do they even exist?

The numbers needed to justify the creation of individual companies and squads do not exist and just adds more paperwork for people to fill out.

2. The Squad system is too vulnerable.
Squads heavily rely on Leaders being active everyday to keep the numbers in their squads up. If the Squad Leader happens to be away on LOA for any reason, their Squad just dies with no one there to maintain it especially in the 4 Squads 2 Companies configuration. It is an unrealistic to expect Squad Leaders to keep their Squads alive only for it to fall apart as soon as they leave, especially when they are supposed to be the ones training Sergeants to do tryouts, keeping activity in check, tracking promotions etc. It is simply too much for one or two people to handle.

With the old system, all of the NCOs and COs can work together to maintain the regiment. For example, certain people can be assigned on tryouts, certain people can be doing trainings etc. In the new system, RP activities are incentivized to be done by the Squad Leader solely for their Squads, especially tryouts.

It gets even more ridiculuous when a Squad Leader leaves and there is no suitable replacement within that Squad. In most cases, you would have to take a Squad member from one squad to put them in another Squad to the deteriment of the transferred person's original squad. "Why don't you rank skip to fill trhose positions then?" Rank skips to fill positions have been discouraged by the Rank Skipping Memorandum as written below.

1. Every troop should be encouraged to work their way through the rank ladder appropriately
   1. Inappropriately skipping ranks leads to decreased attachment to the regiment and a lack of experience in the appropriate skills required to execute the responsibilities of a troop’s rank.
   2. Moving too quickly through the rank ladder removes the sense of accomplishment acquired by a reasonably paced progression through the ranks, decreasing engagement and leading to higher rates of desertion and poorer activity rates.

3. The new system deincentivizes players to stay long-term.
The new system ignores the fact that a lot of players come online and expect to be promoted as a reward for their efforts. When they inevitably cannot climb the ranks anymore, what would motivate those players to stay on the server? This is particularly important as it affects leadership of a faction in the long term, in the case where people who come into the server following this update and want to be High Command but can't because there are no rank slots left for them. That is clearly wasted potential.

I know the server has an emphasis on war, but it does get boring after a while especially after being sniped or bombed a hundred times over. If we were to revert back to the old system (in terms of rank slots, not the actual rank themselves), we can promote people - thus improving player retention. This time, the maximum number of people that can hold a rank can be enforced by a Memorandum.

4. There is no method to judge merit for promotions anymore.
Rank requirements and promotion cooldowns were removed (the latter being understandable). Whilst I understand that rank requirements "add paperwork" in the way that people need to log things, it is a superior method of determining who deserves a higher rank and allows people to know what their expectations are. Requirements were typically a certain number of tryouts someone needed to do (which were already logged anyway and counted automatically by the spreadsheet) so I do not understand why "removing paperwork" was a reason to remove them. I will be honest that I overlooked them sometimes when they were implemented (e.g. if they needed to do 5 tryouts but only did 3) but they did work.

The current system is open to bias (whether positive i.e. the Squad Leader wants them to do more in order to be promoted or negative i.e. an incompetent person is being promoted) and unless a CO is again, online 24/7 and constantly watching over someone amongst the 30 other people in the regiment they have to watch, there is no way current promotions are in any way fair.

Overall, this suggestion has come from what I have seen as part of 1stAL and NWO as a whole. I understand that this has come from a regimental commander of a NWO regiment so I would like to hear the perspective from NATO as well.

-------------------------------------------------------

Thus, I propose the following ('the Old System') with a little update:

1. Removing Companies and Squads and remaking the rank structure to be as such below (for NATO)
   High Command: General, Lieutenant General, Major General, Brigadier General,
   Regimental Command: Colonel, Major
   Commanding Officers: Captain, First Lieutenant, Second Lieutenant
   Enlisted: Sergeant Major, Master Sergeant, Staff Sergeant, Sergeant, Corporal, Specialist, Private First Class, Private
2. Making licenses be obtainable at Specialist instead of Private First Class (Mastery Level 5 still the same) to allow us to promote players on their first day and incentivize them to comeback for more.
3. Re-allowing promotion requirements and promotion timers to be put in place again, solely determined by regimental command allowing COs to be flexible in their regiment's standards.

-------------------------------------------------------

I would like to mention that (to my knowledge) that no regimental command was ever consulted about the Squad/Company system change and only High Command were. I have given the new system a chance, but I cannot any longer. I am sure there are benefits or other drawbacks that I haven't thought of, so please add your thoughts below.

If a member of NL is reading this, it will be nice to create a poll in #changevoting-feedback to see whether or not people like the new system alongside posting the link to this thread.

