Add More Faces and Formations to CC training

[Sock Monkey]

Name: Sock Monkey
RP Rank: Bacara
Suggestion: Remove faces & formations from the CC training & CC Exam


 
Implementation: Delete the two props that provide information on faces and formations and adjust the questions on the CC exam to reflect the removal. 

The following questions will be removed from the CC exam:

If a commanding officer calls face formations " L R A R F" Where would you be facing when completed?
 
If a commanding officer calls for a single column formation where would you line up?
 
If a commanding officer calls for a firing line what would you do?

Lore: sometimes

Other: 
Below is the pros and cons I believe the faces and formations provide to the community 

Pros: 
Enhances RP 
Standardized formations/faces all players know
Cons:
Prolongs the CC trainings/exam
Makes tryouts miserably boring
 
While there are lots of good things faces and formations bring, nobody actually uses them other than in trainings and tryouts. Afterward it's back to running around and shooting. Not all of the formations are even useful formations, the VIP and Prisoner diamond are taught, but who the hell would actually call those, its way easier to say “hey surround and protect the vip/surround and detain the enemy”. If battalions want to be unique and start utilizing formations they could easily create the RP through formation trainings in combat situations/simulations etc. There are ways these callouts can be utilized, but it doesn’t need to be taught to new players, and will speed up the training process and get them in the game faster, hopefully increasing our player population to users who would otherwise disconnect from the long training and make it so our trainers don't have to spend as much time and can get back to their battalions. 
 

[Daytona211]

+1 CT's are oppressed 

To be honest, most people already know them and I don't think they are really used for anything that important and the time could be better used to onboard players to the specifics of our server.

Edited December 16, 2021 by Daytona211

[Cox]

+1 had to be done

[Bleach]

+1 yes

[Spieler]

+1 I only ever see formations being used for marching rather than combat. Anyone can easily learn to hold down alt and follow the person in front of them, there's no need for it to be taught in a standardized format. 


now just add the TR program back

[Stroodle]

+1 If you really want your batt to use these then you can teach it to them yourself

[Maddoxx]

+1 I’ve never called formations or faces outside of tryouts or in a joking manner because that’s what they are, a joke. 
 

Even if you do want them just train your own recruits, no need to big down new players with “remember these useless formations and faces and all this other information so you can pass a test to actually play on the server.” Seems like it would just be easier if we ensured they had a understanding of the rules and let battalions teach them how to act in a battalion. 

[Whataburger]

+1 Cant wait to start stealing all the CC trains from NA's now. i h8 faces!

[Bacta]

+1 get fucked @Finn

[Katy]

I agree that faces and formations are useless beyond tryouts and trainings, but they still do serve a purpose. They aren't to test skill or any meaningful abilities, but they're good filler and can be a really basic competency test. Same for tryouts, they exist to make it easy for a brand new SGT to determine if a CT can even show slight competency to weed out those that can't do something as simple as faces and formations. Without faces and formations, what can you test? There's lore (which sucks for new people and is dumb), situation questions (also not that good for an entry tryout. This is more suited for ARF, HVY, SUP, etc. tryouts), Defcons and trigger discipline (outdated), sure, but that's a short fucken tryout. It's difficult to ask questions that are open ended like: "Why do you wish to join X?" since a brand new SGT might not catch if someone is being a minge or not. Most people would, but there are some that just won't.
So I'll ask this: what should replace faces and formations in tryouts and trainings (mostly tryouts) that a SGT can consistently evaluate and also provides decent filler?

[Guac]

4 hours ago, Katy said:

I agree that faces and formations are useless beyond tryouts and trainings, but they still do serve a purpose. They aren't to test skill or any meaningful abilities, but they're good filler and can be a really basic competency test. Same for tryouts, they exist to make it easy for a brand new SGT to determine if a CT can even show slight competency to weed out those that can't do something as simple as faces and formations. Without faces and formations, what can you test? There's lore (which sucks for new people and is dumb), situation questions (also not that good for an entry tryout. This is more suited for ARF, HVY, SUP, etc. tryouts), Defcons and trigger discipline (outdated), sure, but that's a short fucken tryout. It's difficult to ask questions that are open ended like: "Why do you wish to join X?" since a brand new SGT might not catch if someone is being a minge or not. Most people would, but there are some that just won't.
So I'll ask this: what should replace faces and formations in tryouts and trainings (mostly tryouts) that a SGT can consistently evaluate and also provides decent filler?

Its just the CC exam and training. You can keep them for battalion use at this point.

[Alec]

+1 faces and formations are the most useless shit ever

[Spaghetti]

to be fair advanced firing line is actually useful but if you really want it just teach it to your battalion. Faces and formations are literally just time wasters in tryouts. they can easily be replaced by something like making sure the person trying out knows the ranks and stuff like who to salute and who to call sir. It's not a perfect fix but I think that it has the same effect as faces and formations without taking 10 minutes.

+1

[Conrad]

6 hours ago, Katy said:

So I'll ask this: what should replace faces and formations in tryouts and trainings (mostly tryouts) that a SGT can consistently evaluate and also provides decent filler?

