New Squad System

[Houdini]

Squads are the foundation of battle nights. Without squads there is no FC. I would like to see a change in how we handle the creation and disbandment of squads. Currently the system for forming a new squad is "go talk to the FM" and there is very little structure involved in the squad formation policies. I would like to see a more vibrant squad culture were new squads are being created on a monthly basis. We have had the same handful of squads for a while now, and I think a more vibrant squad culture would benefit the community and encourage recruiting.


Houdini's Squad System:

I'm going to refer to the process of creating a new "official" squad as squad commissioning and the process of disbanding an "official" squad decommissioning. These terms are not really important, but I needed a way to identify the transitions between the active state and the inactive state.

Any group of players can form a squad by simply deciding to form a squad (no army declaration needed). On battle nights, any newly formed squad contacts either (or both) of the FMs indicating that they want to be involved in the Battle Night as an independent squad. The squad can choose which army they want to fight for or they can leave it to the FMs to assign them to an army (hopefully assigned with the intention of balancing numbers/skill). Any newly formed squads who are able to field a full team (no extras needed) on the battle night are then commissioned into the army they fought for and become an officially recognized squad.

Note, the requirements of becoming a squad will vary between battle nights. If we are playing a 4v4, and a squad can be formed with only 4 people. If we play a 8v8 (please not on MCC), a squad would need 8 people to become commissioned. These varying requirements are acceptable because the important thing on battle nights is having full teams. If a squad can put there name on the stat book as having a full team then they are commissioned. No questions asked. The squads designated CO (and optional XO) are given officer ranks and the squad is officially recognized with a forum in their respective army.

To maintain the commissioned status a squad must continue to field a full team on battle nights. If a squad for whatever reason is unable to field a full team (maybe they were commissioned with 4 people, but the next battle night is a 6v6 and they didn't recruit anybody during the week), that squad is put on probation. If the squad is able to field a full team during the second week, they are removed from probation. If a squad fails to field a full team for a second week (while they are on probation), that squad is then decommissioned. The officer ranks are eligible for demotion (up to the judgment of the FM) and the squad is no longer officially recognized with a fancy forum. The members of the decommissioned squad can have the option of joining a different squad, mixing with other members, forming a new squad, or simply re-forming the current squad as a noncommissioned squad.


Squad cannibalism is good and could even be encouraged. Squad cannibalism can be encouraged because there are three types of people who would be eligible for being "cannibalized":

1. People who are not satisfied with their current squad (leadership, culture, other)
These people should be encouraged to leave and try their own thing. Maybe the will create the next best thing for FC, or maybe they will fail and will ultimately come back to their original squad with a newfound appreciation for the hard work the CO/XO put in to keep the squad functional. Either way, them leaving to try their own thing was good for the community and good for the squad they left.

2. People who think they can have more fun elsewhere
Above all, we are suppose to be having fun. Video games are suppose to be fun. If somebody isn't having fun for whatever reason, they should be given the freedom to go and do something else.

3. People who think they can do a better job
If somebody thinks they can do a better job leading a squad, we want them to try it out. If they are the next great leader for Forerunner Conflict, they should be given the opportunity to prove themselves. Worst case, they aren't as good as they thought and they can come home with newfound experience and appreciation for the effort required to keep a squad running.


This type of squad culture will require people to be flexible with making friends and to accept that people may want to break off of their current squad, try something new, and then come home. There should be no judgement or hard feelings about people trying something and then coming back to their original squad.

A squad is not limited to a single team on battle nights. If some squad has enough members to field 2 teams on battle nights, they are welcome (and encouraged to do so). Fielding multiple teams simply means that the current mix of leadership and culture is working well and people are happy with being in that squad. Squads fielding multiple teams have no advantage over squads meeting the minimum requirements for squad commissioning.

A squad is never forced to accept new members; however, it doesn't make a lot of sense to deny somebody the opportunity to play with you.That said, squads should always reserve the right to deny membership on any grounds they so choose.

A team playing on battle night is always eligible for commissioning, but that team is not required to do so. An example of this is the mix squads. If the mix doesn't want to commission after the battle night, they can can continue with their current squads or remain as freelancers (for either army).


Advantages:

Flexible Army Membership:
One of the biggest advantages of this system is that players who do not have a strong affiliation with an army can elect to form a squad without an army preference. The squad can be put in the army that needs them most when Battle Night rotations are set up. This will be much more effective than the "oh well, let's talk about it in war council and fix it for next week" solution that we use frequently when numbers issues come up during a Battle Night. We would be able to fix issues on the fly during any battle night provided there was a new squad being formed that week.