 

[Handsome_Will]

Not putting a + or - support because I don't think that matters.
1. I think that the required numbers being too high can be worked around. In general I agree, because one of the first things I had to do was dissolve the second IVG Company and I'm only just now able to fill even two squads within that. Using the SL and CL slots and having them "share" responsibility for squads and companies would probably help you if you're at a point of limbo. NATO opinion needs to be given on this considering that side outnumbers NWO so heavily now.

2. I agree, as a reg command you need to do a lot of work to pick up any slack left by squad leads, same with CL. The workaround is to have all squad lead be looking after every squad, which defeats the purpose of squads but that's the lesser evil.

3. I think the idea is that people should want to make their progression through the mastery system instead of being focused on ranks. Perhaps if the system was more clear for new PVTs there wouldn't be an issue of people being rank-hungry despite it having little impact beyond PFC.

4. I've never relied on documented merit, any system we've had for that is vulnerable to being gamed - making your own assessments of people is generally better. This does rely on your power being more centralised which contradicts the system a bit - but in general the system seems to favour the whole regiment rather than individual soldiers, which has upsides and downsides. Personally I prefer the newer approach to ranks, where I can be flexible with the needs of IVG rather than needing to wait x days so that I don't get shouted at.

 

[Eisenhower]

Not putting a + or - support because I don't think that matters.
1. I think that the required numbers being too high can be worked around. In general I agree, because one of the first things I had to do was dissolve the second IVG Company and I'm only just now able to fill even two squads within that. Using the SL and CL slots and having them "share" responsibility for squads and companies would probably help you if you're at a point of limbo. NATO opinion needs to be given on this considering that side outnumbers NWO so heavily now.

2. I agree, as a reg command you need to do a lot of work to pick up any slack left by squad leads, same with CL. The workaround is to have all squad lead be looking after every squad, which defeats the purpose of squads but that's the lesser evil.

3. I think the idea is that people should want to make their progression through the mastery system instead of being focused on ranks. Perhaps if the system was more clear for new PVTs there wouldn't be an issue of people being rank-hungry despite it having little impact beyond PFC.

4. I've never relied on documented merit, any system we've had for that is vulnerable to being gamed - making your own assessments of people is generally better. This does rely on your power being more centralised which contradicts the system a bit - but in general the system seems to favour the whole regiment rather than individual soldiers, which has upsides and downsides. Personally I prefer the newer approach to ranks, where I can be flexible with the needs of IVG rather than needing to wait x days so that I don't get shouted at.

Hello Handsome,
1. Yeah, I have removed the second 1stAL Company today. The only issue is before, there were a lot more individuals that could issue promotions and keep track of people on a daily basis and now only 7-9 people max (SSGT+ in regiment) can. I am waiting for NATO's opinions on this because it seems like they are doing well but I am not sure how they are utilizing squads/companies there.

2. Yep, I agree.

3. I think the server should strike a 50/50 balance on Mastery System vs Ranks. The current system deincentivizes people to climb the ranks, so at least in NWO, we are losing leaders whilst having no one to replace them. Not sure how this could be done though.

4. I understand that documentating merit would be vulnerable to being gamed, however, requirements such as tryouts, trainings done can be easily confirmed if any suspicions arise. Furthermore, a NCO and a CO tryout, which existed before the update can no longer be done as it is a requirement. Perhaps, if the system was reverted, these can be put in place again. I did write that promotion timers should be determined by regimental command. I have edited it to add the flexibility part.

 

[tony schleck]

i will add little to this

the current system is fragile on regiments with low player count (NWO) for them trying to fill 2 squads is already hard and a squad can easily die if the only squad leader goes on loa
regarding licenses i dont see an issue with a veteran PVT with mastery rank 5+ getting a driving license although i will like to see it higher as mastery 5 can be reached very fast that part is probably just me XD
re-adding requirements should come back to i know players dont like it but it is in place not for the players but for the server as players will more actively train trainees doing tryouts and starting trainings.
for a promotion cooldown i think will be good too but with the mastery it will be more like when you cooldown is over you can get promoted but it won't mean you get it the day after cooldown instead it can take a few more days after cooldown and there is a free slot.
if the old system comeback we should also limit the NCO CO slots so players will try to outperform the other player that is able to get it.
adding slight boost getting higher up chould be added too (different weapons etc)

 

[Jimothy Leaderson]

-Support

A lot of the issues you mention are ones that regimental command (you) are meant to enforce. Issues of squad leads having too much work means you are filling up the squads too heavily or the Company Command are just sitting back and not helping despite needing to do so. Rank skips are discouraged yes and company and regimental command should step in until a replacement to a squad lead is trained or found. You can still judge promotions on merit through training, tryout and other logs a regiment may use. I don't think it deincentivises players you just need to make it clear to them to focus on mastery than promotions. They get rewarded with mastery when they come on and do stuff.

