In this match we played Sqad Death match for the firstt time. We played two rounds with 4 squads of 3.

The squad I was on didnt win either round but was close in the first round. The second round Kitty camped with the tank but it proved to be a flawed tatic in this game mode. It was fun, but I must admit I like the games with objectives in them better.

Then some more people showed up and we played Rush with cold war. As defense in the first round we held our ground and concentrated on holding 'A' and let 'B' fall to the attackers. In the second round as attackers we concentrated everything on the primary objective A. B would fall later by destructing the building. Once we got the momentum, it must have been hard to stop our advance as it seemed we rolled through the other objectives.

Sorry I dont have the screen shots. If someone captured them please attach to this thread.

gg's, had fun, nice turn out

Are we live???

I have this figured out for next time btw! Well, I think I do... will need to discuss with a few people to verify a few things. The "are we live" will be history!!!

I dont get it the reference to "Are we live???" in this thread. someone clue me in .

The are we live comment. - Second round Rush: Hatchet's team, didnt know the round was live upon start so some were afk and or standing in the base anticipating instructions. Though I'm sure there was chat text warning us of a start, many of us were caught off guard.

- Not that the above would have mattered much as our team had NO strategy, and were out gunned.

Venting: As in our UrT scrims the community adheres to this crap rule Frog and I cannot be on the same team. I must admit this is getting old for many reasons mainly, as this example rings out weekly, in our UrT scrims and is now filtering into Bc2.
- Love ya Hatchet but I'm using you as an example for I know you can handle it:
-- Hatchet is the captain, stating once teams were divided: "Frog was the first pick so I had to pick DankRider so you guy's wouldn't be on the same team. Its a Rule" Then Stating: "I have to go AFK but Dank if you will lay out the strats that would be great, I will be back in a bit"
--- Speaking for myself: I'm willing to help out but, when folk are being malicious trying to separate frog and I simply out of spite forget about it. Especially when there are players, in my opinion that are better or equal gunners, with equal or better game awareness. As a result of keeping frog and I Separate, our team was purely out-gunned with no strategy, leaving our opponent stacked.

---- Simply Put mainly for the UrT folks: Frog and I try to help folks with strats ever week. Many Instead of learning how to establish your own strats based on experience working with us, we have become a crutch. And an abused Crutch at that, as Hatchet is not the only one adhering to the rule Frog and Dank Cannot be on the same team.
---- Lastly: My frustration is not purely based on not being able to play on frogs team. The frustration is when players adhere to this rule when it clouds judgment not picking players based on skill keeping us separate as a rule, expecting us to establish strats.
---- This above example as stated rings out in our UrT scrims, often times back firing as one team is stacked due to un-orderly skill based picks.

Done Venting:

o.k.. I get the 'are we live' comment now.... duh... it is in reference in the map change and the time needed to plan your stategy for the round. I will do my best to make sure that this does not happen again. before each round we need an affimative between the captains to start.

Dank, let me propose to obolish any implied teaming rules that may exist.... it should be up to the captains to make their pick and let the chips fall where they may.

In regard to Dank's post...
I have seen it happen, and seen the reverse happen (someone will ignore, perhaps, better choices in favor of having both on their team). At the same time, choosing a player simply for their shooting skills or strategy skills and then not building the proper team to support that choice.. lol... This, of course, leads to a bigger debate: Are some people not good choices for being a captain? And then further: How intrusive should a facilitator be? This past weekend, I stepped in, and while my solution was shot down with an interesting (and just!) counter argument/reason, I then provided a solution that seemed to assuage things somewhat; the subsequent game was actually very good. Point being, it can be a very fine line that even if toed can result in players who step up to captain being a bit upset... which could lead to those players opting to not captain again? Like I said- fine line.

In the first rounds- Squad Deathmatch- I simply assembled teams. I had a great time, though my choice of tank use obviously hurt us in the second round. In the second round, I saw that teams were lopsided, but after the weekend's events, I opted to ignore it, and see what would happen. Mistake? Possibly. It also did have the possibility to be a nice underdog win. After this past weekend, I was hesitant to deny the underdog team that chance. Error? Possibly, again. From now on, I will express my opinion if/when I facilitate, and I will leave it to the captains.. unless I see egregious failures. In those cases, I will have to ask.. should "Person X" really be captain again?

In regard to the "Are we live?"
I have a solution!

In TS3, there is a cool option called "Whisper List." It is simple to use, and in cases like this, a life saver. Each captain and the facilitator (and server controller, if not the same person as facilitator) will create a whisper list with each other in it. Bind key to whisper list, and even if in different sections of TS3 (as we are during matches/scrims), "whispering" to people on the list ignores where they are.. IOW, if me, Dank, Sasquatch and someone else are captains, facilitator and server controller and on that list, hitting the bound key allows us to communicate with each other. Facilitator and server controller ask captains for ready status, and/or captains simply let the facilitator know they are ready. Facilitator verifies, and then the game is started.

As for Rush scenarios...
It would seem that some would like a short reprieve between Attack and Defend rounds. As such, and since the 'WAR" aspect we are now utilizing allows it, I propose that after the first Attack/Defend round, we pause, end "WAR" (which will have all players swapped upon restart and then WAR stop), wait for "all ready" from both captains, and then re-engage the "WAR" command, which leaves players on proper teams upon restart.

Very lengthy, and open for confusion.. I might not have worded all of that well enough to be easily understood. Any questions, please ask. Shy of a better suggestion, I am 99.9% confident this would work like a charm.