Flexible Squad Culture:
People who like trying new things and aren't sure what type of squad culture they most desire would be able to enter the squad commissioning process and possibly join a new squad on a monthly basis until they find the perfect fit.

New Friendships:
Players can meet up and form squads with anybody from either army. Not everybody will want to make new friends, but when new recruits join the community who may not have as many friends as some of the veterans, they can hop around squads meeting new people (if they so desire).

Recruiting:
Recruiting would be highly encouraged in this system. Anybody who wants to become a squad leader need only recruit 3 friends and show up to a 4v4 battle night. This would be a huge benefit to the community since we are suffering so heavily with respect to numbers. It makes sense to reward the most active recruiters with leadership positions (if they want them).


Disadvantages:

Army/Squad Loyally: (Is this really a disadvantage?)
Players would no longer have a strong loyalty to their squad or army. They can simply elect to form a new squad and enter the commissioning process with a brand new squad and possibly a brand new army. This is in conflict of the current system which encourages squad loyalty and army commitment.

Book Keeping:
This isn't super challenging. A simple table or even just looking at the stat book would be enough to determine which squads were either commissioned, in probation, or disbanded. That said, somebody (or a group of people) would need to be responsible for keeping track of this which would be additional work not currently done in the community.

Historical Squads:
Squads which were once active, but are no longer active would not be able to sit around as official squads without demonstrating activity. Inactive members in inactive squads would not be members of officially commissioned squads. Obviously this will make people upset, but we should be focusing on best serving the active community members who attend battle nights. Inactive community members can always claim to be a member of an inactive squad, but they will not be officially commissioned if that squad is not attending battle nights.


The value of being a commissioned squad may not be clear yet, I'm working on a part two which will elaborate on changes that could be made to make squad commissioning more attractive, but I think this squad system could work as is without the need for additional benefits for commissioned squads.

[Barry Soap]

Hm... This is a very unique idea, and I could give it endless kudos. I am always willing to lead a squad to aid the numbers for a community, and while I think this idea would work, maybe it's just down to the difficult perquisites for creating a squad and the lack of members willing to accept the responsibility for 8~ other people.

[silversleek]

we used to actually give names to mixes if they were even enough, so this would kind of be like that. Except, we didn't change ranks based on that because that would be a headache to keep track of, and it only lasted the battlenight. I think we should just do that. No more "Redd mix", let's make a "dark legacy" or "equitor" team or something.

I don't think that should be a permanent thing though, it would cause major headaches for the guys in leadership. Oh, do i contact "guy A" about that group of people? no, he's just a grunt with group B now, We really need to talk to "Guy B", but he's only in charge of part of that group you wanted to talk to, maybe get in touch with "guy c" as well, and one of them might have gone with "guy D's" group as well.

[Solus Exsequor]

I think normally FMs are contacted so that the squad can have their space on the forums. I think the way we have it right now works really well, it's organised and runs smoothly.

[Nicholas Sapien]

What's the point of armies then?

I like the current system and I'll say why when I reach a computer

[NervyDestroyer]

I like the idea up until you start talking about freelancing. FC advertises itself as a Warsim with armies. Freelancing kinda defeats that purpose. Now I'm all for a looser interpretation of "Warsim" where army leaders aren't so damn condescending to recruits and don't just magically expect this super level of respect. There is the other extreme though. Removing the armies from the equation kinda defeats the entire purpose of FC and what makes it so attractive to recruits. If an army is faltering in numbers on a BN, a squad from the other army temporarily transfers to the other army for the night. I like the system we have now. Squads should be willing to fight for the other army to keep BN moving smoothly. We don't need freelancers. Other than that, everything you just suggested was perfect. I do that kind of thing with Renegade. Ranks are given based on dedication. Higher ranks should be difficult to get. Making a squad is not easy. Maintaining a squad is even harder. I like this system minus the freelancer shtuff

[Nicholas Sapien]

I like the idea up until you start talking about freelancing. FC advertises itself as a Warsim with armies. Freelancing kinda defeats that purpose. Now I'm all for a looser interpretation of "Warsim" where army leaders aren't so damn condescending to recruits and don't just magically expect this super level of respect. There is the other extreme though. Removing the armies from the equation kinda defeats the entire purpose of FC and what makes it so attractive to recruits. If an army is faltering in numbers on a BN, a squad from the other army temporarily transfers to the other army for the night. I like the system we have now. Squads should be willing to fight for the other army to keep BN moving smoothly. We don't need freelancers. Other than that, everything you just suggested was perfect. I do that kind of thing with Renegade. Ranks are given based on dedication. Higher ranks should be difficult to get. Making a squad is not easy. Maintaining a squad is even harder. I like this system minus the freelancer shtuff