 

[Eisenhower]

-Support

A lot of the issues you mention are ones that regimental command (you) are meant to enforce. Issues of squad leads having too much work means you are filling up the squads too heavily or the Company Command are just sitting back and not helping despite needing to do so. Rank skips are discouraged yes and company and regimental command should step in until a replacement to a squad lead is trained or found. You can still judge promotions on merit through training, tryout and other logs a regiment may use. I don't think it deincentivises players you just need to make it clear to them to focus on mastery than promotions. They get rewarded with mastery when they come on and do stuff.

I completely disagree, these issues were practically non-existant with the old system. I have been enforcing them but like I said in my post, it depends heavily on Squad Lead, Company Command and Regimental Command all being active for it to truly work effectively. Unlike real life, MilitaryRP is not our job and we physically cannot be there 24/7.

Squad leads having too much work does not mean I am filling up the squads too heavily. A squad, as said by SL, consists of anywhere between 6-12 members, which is what I have kept to. I can't distribute the work either by creating more squads as SL specifically said 1 Company 2 Squads, 2 Company 4 Squads or 3 Company 6 Squads were the only acceptable configurations. Where am I meant to find the players to fill them in, especially when NWO is dying? Steal them from other regiments or NATO? In the old system, I could easily have 6 NCOs and 6 COs and none of them felt forced to come online to keep their "Squad" alive.

I was told off by SL for creating guidelines that based promotions on anything other than leadership and "merit". Players should equally focus on both mastery and promotions, otherwise the server just becomes a TDM, FPS. Why shouldn't they just go play Fortnite, War Thunder or something?

 

[Merlin]

Neutral on the suggestion, but to give a squad lead's perspective from an active regiment:

The key fault I'm finding with the new system is that squad leadership can't reliably be online at the same time as all squad members, which is making monitoring a challenge. To my knowledge the admins intended squads to be a close unit who get to know eachother, but in practice I'm not sure that really works. It's great to have some fireteam command hierarchy but i'd question whether it might make more sense to pool squad members and have fireteam leaders grab users who are online to fill out teams in the moment. You might even consider pooling people by role - such as a group of 'autoriflemen'.

Though ISAF has a good member count, we're seeing a high attrition rate among enlisted and that means that the squad membership is constantly changing, despite the leadership/CO positions being largely filled. I figure a part of this might be because people see rank as an indicator of progression, yet most users aren't going anywhere quickly. It might be worth considering having more enlisted ranks to let us reward people more often for good work. Even bringing back P2C and LCPL might make enough of a difference to lower the number of people leaving.

Right now the mastery system feels like a slow burn in terms of progression, and it's not massively prominent. "Just play more" really doesn't feel a good enough answer to "how do I get this job?".

 

[Kamil]

This isn't really a case for - or + support but there are both Positives and some silly takes that I'm getting from this thread.

Firstly, this is the most important part of all this, the ranks of pvt to sgt are not just "oh you played on war today get promoted" a lot of people are treating this new system as if it was the old system. I don't know if its a misunderstanding or just people being lazy but one of the biggest reasons behind the enlisted structure being how it is is simply because it allows people to be at a rank where they don't have to take on leadership roles. That means that in an ideal world, privates aren't even promoted at all on their first day. If you spam promote someone and they reach Sgt in a matter of days that is on you and your cc/squad lead team. Privates should bring the tutorial stage for a couple of days, pfc should be their default for a while spc should be for those that are fairly experienced and actually know what they're doing and sgts should be your utmost elites. This new system should have even more incentive for ranks as each rank should actually mean something but instead the transfer hasn't fully been explained and hopefully we can talk this all out in a meeting soon. If "people log on expecting to grt promoted everyday" then that is your fuck up and you need to start making changes so this doesn't continue.

Rank shenanigans aside, I agree that the forced configuration stuff is just not very smart. Forcing a regiment to A have enough people to fill out slots and B having to awkwardly displace people in squads no matter the regiments number situation is also silly.
HOWEVER, like jimothy pointed out, if squads don't feel like squads that is on you. You're reg command and implementing even the smallest of things such as squad debriefs instead of reg debriefs and trainings where squads go up against eachother can really go a long way. Simply saying that squads can't feel like squads is a sign of you not handling your position as well as you could.
You also mention people not even knowing their squads/brigade etc, again that is on you. When the update came out everyone was told that enlisted needed to be able to answer the 5 questions, who leads the army, who leads the brigade, who leads the regiment who leads the company and who leads the squad, if you're in a spot where no one can answer the question then the only logical assumption to make is that there is little to no role-play surrounding that reg, your brigade generals aren't doing their job or your squad lead/cc are inactive or just go afk/log off in peacetime. Those people should not be I'm their position as their rank is solely based around actively wanting to lead the side instead of just having a flashy rank.

