Why lead a squad?

[CuddlyChud]

I was playing BF3 the other day, and something occurred to me. Who would want to lead a squad? Its a huge responsibility, and without equal payoff very few will want to lead. More often than not, in a pub server you'll see half your team un-squadded. I'm sure there are a couple reasons for this, but I think mainly its no one wants the responsibility of starting a squad and being squad leader rather than not wanting to be in a squad.

Without CEP or CR, there's no incentive for the vast majority of players to lead squads, as shown by the battlefield series. I think BF3 tried to alleviate this problem with squad spawning and q-spotting orders, so squad leaders didn't feel as pressured. While I thought this was a good idea, it wouldn't really work for Planetside 2.

Planetside used the OS and the backpack/kneepads/armpads as incentives. But since the CR system is out, that's inconsequential.

Resources wouldn't really be an effective incentive unless the multiplier for squad leaders vs. squad members was huge (i.e. squad leaders got x3 or something).

The mission system might alleviate this problem a little by simple forcing squad creation, but that could just as likely lead to musical squad lead as each successive squad leader tries to pass the burden.

The dilemma I see is that either you make it so that minimal organization is needed to play the game (ala Battlefield 3) or in the other extreme you get the Planetside CR5 OS where being a commander has very powerful (and annoying) abilities/benefits.

Do you guys think this will be a problem? If so, what kind of incentives could be in the game to promote more squad leaders?

[basti]

I dont want any in game direct reward for leading.

I lead, because i can, because im good at it, and because i am capable of leading the Vanu to victory.
Thats all the reason i need.

[Zulthus]

Because there are people that enjoy leading.

[SKYeXile]

The incentive is leading a group of people to winning. In planetside, in pugs the squad leader never really lead the squad they just spammed invites out and took the CEP. With PS2's system we will see people who want to lead, lead the squads.

while ill probably invest very few points in squad leadership ill still likely lead lead some squads because..well im good at it and there are times when you need to focus and play as a group with 1 -2 people leading and not running around in the general proximity of eachother aimlessly.

[Bittermen]

There are leader certs in PS2.. right?

[CuddlyChud]

Because there are people that enjoy leading.
With PS2's system we will see people who want to lead, lead the squads.

My question is, are there enough relative to the number of people who want to play in a squad but don't want to lead. Without the added incentives, how many people are there really who would want that burden. My experience with the battlefield franchise would tell me not that many. At least not enough. Of course, its true that PS1 never really needed squadwork, you just had to follow the zerg. That being said, at least the CEP and CR system gave an incentive for people to, at the very least, form squads.

There are leader certs in PS2.. right?
But now they're tied to BR and training time I think, so that they directly compete with combat skills.

[Lonehunter]

With NO incentives what so ever I would still want to Squad Lead.

in simple terms, 9 minions with a boss is better then 10 minions

[Shogun]

commander certs are already confirmed, but we know almost nothing about them.

if the OS gets into the new game again, i hope they renew it, so you can only use it while you are actually leading a squad, and the timer starts for the whole squad instead of the individual soldier. if not, we will have the infamous OS rain again in one or two years.

so if there are real advantages to commander certs, grey them out until the commander really leads a squad.

[SgtMAD]

so now it was a " we will have the infamous OS rain again in one or two years.",
it took three or four years before it became an issue and the real problem was that after approx 8 years of playing it was weird if you DIDN'T have a CR5 or 2 or 5 LOL

[Graywolves]

I used to lead because I wanted to lead.

I could care less about being rewarded for it. Feeling somewhat responsible for victory makes me jizz my pants.

[CuddlyChud]

I must be the only person on this forum who doesn't like to squad lead...and yet I still managed to get to CR4.5 somehow.

Anyway, I made this post when I was starving and hadn't eaten dinner. Now that I have, I can't remember exactly what my thought process was when I wrote the OP :rolleyes:

Anyway, I still think its gonna be a problem, but maybe not a big enough problem for its own thread.

All I was trying to say is that I don't think 1 out of every 10 Planetside players enjoys leading, so what kind of added incentives are there? Its all well and good that you guys lead because you enjoy leading, but your not exactly representative of the Planetside populace in general. You're the hardcore-ish players who have followed the game on and off for 8 years.

[sylphaen]

Natural leaders do not need in-game benefits to lead.

The key part of that statement is "natural".

[ShockFC]

Natural leaders do not need in-game benefits to lead.

The key part of that statement is "natural".

This is very well said.

