Rejigged the attachments slightly. The main heli pilot needs 5 people to be allowed, the crew chief needs 8, and neither take up an attachment slot. The slot system now gives the first slot at 9 players, the next at 16 and then free reign at 23. This means that the heli is basically the first attachment available and still makes an effort to keep fragmentation down, and the first slot count can be raised and the slot gaps taken down if this is still a problem.

FST is now a general combat support team, with integrated sniper team and logistics team. This should hopefully mean the FST is no longer complete cancer that mortars civilian towns every 5 minutes and instead has the capability to pursue a wider range of tasks. Logitechs were put into the fst because it’s a noncombat slot drain if it’s in the heli crew and doesn’t take an attachment slot. It also saves the sniper team from becoming a complete waste of a slot, and encourages them to work in the FST to provide precise fire when needed in line with normal COIN usage. The sniper still needs a spotter to operate. This is all a bit dumb still since that means the only 2 attachments currently available are FST and plane (cas planes and transport/paradrop planes), but I’m working on a viable implementation of the armour crew and once ACE gets its shit together we may have a working indirect fire team of some description now that the objectives are hidden and they can’t just blat things at will. Now that we have a working attachment counting system we can open up the variety of available attachments.

I realised another thing that causes issues a lot, which is that the FST is often barely manned. Given that it’s now an 8 man attachment, you now need at least 4 people in the fst to function. This means people will actually form a viable support force beforehand rather than spawning alone/in pair and either faffing about or just becoming part of the main sections. The alternative to being an 8 man attachment was fst and then sniper/logistics being together which is dumb, or them all being separate which is still dumb. I’m pretty confident that it’ll work out.

PSA: ACRE’s method of switching short range radio channels is a bit crap and doesn’t always work. If you’re in a section and you feel like you’re missing out on information, make sure you’re on the same radio channel as your buddies.

With regards to the vote, I would be interested on hearing peoples reasons for voting the way they choose. Personally, I am more likely to go on public if there are other people on there. In that regard, events are quite useful as they offer a co-ordinated time where can get quite a few people on together.

Good point, extra option added, everyone feel free to switch to that if it aligns more with what you feel

I feel that people being on and there being an event is my fusion vote there.

Regarding the FST (as someone who uses it a lot and enjoy it). I disagree that you need at least 4 people in the FST to be viable. I think that it scales well with the number of players in the mission and with the map. If you are on a small map or one with good positions for an FST (CLAFGAN, Takistan etc) then it can be viable to just have a 2 man FAC team. In fact, given that the attachment system seems to have better functionality now, I would go so far as to say that having someone in the FAC slot should be a requirement for the fast air (as it used to be).

At times, you can viably act in proximity/on patrol with the sections in a 2/3 man team as you have access to equipment that the regular sections cant/dont want to carry around e.g Heavy AT, AA etc.Even as a sniper or GPMG team in an urban environment you can viably work. I think to restrict it to only being 4 players and above is a little extreme.

That's the point chaza, leaving attachments to extreme cases that require teamwork as a prerequisite to even starting, and normalising regular infantry. Now that all the individual roles of each attachment are tested and fleshed out there's no need to have them so easily available. This has been months in the making and it's not done yet, but it should be clear by now that twc's ethos revolves around sections first, attachments second.

Of course, I totally agree with that.

Maybe I have mis-interpreted the post. Are you saying that you need to have 4 people IN the FST for it to work/allow you to leave base, or are you saying that you need 4 people on the server before you can join the FST in any slot?

Ta

4 people in the fst, just like armour crew needs 3. That means commander, fac and sniper team/commander, assistant for javelins and a logistics team, or a standard fst layout of commander, 2 assistants and the fac. With a full fst section of 8 blokes the fst becomes a full support group, where the fac could work in one place with an assistant since he has a long range, the commander can operate in another with another assistant, the sniper team again since it has a long range, and a separate logistics team with access to a prc148. It's a very powerful group if teamwork is used, hence the prerequisite for a commander to actually get people together in the first place.

And what I am saying is that I think 4 people is overkill. You can have a viable attachment with two people e.g just a sniper team on their own, a two man FAC Team. The good thing about the FST is that it scales well (unlike a section).

I think this comes back to the point raised a few weeks ago about walking the line between enforcing discipline/common sense vs limitations that Jazza was talking about.

Of course the sections should be padded out sufficiently, and that will alway be core. This is reinforced by having a requirement to have 9 people on to start filling the FST. I agree with that, I dont think having a 4 man team should be the minimum however. It is unnecessary, especially given the numbers we regularly get on the server (~12 ish people)

edit: To clarify, I think adding the sniper team + Logistics into the FST is a great idea. As has been shown a few times, the Coyote has great Logistic capibility and has been used viably on the public a few times.

Again, being overkill is the point. If getting a group of 4 is that difficult then there are other issues at play. As I said, there's a ton of potential and variety in each role within it, getting it active will not be a problem if someone puts the effort in to coordinate it.

I'll also point out that the playercount for the attachment slot includes the new spawn, so there only needs to be 5 people for 4 to join in as an FST and play.

I don't understand what you mean by "being overkill". If you have a section clearing a town, having a sniper team or a GPMG team cover from the hill does not seem overkill at all. It is less overkill than having a CAS wildcat at their beck and call.