When it comes to how "fragile" it is, yes it is fragile, however it is just as fragile as it was before if not less. Now you have anyone from ssgt+ that can be active enough to do promotions, and if that ssgt is on LOA, anyone that is a rank above him should take that place, and that continues all the way up to col. Before you would need someone that has plaued for weeks to promote people, for example, Sorry for the outing, but the police regiments have always had low numbers and even after an influx of privates there were little to no COs available to stay on and keep them "spam promoted" everyday. Now that burden is very much spread to lower ranks as well so those cos don't have to work as hard at all.

Now requirements are a flimsy thing, it leads back to my first point where monitoring people for their performance is a necessary but that requires activity. But hear me out, if you focus on monitoring and promoting people that actually DESEVE the promotion then people will naturally have a drive to pit effort in to get noticed, I'm sure you can think back to our old JAF days where, at least me and Connor did, actively went out of our way to do tryouts and trainings and even traineees without anyone having to force us into it, just so we could get noticed for promos because they weren't off cooldown.

The leadership on the server in general has gotten a lot more lazy since those glory days but this system NEEDS activity and attention. Its our job that the people in those positions are actually putting effort into the server because I'm sure you can tell, if this continues there won't be a server to lead.

Hopefully we can arrange a meeting with both sides to fully discuss some of the changes needed as well as misunderstandings that people seem to have.

If you want a piece of advice from the guy that inspired this whole thing. Stop promoting people so people actually put value and therefore work into their rank, re organise your enlisted from new players to veterans, demote anyone in a leadership role that isn't actually leading but is just playing war simulator instead

Also I made this on my phone at 2am so if there are a shit ton of typos and rants cut me some slack god bless

 

[Kiwi]

I'd just like to put my opinion on this. To give context, I'll label your title and I will put my opinion on each point.

1. Squad and Companies are redundant.
You claim that "a lot of regiments do not enforce RP within them". The addition of squadrons and companies allow each individual regiment to run it in more of a battlefield style gameplay. This also allow for the lower ranks to better understand Chain of Command as well as leadership responsibilities and whether they'd be interested to uptake a position like this in future.
You also quoted Cloak stating that each Company doesn't have a specific responsibility etc. Again, with the addition of Squadrons and Companies it allows for each squadron or company to have a specific goal, for an example in SWB Jack G and Cal (When they were Col and CPT) introduced different management roles for company leads as well as squad leads. A few examples were recruitment (tryouts), advertisement (creating promotional videos/pictures for the regiment), resource (documents) etc.

Without the addition of the squadrons and companies this is a lot more difficult to implement without a solid system set in place.

2. The Squad system is too vulnerable.
You claim that it's incredibly difficult to maintain a regiment with two companies and four squadrons in each. Whilst I agree with this, there is the option to get approval to decrease the size of your companies/squadrons depending on how big your regiment is. As an example IVG/ISAF are always going to have more squadrons as they're base infantry regiments and a lot of people enjoy that kind of gameplay. Whereas regiments like STS/SAS are going to have one company and 2/3 squadrons because they're special forces so often they'll have less people as they're quality over quantity.
If a squad is dying due to an inactive Squad Lead then it's your responsibility as regimental command to assign someone new that can fulfill that role until:
1. The original squad lead returns
2. The new squad lead does a good job and stays.
As well as this, if a squad lead leaves it's your responsibility to select a new candidate, if you need them to transfer squads then do that. Rank skipping shouldn't always be the GO TO in situations like this.

3. The new system deincentivizes players to stay long-term.
I genuinely believe, with the greatest respect, you don't see the same image that we do. The addition as this system was to make the server more focused on war. We've always had an issue with players being bored during peacetimes so we did things such as reduce the peacetime timers etc. So with that being said if players are interested in leadership positions and SC/NHC position then they will stick around and stay on the grind to that rank however they wish. A lot of players who play the server have been around for a while and are not too fussed about their rank, if they're still interested in going for leadership positions then they will stick around and grind for it. Personally, I'm not too fussed about leading a regiment as I've been there and done that where I can spend my time on trying to improve the server and let other players enjoy those positions and make the changes they want to see. I personally think that with the current state of the server and the playercount we get day in day out, the current numbers for each rank slot is appropriate. If we grow in size from when MRP USA releases we may look at increasing it (no promises) but again, that depends on the playercount and the amount of players each regiment has.