Agree with nervy

It defeats the whole army system
Mixing people up for battles isn't bad, but only if there isn't enough to make a squad fully of its members.
I don't mind people becoming squad leaders, the day they join. They deserve the rank if they can keep and maintain a full squad. They would be treated the same if other clans would have joined.

[Houdini]

Hm... This is a very unique idea, and I could give it endless kudos. I am always willing to lead a squad to aid the numbers for a community, and while I think this idea would work, maybe it's just down to the difficult perquisites for creating a squad and the lack of members willing to accept the responsibility for 8~ other people.

How are the prerequisites to difficult? Aren't these the lowest prerequisites possible? All you need is a team for the battle night; however many people that may be (probably 4, but up to 6).

I'm pretty sure there are enough people to accept the responsibility since we already have squads. This would only impact the creation of new squads moving forward so the people who want to try their hand at squad leadership have a clear system for which to do it (get friends, show up to Battle Night)

[Houdini]

we used to actually give names to mixes if they were even enough, so this would kind of be like that. Except, we didn't change ranks based on that because that would be a headache to keep track of, and it only lasted the battlenight. I think we should just do that. No more "Redd mix", let's make a "dark legacy" or "equitor" team or something.

This would be very similar to the old mix names, but would allow those formed mixes to stick together and become and official squad if they desired. The idea is to lower the barrier of entry for making squads.



I don't think that should be a permanent thing though, it would cause major headaches for the guys in leadership. Oh, do i contact "guy A" about that group of people? no, he's just a grunt with group B now, We really need to talk to "Guy B", but he's only in charge of part of that group you wanted to talk to, maybe get in touch with "guy c" as well, and one of them might have gone with "guy D's" group as well.

I don't see how it would be any more of a headache than we currently deal with. You look at the stat book for the person in charge of that squad and then send them the invite. Where exactly is this different than the current system with regard to the scheduling headache?

[silversleek]

I don't see how it would be any more of a headache than we currently deal with. You look at the stat book for the person in charge of that squad and then send them the invite. Where exactly is this different than the current system with regard to the scheduling headache?

you only have to do that once, and then you know the squad leader, rather than having to do that every single time.

[Houdini]

What's the point of armies then?

What's the point of the armies currently? They provide structure for the squads and organization.

The only change with respect to armies is that there would be much more flexible membership. Instead of switching armies at peacetime or during life or death squad transfers. The perceived issues could be addressed more quickly. If somebody doesn't agree with the army leadership or is tired of waiting for battle nights -> Find some friends forum a new squad swap armies.

[Houdini]

I like the idea up until you start talking about freelancing. FC advertises itself as a Warsim with armies. Freelancing kinda defeats that purpose. Now I'm all for a looser interpretation of "Warsim" where army leaders aren't so damn condescending to recruits and don't just magically expect this super level of respect. There is the other extreme though. Removing the armies from the equation kinda defeats the entire purpose of FC and what makes it so attractive to recruits.

Are we really so attractive to recruits right now? I thought we had a recruitment issue.


If an army is faltering in numbers on a BN, a squad from the other army temporarily transfers to the other army for the night. I like the system we have now. Squads should be willing to fight for the other army to keep BN moving smoothly. We don't need freelancers. Other than that, everything you just suggested was perfect. I do that kind of thing with Renegade. Ranks are given based on dedication. Higher ranks should be difficult to get. Making a squad is not easy. Maintaining a squad is even harder. I like this system minus the freelancer shtuff

I understand where you are coming from with the freelancer stuff (although I didn't think that would be an issue since we kinda did the same thing last war with squads and players playing for whatever army needed it). I think it would be nice to standardize a procedure for substitutions (since they were frequently needed last war) so it isn't a big deal to make it happen on the fly. Especially since I think it would be better to have the squad just join the other army if they are going to be playing for them. Is it really fair to expect people to play their hardest for an army they aren't affiliated with?

[VerbotenDonkey]

What's the point of the armies currently? They provide structure for the squads and organization.