If you are concerned about the utilisation/co-ordination of the FST, then I would reccommend a requirement for either the FST commander, FAC or Spotter (on command net) to be online. That would be mroe sensible/appropriate

I can see where Chaza is coming from, he is talking about if there is 2 people in Alpha having an FST of 2 people is viable, mainly for the access to other/more equipment

That's exactly the kind of fragmentation I'm trying to stop. Fill sections first, then attachments.Having the first attachment slot as low as 9 players is already on the line of being too early, and I'd be raising it even higher if it weren't for the 4 man requirement inside the fst.

The alternative would be to force filling the sections before attachments open, but people are scared of command roles already and forcing people who join late to take them is not the answer. Not to mention I have no idea how such a system could be made given the game's current limitations.

The number of squad infantry playing to be able to open up the FST is one thing, and having 4/5 for that is I think as low as it should be, so that the guys doing the leg work aren't under strength while gpmg or sniper cover off from a nearby BoF.

Needing 4 people in the team before they can do anything though seems high to me, a low player count fire support team (statics or even the now rolled in sniper team only need 2 guys, commander and a gunner (sniper and spotter) both these functions of the rolled in FST work with at least two people, 3 is even better but by no means required for effective function (since when did sniper team need a commander or ammo donkey?) My points there apply to the FST as it was, the fact the sniper team now falls under the same bracket only emphasises that a minimum group player count of 4 is too much.

edit: It seems I didn't pick up correctly on the 5 + 4 = 9 thing but that really wasn't related to my above other than a medium-decent strength squad can use an FST so a light weight fst could perhaps use a similarly adjusted player count requirement - mostly full squad (6+) then fst+2 for example

Sorry if I am confusing this. If there are two people in alpha (at the time of joining) then you shoudnt be able to join the FST.

If you have a full section, then in the current system you need to get 4 people before you can join. Otherwise you have to join another section (fragmentation) or not join at all if you cant get the 4 people, which I would say is common.

The 9 player limit effectively does force filling the sections before the attachment opens. If you are worried about fragmentation and disorganisation, then force the radio roles in the FST to be filled first. Having a 2 man team supporting a section is the better alternative. You do not need to be at least 4 men to be an effective FST, especially given how the FST is even more hybrid.

Again, low player count FST shouldn't exist anymore now that testing for their equipment is complete. The group count limit is there to make sure an actual team gets put together instead of random spawns, just like an armour crew or sniper team.

Sniper team doesn't need a commander or donkey, just like FAC doesn't need ammo or a commander, commander doesn't need an assistant, and a platoon doesn't need an FST.

@Chaza it's impossible to put 4 people in the FST without someone filling a long range slot, and it's taxing to put in a check for certain roles within the group as part of the restriction.

The 9th man is why I'm considering raising it higher to get a second section filled, but again the 4 man restriction should be enough to keep fst to dedicated teams for the moment.

There's more chance of deleting the fst entirely than opening it up, since that would then be more effective at funnelling the playerbase into regular roles, it causes enough issues already with people rolling in destroying buildings and tanking civilian morale. The issue there is that the 2ic would be the one that gets access to the statics/soflam at certain playercounts, which would make them more common. The way it is now is that the FST would be very uncommon, which, again, is the point.

I think it would be better to address issues with the FST than just kicking the can down the road by making it unaccessible. By saying that you need 2 sections filled, it will basically never be used unless there is a drastic change to public server attendance. 16 players is the top I have seen on infrequent weekend/friday play sessions. I understand you want to drive peopel to the sections, but by having 3 extra pople knocking around, that's not going to give you 2 full sections.

I also think that by extension, removing it would be a bad idea. It is a popular attachment that drives people to the public server, and when used correctly it is a force multiplier that also supports and helps the sections function in their own right. It is also a reasonably factually accurate and accessible attachment, unlike fast air for example. Having 2ic's run around with statics and Soflams and stingers is not. The sections should be focusing on the section things. We shouldnt try and turn them into some god tier SF do it all group.

And again, the FST is not like an armour crew or attack heli. It works with two/three players as a dedicated team just fine in some instances. Locking it to require 4 people would just be the nail in the coffin for it, which again would be dissapointing given that it has been shown to be effective and exciting in the right circumstances. Allow the usage of the FST to be self-regulating through common sense, not by locking it to oblivion and hoping that it magically enables the sections to fill up and then find 4 people to form a team off-server that may not even be needed because the mission parameters don't dictate it.

Chaza, please stop.
Yours and Hobbs last few posts are just getting increasingly polarised and I feel my attempt at valid contribution has just been overlooked in the mess of it.
All you are doing is confusing and dragging out an argument. This stuff is far better done in teamspeak like nice organised people where misunderstanding and miscommunication is easily stomped out.

I agree that it should be discussed as it feels a little knee jerk, I just wanted this discussion in the oublic forum so that others can contribute their opinion.

Will follow this up another time

I do not want to be in danger of reigniting this discussion or come across as though I am giving a proposal...

Although interestingly, smaller sections of 5 people have been used for Insurgency missions in the past. I am not sure as to why this was changed but I can certainly see the merits of having each type of section. Those types being the 5 man sections and the 8/9 man sections.

This being perhaps a merit of smaller sections. I feel that individuals (I know I am included in this) would be more comfortable gaining command role experience by taking command of a smaller size section before attempting to take control of a "full" size section. I am sure there are some arguments to be made here about the 2iC role but my aim of this post is not to get into too much detail with regards to this.

I am not advocating either way but I think that methods of getting more people comfortable in command roles would be a good thing to explore.

Join earlier, frostys leading a 4 man team right now