4. There is no method to judge merit for promotions anymore.
Giving someone a CO slot because they've done X amount of tryouts and trainings is a silly idea. Whenever I've lead a regiment the first thing I did was remove the requirements and promote those who do those things WITHOUT those requirements, because those are the individuals who are putting in the effort and trying to help the regiment. Another thing with the paperwork is a large number of the playerbase were put off from doing things such as tryouts/trainings/promotions etc because it required paperwork and they disliked the amount of google forms that were being used to upkeep a regiment. On top of that as SL we have to manage all documents that the server uses and if there's 4-5 forms per regiments that's a total of 40 forms that we'd have to have copies of and manage etc. With the removal of these forms we've put a lot less stress on our resources team which has allowed them to work on other things such as the training programme and other documents that you've seen released recently.

I hope you understand where I'm coming from and can see from my perspective why we've added and implemented these things.

Kind regards,
Kiwi.

 

[sahns]

Re-allowing promotion requirements and promotion timers to be put in place again, solely determined by regimental command allowing COs to be flexible in their regiment's standards.

Promotion requirements are not a good thing. Its forcing your members to do something they dont want to, which makes them think "this is so boring" and they will eventually leave. If you remove the promotion requirements, it allows for a more natural flow of tryouts and as Kiwi mentioned, you can quite easily see who puts in the work and who doesn't.

Giving someone a CO slot because they've done X amount of tryouts and trainings is a silly idea

^^

 

[Eisenhower]

To Kamil:
I feel like people should be encouraged to take on leadership roles, if they aren'tm then the server just becomes another FPS game. We need to develop leadership so when we leave there is another generation of leaders for that faction, which this system is discouraging heavily. I would like to say that what's funny is that in NWO, I haven't seen anyone spam promoted to reach SGT in a matter of days. Whereas in NATO, we've seen people go from PVT to SSGT in a matter of 2 days as a consequence of the new system. I feel like if anything, NATO have been taking advantage of the removal of promotion cooldowns and promoting people like there is no tomorrow and that NWO has been the side that actually took the update seriously.

You are treating the gameplay as it it requires many days to get used to but it truly isn't - a lot of skills from other games can easily be transferred into Garry's Mod and the whole "probation period" is simply redundant. Only for regiments like JAF and SWB do I see a "probation period" being useful. Again, I would understand if we were soldiers in the actual British Army but we clearly aren’t. Though, I agree with you that the system should have had more incentives and the ranks should actually mean something. The changes I tried to make to stop people expecting promoted everyday ended up with me getting shouted at by Cloak, SL and SC on discord.

When I say that people do not know their squads, this generally refers to the new players coming onto the server. The current training system does not include any mention of Squad / Company and you could imagine being a PVT being told you are being placed into Company Alpha, Squad Beta. Huh? I thought I was getting a tryout for this regiment? Unfortunately, no one new is going to remember them unless they physically open the spreadsheet as there is no direct implementation for them in-game. I think everyone past a certain rank does remember them though.

When I say that Squads are redundant, I really do mean it. You are suggesting that I and other regimental command should hold squad debriefs instead of reg debriefs and trainings, but keep in mind that not all squad members are physically present all the time unlike in the actual Military. There can be 1 member from each squad for example online, and do we need to do separate individual debriefs for them? No, you do one massive debrief which saves a lot of effort from everyone's end. Trainings become more effective, the more people participate in them, so why splinter your regiment and take away the opportunity to host a large-scale training to improve the whole regiment's skill? In practice, there are no Squad voice channels nor Company ones. More than likely during war, no one cares about their Squad/Company and everyone will just work together to win wars.

Now you have anyone from ssgt+ that can be active enough to do promotions, and if that ssgt is on LOA, anyone that is a rank above him should take that place, and that continues all the way up to col.

Well, if they have been following what NL put down on the spreadsheet correctly. SSGT+ need the permission of a LT+ in order to promote someone, which defeats the purpose of giving responsibilities to lower ranks. In the old system, we could have several COs to the point where at least one will be online for a war. With something like rank requirements, it allows several COs to track whether or not someone has reached a minimum standard in order to be considered to be promoted.

But hear me out, if you focus on monitoring and promoting people that actually DESEVE the promotion then people will naturally have a drive to pit effort in to get noticed, I'm sure you can think back to our old JAF days where, at least me and Connor did, actively went out of our way to do tryouts and trainings and even traineees without anyone having to force us into it, just so we could get noticed for promos because they weren't off cooldown.

I do hear you but with the implementation of cooldowns again, if we really want to promote someone off them we can utilize the new rank skipping mechanics with approval only needing to go to a certain rank bracket now instead of SC.

The leadership on the server in general has gotten a lot more lazy since those glory days but this system NEEDS activity and attention. Its our job that the people in those positions are actually putting effort into the server because I'm sure you can tell, if this continues there won't be a server to lead.