The only change with respect to armies is that there would be much more flexible membership. Instead of switching armies at peacetime or during life or death squad transfers. The perceived issues could be addressed more quickly. If somebody doesn't agree with the army leadership or is tired of waiting for battle nights -> Find some friends forum a new squad swap armies.

This forms an issue of mob-mentality where, what's stopping everyone from one army from switching sides when they're losing just because they want to be on the winning side?

[Nicholas Sapien]

This forms an issue of mob-mentality where, what's stopping everyone from one army from switching sides when they're losing just because they want to be on the winning side?

^that

Is being part of the armies and wars, one of our special selling features for recruitment?

[Houdini]

This forms an issue of mob-mentality where, what's stopping everyone from one army from switching sides when they're losing just because they want to be on the winning side?

I'm hoping the spirit of trying to keep this community alive?

I guess I'm expecting people to be more willing to want to switch to help the losing army than jumping ship.

I feel like we should be working towards a community were people aren't afraid of being on the losing army side because they will still be having fun. I think the fact that this could be an issue reveals a lot of problems we have.

[Houdini]

Is being part of the armies and wars, one of our special selling features for recruitment?

Sure. There are a lot of selling points. I think the two big ones are fun and respect.


Apparently, I'm not being very clear.

I have no intention or desire to abolish the army system. I like the armies. I'm trying to motivate new squads to be formed for the armies, but allowing the new squads to be sent to the army that needs them most at the time of battle nights. The jumping squads and flexible army membership I talk about is intended for people who don't know where they want to be so instead of giving them a single choice to live with for x number of weeks or even months they can switch more frequently until they find a home. I don't think the people who are happy with their current squads and armies should be switching unless they want to try something new, in which case, what argument is there supporting forcing people to stick with something they don't like when they want to try something new?

[Legendary Nova]

I'm hoping the spirit of trying to keep this community alive?

I guess I'm expecting people to be more willing to want to switch to help the losing army than jumping ship.

I feel like we should be working towards a community were people aren't afraid of being on the losing army side because they will still be having fun. I think the fact that this could be an issue reveals a lot of problems we have.

Unfortunately, whenever recruiting comes into play with one of these suggestions, you have to assume that every new recruit is going to be an asshole and try to break the system. No offence to anyone, but you always need to plan for recruits (and just members in general) to be the absolute worst they can be. This is where your idea falls apart. It's pretty sad to say it, but you can't ever rely on someone to uphold 'community spirit' if it means they have to sacrifice personal gain... :(

I really hate to see so many of your ideas shot down, Houdini... It's obvious that you're really trying to help this community and I applaud you for that. It's just a shame that so many perfect-in-theory suggestions get broken down from a practical standpoint.

[Solus Exsequor]

[QUOTE=Houdini;171811]Are we really so attractive to recruits right now? I thought we had a recruitment issue.[QUOTE/]



We have a recruitment issue because people are too lazy to get off their ass and dedicate a night to recruiting. We don't have that same drive anymore to get new people in. I think somewhere along the line we got lazy because FC always had people and we though it wouldn't ever come to this if we stopped recruiting.

[Anarchy]

We have a recruitment issue because people are too lazy to get off their ass and dedicate a night to recruiting. We don't have that same drive anymore to get new people in. I think somewhere along the line we got lazy because FC always had people and we though it wouldn't ever come to this if we stopped recruiting.

That, or people are too jaded from being told they're lazy with no drive to care about anything at all.

It's amazing what people can do when they want to do it and have the motivation. But recruiting people to a place supposedly ran on "Fun" and "Respect" where they don't have fun, and aren't given respect is hard to do. Even harder if you're the one trying to spin that story for them.

[Silko]

That, or people are too jaded from being told they're lazy with no drive to care about anything at all.

It's amazing what people can do when they want to do it and have the motivation. But recruiting people to a place supposedly ran on "Fun" and "Respect" where they don't have fun, and aren't given respect is hard to do. Even harder if you're the one trying to spin that story for them.

Or perhaps someone is filling their heads with BS and trying to take people away from the community.....

[Anarchy]

Or perhaps someone is filling their heads with BS and trying to take people away from the community.....

Whatever helps you guys sleep at night. I haven't talked to a single soul inside of FC. People make decisions entirely of their own volition.

[Silko]

Whatever helps you guys sleep at night. I haven't talked to a single soul inside of FC. People make decisions entirely of their own volition.

What ever you say bud

[Ominous Solace]

Hey guys, let's take this portion of the conversation to a PM. This thread was designed to be constructive for the community and I would like it to stay that way. Hope you all understand. Thank you in advance.