So when we where discussing that in high command, my mindset on what to replace it with, if you want something to replace it, is you as a battalion teaching faces and formations instead of just a quick test. This way you can slim them down to your own custom format that is relevant to your battalion. Only need faces? Then only teach faces. Want faces and how to stand in a line, go for it! Don't want anything? You do you! Its up to you the battalions to customize how and what you want to teach from this stuff!

Then in things like regimental tryouts you can test things you care about inside your battalion. Giving everything a more personalized touch.

Or you can change it up entirely. Turn regimental tryouts into trainings where you teach how to roleplay as a member of the regiment. Teach them their strengths and weaknesses in lore and push them to act accordingly. Use it as a new way to help teach and generate roleplay!

+1

Edited December 16, 2021 by Conrad

[Freck]

+1

[Finn]

Man I can't wait for CTs to know even less than before!

[Mater]

-1

[Kortnul]

+1 tryouts be like

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by Kortnul

[Comics]

18 hours ago, Sock Monkey said:

Prolongs the CC trainings/exam
Makes tryouts miserably boring

strange that you'd sight battalions tryouts as a reason we should change CC training itself. 

personally I believe formations and faces are a pretty regular skill utilised at least a small amount, I know it's not that common to see it used but that's cause people are lazy and they're not very well incentivised cause working as a team isn't as fun as going run and gun solo style. I think removing this from CC training literally turns it into "don't RDM, don't break PTS, here's how you sit down"

I mean realistically why don't we just have battalions teach CTs everything, cause that's sort of what we're asking for here. Battalions should take on the duties as educators for CTs to do basic shit. Then what's the point in CC training at all, yeah they're sort of annoying to learn but they're pretty essential to a lot of the military RP.

6 hours ago, Conrad said:

So when we where discussing that in high command, my mindset on what to replace it with, if you want something to replace it, is you as a battalion teaching faces and formations instead of just a quick test. This way you can slim them down to your own custom format that is relevant to your battalion. Only need faces? Then only teach faces. Want faces and how to stand in a line, go for it! Don't want anything? You do you! Its up to you the battalions to customize how and what you want to teach from this stuff!

Should battalions teach PTS too? What about how to set their name? Battalions don't wanna annoy their SGTs (who already do a bulk of annoying battalion work) with even more pointless drivel. 

this sort of cutting down on all things CCs have to learn basically brings in a larger wave of people with literally no idea what they're doing and more hassle for battalions to drill annoying shit into their heads all day.
Faces & Formations are shown to be a pretty universal thing that everyone can use. But by removing this from CC training HC should be forced to not call upon them in any situation, since it's no longer classed as basic training. I think this will seriously detract from RP. Also a separation from universal rules will means different battalions might develop all sorts of different ways of organising formations, sure this is great for each individual battalion but what happens when Palpatine wants a prisoner diamond? oh yeah, no one is gonna know what the fuck he means.
If we think the server will just keep using the same faces and formations in every battalion why force more work onto NCOs, TRs are there to teach all encompassing rules and policy, why are battalions being handed this random responsibility of educating on basics? 

These universal rules allow everyone to communicate in a basic common strategy, just because they aren't used doesn't mean we should just completely dump them. The server has a big issue with dumping shit we think is useless because we just don't choose to use it, I think we sort of need to rethink the way we deal with specific parts of the server and reconsider whether these things are actually useless or whether the community is too lazy to use them so we'll get rid of it to prevent it being a bothersome reminder that we are fucking lazy.

6 hours ago, Conrad said:

Or you can change it up entirely. Turn regimental tryouts into trainings where you teach how to roleplay as a member of the regiment. Teach them their strengths and weaknesses in lore and push them to act accordingly. Use it as a new way to help teach and generate roleplay!

people already do this? this is pretty common policy in battalions as far as I'm aware. I also have no idea how removing basic and server-wide agreed standard formations would promote this at all? if anything it's just reducing battalion inter dependency as each focuses on doing only things that suit their exact batt.
I'm all for personalised formations but it can't be the only thing we have otherwise batts will all be working off completely different basics

 

this also sorta feels like just another jump to cutting down on TR work even more, like what would we even class as the basic needs to function within the server?

-1

Edited December 16, 2021 by Comics

[Freck]

8 hours ago, Conrad said:

Or you can change it up entirely. Turn regimental tryouts into trainings where you teach how to roleplay as a member of the regiment. Teach them their strengths and weaknesses in lore and push them to act accordingly. Use it as a new way to help teach and generate roleplay!

Probably a hot take but this would make sense so long that specialisation tryouts also get yeeted.. having a tryout to become a heavy for example is so stupid.

 

 

[Maxwells]

@Sock MonkeyYou wrote the questions... 

[Maxwells]

This suggestion has been ACCEPTED.

// LOCKED

// MOVED TO [CW] SERVER SUGGESTIONS - ACCEPTED

[Jad]

This suggestion has been IMPLEMENTED.
(Suggestions that have been implemented into the server)