I fully agree with you but I think that this system has broken what was previously a functional system. I find that people put in more work with the old system than now. Now, someone's whole climb up the ladder is stopped solely because there are only so few positions for Squad Leader and so few positions for Company Command.

If you want a piece of advice from the guy that inspired this whole thing. Stop promoting people so people actually put value and therefore work into their rank, re organise your enlisted from new players to veterans, demote anyone in a leadership role that isn't actually leading but is just playing war simulator instead

Really have already done this. But I haven't said anywhere that promotions were given out every day (which I have just realized after writing all of this). And, you are treating the server like there's always another person to replace a leader. Maybe in NATO, but certainly not in NWO.

God bless your 2AM writing skills though. I wrote the post at 4 AM .

 

[Eisenhower]

To Kiwi,
1. Squad and Companies are redundant.

You claim that "a lot of regiments do not enforce RP within them". The addition of squadrons and companies allow each individual regiment to run it in more of a battlefield style gameplay. This also allow for the lower ranks to better understand Chain of Command as well as leadership responsibilities and whether they'd be interested to uptake a position like this in future.

Why shouldn't someone just go play Battlefield instead of Garry's Mod then? I feel like the old Chain of Command (HC, RC, CO, NCO, Enlisted) is far easier to understand than (Divisional Command, Brigade Command, RC, Company Command, Squad Command, Squad Member). The test being that as a new or veteran player of MRP, you are far more likely to understand how the old CoC works just by the abbreviations. This server has never been an Arma 3-esque MilSim and it should not attempt to be either. It's Garry's Mod for crying out loud.

You also quoted Cloak stating that each Company doesn't have a specific responsibility etc. Again, with the addition of Squadrons and Companies it allows for each squadron or company to have a specific goal, for an example in SWB Jack G and Cal (When they were Col and CPT) introduced different management roles for company leads as well as squad leads. A few examples were recruitment (tryouts), advertisement (creating promotional videos/pictures for the regiment), resource (documents) etc.

Without the addition of the squadrons and companies this is a lot more difficult to implement without a solid system set in place.

I believe that this could have been done without the Squad system. I know this because I previously did it in 10thSD when I was last COL, separating people into teams for tryouts, trainings, documents (which can really be done by one person), etc. And it worked, and allowed you to see who was doing the most work easily through some formulas on the spreadsheet. I believe allowing each squadron/company to have a goal still doesn't justify the new system.

2. The Squad system is too vulnerable.

You claim that it's incredibly difficult to maintain a regiment with two companies and four squadrons in each. Whilst I agree with this, there is the option to get approval to decrease the size of your companies/squadrons depending on how big your regiment is. As an example IVG/ISAF are always going to have more squadrons as they're base infantry regiments and a lot of people enjoy that kind of gameplay. Whereas regiments like STS/SAS are going to have one company and 2/3 squadrons because they're special forces so often they'll have less people as they're quality over quantity.

Yeah, perfectly agree with you on this but for some regiments, there is a point where we have too little people for 2 Companies and 4 Squads and 1 Company 2 Squads. It would be nice if SL didn't mandate certain configurations because I think 1 Company 3 Squads would be a perfect fit for 1stAL for example, but we aren't allowed that.

If a squad is dying due to an inactive Squad Lead then it's your responsibility as regimental command to assign someone new that can fulfill that role until:
1. The original squad lead returns
2. The new squad lead does a good job and stays.
As well as this, if a squad lead leaves it's your responsibility to select a new candidate, if you need them to transfer squads then do that. Rank skipping shouldn't always be the GO TO in situations like this.

Yep, know this already. Cloak has mentioned that for the system to work: "this new structure is more "milsim" like so it does rely on people sticking to their squads/companies and RPing in them, I don't mean RP as in super serious RP that nobody enjoys, I just mean doing activities with them" I think being able to transfer people inbetween squads perfectly represents why this whole system is redundant because what's the point in them if you are just going to move someone's label around every so often? Might as well not have them at all.

3. The new system deincentivizes players to stay long-term.

I genuinely believe, with the greatest respect, you don't see the same image that we do.

So true. I did not see the same image that SL do when this system first started and even now I still don’t. I believe that this Squad/Company system was an mediocre attempt to fix some of the "flaws" in the old system (and even then, minor flaws). I think the changes I put out in the suggestion would work if we were to return to the old system

I personally think that with the current state of the server and the playercount we get day in day out, the current numbers for each rank slot is appropriate. If we grow in size from when MRP USA releases we may look at increasing it (no promises) but again, that depends on the playercount and the amount of players each regiment has.