[Fuzzy]

But recruiting people to a place supposedly ran on "Fun" and "Respect" where they don't have fun, and aren't given respect is hard to do. Even harder if you're the one trying to spin that story for them.

I have fun and am given respect, I do not know what you are talking about.

Anarchy no one is forcing you to stay in FC, I understand you have a hidden agenda but your posts recently have been jarring especially for a veteran of the community who should be setting an example for members and leaders alike.

[Anarchy]

I have fun and am given respect, I do not know what you are talking about.

Anarchy no one is forcing you to stay in FC, I understand you have a hidden agenda but your posts recently have been jarring especially for a veteran of the community who should be setting an example for members and leaders alike.

My point was to make the experience fun so people are actually happy to be here, and the recruits will come. Not guilt-trip people into recruiting.

If you can't take that advice, then so be it, die by your pride. Make this about something it isn't. Whatever gets you from today until tomorrow feeling satisfied. But many are not satisfied, and haven't been for a long time, and it never gets addressed correctly. The drama and disatisfaction FC puts itself through is not natural. It is not normal for communities to have that. The example I am setting is to address what the real issue is and make things more about fun, and less about empire building. FC has smaller numbers than ever before, so what? The goal should be for those of us here to have fun and the rest can come after much more easily.

I made one point that is actually quite valid in many people's mind. Instead you talk of hidden agendas and wonder why people don't feel as though you, and other leaders, care about the real issues.

[silversleek]

Final warning, get back on topic. This isn't the place for these kinds of things.

[NervyDestroyer]

Drop it all of you. Get back on topic. We have heard both sides and will interpret it. Let's not get carried away.

[Maxdoggy]

I'm not sure how this Squad System will play out. It seems like a bunch of conflicting ideas/half-remedies to me. Granted, some of the ideas I like but I'm not sure how putting it into practice will affect everything.

Way too many puzzle pieces IMO. If we try some steps first instead of all at one time we might get better results.

[PhoenixPrime]

I'm with Max. I'm all about innovation, but this just seems a bit too out there to keep in check and track. I like the more generalized route of squad creation, but it's too loose to provide a consistent experience every week.

[Houdini]

Unfortunately, whenever recruiting comes into play with one of these suggestions, you have to assume that every new recruit is going to be an asshole and try to break the system. No offence to anyone, but you always need to plan for recruits (and just members in general) to be the absolute worst they can be. This is where your idea falls apart. It's pretty sad to say it, but you can't ever rely on someone to uphold 'community spirit' if it means they have to sacrifice personal gain... :(

What would you say if there were additional restrictions on between army transfers (complete elimination or requiring between army transfer to only be allowed be sent to the army losing/with the fewest people)?

I feel like balancing personal gain is non-trivial, yet solvable problem. If the incentives and regulations are balanced appropriately then people's personal gain can be tied to the community's gain.



I really hate to see so many of your ideas shot down, Houdini... It's obvious that you're really trying to help this community and I applaud you for that. It's just a shame that so many perfect-in-theory suggestions get broken down from a practical standpoint.

I get use to it. But don't worry. I'm not stopping anytime soon. As long as peacetime goes on I'll keep posting ideas and trying to get discussion going. As I said more elaborately in a previous suggestion, last war wasn't fun for me personally. So I'm going to do everything in my power (read post suggestions) to make the war fun for me. If a other people end up enjoying the next war more too it is a win-win situation.

- - - Updated - - -


I'm not sure how this Squad System will play out. It seems like a bunch of conflicting ideas/half-remedies to me. Granted, some of the ideas I like but I'm not sure how putting it into practice will affect everything.

Way too many puzzle pieces IMO. If we try some steps first instead of all at one time we might get better results.

I'm perfectly happy with taking it one step at a time. What ideas do you think should have the most priority?

As an aside, if it seems like this isn't an entirely complete idea that is correct. There is a part two that I'm working on related to squads. Instead of having a giant discussion about the entire idea I thought it would be best to focus on the two parts that are disjoint, yet related (squad formation, squad value).

- - - Updated - - -


I'm with Max. I'm all about innovation, but this just seems a bit too out there to keep in check and track. I like the more generalized route of squad creation, but it's too loose to provide a consistent experience every week.

Is the goal to provide a consistent experience every week? I personally would be okay with a less consistent experience if it was more fun (or the fun was consistent).

