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.

[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)

[silversleek(GEN)]

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.

[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(GEN)]

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.

[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

[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.

[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?