Once the hype around NATO being back dies, then what? The only thing that will motivate people to stay then are promotions. I like what Merlin said in saying that the Mastery system feels like a slow burn. It truly does and I believe it will not keep players on the server as long as players stayed for in the past.

4. There is no method to judge merit for promotions anymore.

Giving someone a CO slot because they've done X amount of tryouts and trainings is a silly idea. Whenever I've lead a regiment the first thing I did was remove the requirements and promote those who do those things WITHOUT those requirements, because those are the individuals who are putting in the effort and trying to help the regiment.

It's funny because every time I have lead a regiment, the first thing I did was to put requirements. Like I said before, these allow people to know what their expectations are. What I did in 1stAL before the update was to make the requirements work in a way that what was logged for your previous rank counted for your new rank. This meant that someone who did 8 tryouts as a MSGT for example, could easily skip the rank requirements for the next 2-3 ranks because like you said, those are the individuals who are putting the effort and trying to help the regiment. With the new rank skipping system, I could easily rank-skip them instead of waiting for their cooldown to be over.

Another thing with the paperwork is a large number of the playerbase were put off from doing things such as tryouts/trainings/promotions etc because it required paperwork and they disliked the amount of google forms that were being used to upkeep a regiment.

Well, tryouts and promotions need to be logged anyway? They are still being logged now so really you haven't removed any paperwork in this area. I think one Google Form and one Spreadsheet was and still is the amount of forms used to being upkeep a regiment properly. Everything else was rarely used.

On top of that as SL we have to manage all documents that the server uses and if there's 4-5 forms per regiments that's a total of 40 forms that we'd have to have copies of and manage etc. With the removal of these forms we've put a lot less stress on our resources team which has allowed them to work on other things such as the training programme and other documents that you've seen released recently.

Well, I don't understand what there is to be maintained other than a backup which involves clicking "Make a Copy" and dragging it into a folder. I have not seen SL interact with any of the documents I have made at all and the regiment was the one maintaining them - not SL.

I do understand where you are coming from and see from your perspective why we've added and implemented these things but I still think the old system was the better approach to MilitaryRP than the current one. Thank you for your thoughts.

 

[Eisenhower]

Promotion requirements are not a good thing. Its forcing your members to do something they dont want to, which makes them think "this is so boring" and they will eventually leave. If you remove the promotion requirements, it allows for a more natural flow of tryouts and as Kiwi mentioned, you can quite easily see who puts in the work and who doesn't.

^^

The server has devolved into being a war simulator that involves being sniped or bombed no matter where you go. People have left my regiment because ground combat so heavily favours snipers and CAS helis which became boring after a while. With or without promotion requirements, people will only do tryouts either when are told they should do so or that someone asks them to do a tryout for them. I think what Kiwi missed was that we aren't online all the time to see who puts in the work and who doesn't as some people come online and leave before you come online and etc. With promotion requirements, it's easy for everyone to know how much they need to work in order to be promoted and that every CO has the same standard when it comes to promoting people, mitigating any form of bias - whether positive or negative.

What I proposed in the suggestion was that these promotion requirements be more flexible than the old system. Something like making the work done in the previous rank count towards the next one, for example, so that tryouts aren't "wasted". What 1stAL did before it was forcefully removed was that if a MSGT did 8 tryouts before being promoted for whatever reason and his rank requirement was 2 tryouts and the next rank requirement was 4 tryouts, he wouldn't need to do another 4 tryouts. With the new rank skipping system, we could authorize a rankskip for the MSGT up 2 ranks for example as a reward for their efforts.

 

[Cloak]

People have left my regiment because ground combat so heavily favours snipers and CAS helis which became boring after a while.

I agree, this is still something to be fixed, it is just hard to balance things when every time you nerf something there will always be one side who complains it's unfair. If I had my way helicopters and snipers would be seen way less frequently but then you'd have to see pilots slumming it on ground with the plebs, which apparently makes their regiment "useless" and therefore they don't like it.

As for the rest I won't say too much as a lot of what I would say has already been said, we could look at tweaking the ranks a tiny bit but most of what you've expressed sounds like problems with the processes rather than the system itself. Putting more emphasis on squads, companies, these things can be done by SL & HC. People being disincentivised to promote up the ranks - well from the sounds of it people aren't following the system as intended, a first-day promotion just shouldn't happen anymore. New players are going to be seeing their mastery going up and getting satisfaction from that, they don't need to go to PFC on the first day.

Don't think that high attrition is a result of this update - we've always had high attrition, it's a part of GMod, the eternal battle all GMod servers face is how to minimise that attrition.

 

[Eisenhower]

I agree, this is still something to be fixed, it is just hard to balance things when every time you nerf something there will always be one side who complains it's unfair. If I had my way helicopters and snipers would be seen way less frequently but then you'd have to see pilots slumming it on ground with the plebs, which apparently makes their regiment "useless" and therefore they don't like it.