[MorphEEus II]

Arent there mercenaries in war, what if there where squads that instead of having to be paid for, tranfer them to the army that needs it that way it still feels like a war sim, if we use our imagination a bit then we can at least implement some of houdinis ideas. Imaaginatioon.

[Nicholas Sapien]

Arent there mercenaries in war, what if there where squads that instead of having to be paid for, tranfer them to the army that needs it that way it still feels like a war sim, if we use our imagination a bit then we can at least implement some of houdinis ideas. Imaaginatioon.

The idea of mercenaries has been tossed around and disregarded for a long time...since Halo reach, maybe before but the earliest I remember is during the reach wars

I am slightly against it, but it could be made to where I might agree with it.

[UnfoldedFreedom]

i'm down for a mercenary squad, gotta give everyone a lovely experience in FC hehehe.

[MorphEEus II]

The idea of mercenaries has been tossed around and disregarded for a long time...since Halo reach, maybe before but the earliest I remember is during the reach wars

I am slightly against it, but it could be made to where I might agree with it.

Right on man we could do a test run for halo 5 so it wouldn't just be a change made for a war, but a tryout during a beta war or something.

[PhoenixPrime]

Is the goal to provide a consistent experience every week? I personally would be okay with a less consistent experience if it was more fun (or the fun was consistent).



That's precisely it. We want it to be fun, and reliable, and therein lies the problem.




The idea of mercenaries has been tossed around and disregarded for a long time...since Halo reach, maybe before but the earliest I remember is during the reach wars

I am slightly against it, but it could be made to where I might agree with it.

Problem with mercenaries with our current population number is that we just can't handle that much shifting number, coupled with the fact that, should the mercenary squad be really good, an army would be outnumbered AND outgunned quite quickly.

[Houdini]

Arent there mercenaries in war, what if there where squads that instead of having to be paid for, tranfer them to the army that needs it that way it still feels like a war sim, if we use our imagination a bit then we can at least implement some of houdinis ideas. Imaaginatioon.

What is the difference between a "freelancer/flexible army membership" and a "mercenary"?

I'm all for both systems but we need to clarify what the difference would be to have a clear discussion.

[Houdini]

Problem with mercenaries with our current population number is that we just can't handle that much shifting number, coupled with the fact that, should the mercenary squad be really good, an army would be outnumbered AND outgunned quite quickly.

I would argue that the current population is exactly the reason why we would need a mercenary system. Last war we had significant issues with players and squads playing for the other army on battle nights because numbers were such an problem.

Some sort of mercenary system would simply codify what conditions would determine which side needed the help instead of more 'panicked' system of "swap colors to the game can start".

[Silko]

GREEN Army is willing to provide mercenary support for any army for the right price ;)

[Solus Exsequor]

Our current population is exactly why we shouldn't do this. I don't see why anyone is suggesting otherwise. At least with standard squad within armies we know which army has what numbers. Mercenary squads will simply just mean that it's easier for armies to lose people.

[Houdini]

Our current population is exactly why we shouldn't do this. I don't see why anyone is suggesting otherwise. At least with standard squad within armies we know which army has what numbers. Mercenary squads will simply just mean that it's easier for armies to lose people.

I guess I don't really understand this perspective. What would you call the players and squads who would jump armies on battle nights to play for the other army last war? We did temporary transfers last war with the current population, we just didn't have an official system that formally allowed players to play for the opposing army.

I don't see how an "official" mercenary system is any different than the unofficial system we were just using. (Except that it would be standardized and we would be able to more closely ensure fairness.)

[Nicholas Sapien]

I guess I don't really understand this perspective. What would you call the players and squads who would jump armies on battle nights to play for the other army last war? We did temporary transfers last war with the current population, we just didn't have an official system that formally allowed players to play for the opposing army.

I don't see how an "official" mercenary system is any different than the unofficial system we were just using. (Except that it would be standardized and we would be able to more closely ensure fairness.)

It shouldn't have even been done in the beginning, the night should have just ended and WC should have had a serious meeting afterwards.

[Houdini]

It shouldn't have even been done in the beginning, the night should have just ended and WC should have had a serious meeting afterwards.

I think the goal is to not have battle nights cancelled. If we can have a system that eliminates (or at least reduces) the need to end battle nights then I don't see a reason not to pursue it.

An official system would allow for discussion to solidify when it is justified and when it is not justified to end a battle night early and to hopefully allow for more structure in the event that these types of situations arise in the future. It is much easier to plan ahead than it is to adjust on the fly.