So true. I swear the ratio of sniper to infantry is much higher on the server compared to real life.

but most of what you've expressed sounds like problems with the processes rather than the system itself.

Well, with the whole system - every time I have been regimental command or their equivalent on another server, my predecessor always put something in like Squads or Companies. Every single time, I have always removed them as I saw them fell into disuse or were simply redundant and fractionalized what were already small regiments. This is the main issue I wanted to point out in this thread but I think I got a little too lost. I would like Squads and Companies to work but from where I see it, there are many problems whether with the process or the system themselves and the old system was much more familiar and efficient to all players, whether new or old.

New players are going to be seeing their mastery going up and getting satisfaction from that, they don't need to go to PFC on the first day.

Merlin said earlier that: Right now the mastery system feels like a slow burn in terms of progression, and it's not massively prominent. "Just play more" really doesn't feel a good enough answer to "how do I get this job?". I don't know whether or not people receive satisfaction from leveling up in terms of Mastery but I do know promoting people works really well in terms of satisfaction. I feel that this encapsulates what new players may feel regarding the mastery system. The mastery system should be made clear with a board at trainee spawn or something.

 

[sahns]

. Something like making the work done in the previous rank count towards the next one, for example, so that tryouts aren't "wasted". What 1stAL did before it was forcefully removed was that if a MSGT did 8 tryouts before being promoted for whatever reason and his rank requirement was 2 tryouts and the next rank requirement was 4 tryouts, he wouldn't need to do another 4 tryouts. With the new rank skipping system, we could authorize a rankskip for the MSGT up 2 ranks for example as a reward for their efforts.

this sounds like you can just add a mandatory log system for 1stAL?

 

[Eisenhower]

this sounds like you can just add a mandatory log system for 1stAL?

Can't, got told I couldn't by several people that any and all rank requirements weren't allowed

 

[Merlin]

Just to be clear here - I think the old promotion system was worse than the current one. My own experience felt like we were being promoted through low ranks for no real reason, which turned it into a bit of a joke that detracts from RP. The previous system of having all the useful jobs locked behind CPL+ also made the enlisted ranks feel kinda impotent to play as. With the revisions there does seem to be more weight attached to each rank, so people are actually excited to get them. Nonetheless I think a little bit more granularity for the enlisted ranks might help people to feel like they're progressing even if they don't gain responsibilities with each step.

I actually like the probation period for PVTs, it does help to filter out users who play once and never return. This in turn avoids wasting too much effort in managing the paperwork.

If mastery is supposed to be more important than rank then I'd say it needs to be more visible. There's no mistaking that it's rank that gets displayed next to someone's name, not their mastery level. Beyond that, peacetimes still aren't seeing much RP and I believe that could be attributed to a lack of incentives to actually do things. At least for ISAF the primary mode of mastery XP gain in peacetime seems to be FOB shovelling. That's a critical (albeit dull) task, yet where are the rewards for hosting tryouts, training or delivering supplies? As was said, promotions are no longer locked behind these tasks so it'd be nice to give players some progression for getting involved.

The same goes for the squad system - it shouldn't be necessary to tab out of the game to find out who has been assigned to your squad today. Personally I don't see the squad units really taking off simply because gaming is not a full time job for most users. Which times everyone is online will never be consistent or predictable. If my guys are online I'll definitely have them in my fireteam, but in reality I've never seen more than half of my squad online at once. Some I never see at all.

 

[Eisenhower]

Just to be clear here - I think the old promotion system was worse than the current one. My own experience felt like we were being promoted through low ranks for no real reason, which turned it into a bit of a joke that detracts from RP. The previous system of having all the useful jobs locked behind CPL+ also made the enlisted ranks feel kinda impotent to play as. With the revisions there does seem to be more weight attached to each rank, so people are actually excited to get them. Nonetheless I think a little bit more granularity for the enlisted ranks might help people to feel like they're progressing even if they don't gain responsibilities with each step.

Yep, this is why I proposed in the suggestion to remove the distinction of "Squad Leader" and just add in one more CO rank to the current system. The low number of ranks will still allow for things such as probation period if the regiment so chooses and allow for much more distinction than the old system.

I actually like the probation period for PVTs, it does help to filter out users who play once and never return. This in turn avoids wasting too much effort in managing the paperwork.

Don't really see what paperwork there is to do with PVTs who don't come back. From my side, it is just kicking them after some days have passed.

Everything else, you said. I agree with.

 

[sahns]

Can't, got told I couldn't by several people that any and all rank requirements weren't allowed

You can just look at tryout logs and see who has done what.