[Graywolves]

Dark Skyes had a leadership training program once.

[ThGlump]

Leading group of ppl effectively is enough of incentive for most of ppl.
Some enjoy only shooting, some vehicle combat, some medic/engi and some enjoy leading. This way everyone play what they want and nobody is forced to do something they dont like.
I didnt like how it was done in PS1. I dont like leading, im bad at it. But i felt forced to lead to get that CR5 OS and i didnt enjoy that time much (thanks for natural outfit leaders who let me leech cep :). I hope this system wont be back in PS2.

And there will be enough of incentives for leading. Just not only for leader, but for whole squad. And thats enough.

Edit: just noticed this.
Of course, its true that PS1 never really needed squadwork, you just had to follow the zerg.

PS1 never needed squad work? Zerg was there only as a cannon fodder. Most of true work was done by organized squads with leaders who lead because they like it not because they want cep.
What you said is true only for for those who dont like to lead and only spammed invites to get cep (because it had incentives). But those doesnt matter as they wasnt squads, they was only zerg.

[Traak]

I have found in PS that the reward for being an effective leader is being kicked out of outfits. Being tactically, strategically, and just plain IQ smarter than the boss is the fastest way to get fired from ANYTHING involving Americans, in my experience.

[xSlideShow]

I have found in PS that the reward for being an effective leader is being kicked out of outfits. Being tactically, strategically, and just plain IQ smarter than the boss is the fastest way to get fired from ANYTHING involving Americans, in my experience.

I disagree.

[CuddlyChud]

I just wanted to point out that I was never talking about the boutique outfit squads. I never had any doubt that gen droppers and max crashers and whatnot would be organized. I was specifically talking about the zerg, i.e. the majority of players whom you guys are writing off. I was thinking about how to give the average Joe an incentive to lead a squad. In Battlefield pub matches, chances are half your team is un-squaded, despite the obvious advantages being in a squad brings.

In regards to my comment about not needing squadwork, Higby once said in an early interview that you could go off and fly your mossie in circles and it wouldn't affect the team too much because of the sheer number of people. And its true. For the majority of players, doing crazy gen holds or whatever isn't normal gameplay. Most people are just doing their own thing towards the goal of taking the next base. And as much as you guys might disdain the zerg, without it, the game isn't all that great. So my question was, how do you give the average joe the incentive to lead a squad. Anyway, i feel like i'm floundering against the current here, so i'm just gonna leave it at that.

[XPquant]

You should come work for me sometime Traak, I bet I could change your impression. ;)

Leading is the single greatest addiction I have yet to come across in online gaming and I have planetside to thank for that. You might say I am a giant killer in that I look to challenge myself, doing things because they are hard, organizing combined arms controlled by real people under constant pressure is a great challenge. This is the arena that Alexander, Qin Shi Huang, Julius Ceaser, Atilla, Ghangus Khan and Nobonaga Oda played in.

Being a leader of men in any situation, even in a video game is one of those things that when done well is satisfying in way's nothing else is. So no I do not need any mechanics encouraging me. The only thing leaders need from a game is a way to receive intelligence.

[xSlideShow]

There will still be people who want to be SL even in the zerg.

Squad leaders will still pop up just because people find leading the squad fun. All they need is cool enough tools to make squad leading a fun way to level up/play. There will probably be fewer SL's or people with command rank, but you only need 1/10, if we keep the ps1 squad size.

[SteinB]

Giving players an incentive to lead squads just leads to bad squad leaders.

[SteinB]

I have found in PS that the reward for being an effective leader is being kicked out of outfits. Being tactically, strategically, and just plain IQ smarter than the boss is the fastest way to get fired from ANYTHING involving Americans, in my experience.

It takes real IQ smarts to lump an entire nation into one category.

[Rivenshield]

I lead squads because it's a natural extension of healing/fixing things. I like helping people. If I can score sweet sweet XP for it, so much the better.

[Xyntech]

I must be the only person on this forum who doesn't like to squad lead...and yet I still managed to get to CR4.5 somehow.

I don't really like leading either. I'm not horrible at it when I put my mind to it, I just generally don't like doing it. Telling people what to do doesn't give me any kind of power rush and having to worry about much more than myself, my objectives, the enemy, and watching my team mates backs just gets to be annoying for me.

There are tons of vets here on the forums who love to lead though. I'm sure the percentage will drop in the beta and even more in the full release, but there will always been a fair amount. Outfits will undoubtedly try to make sure to have a lot of leaders and motivate their members to learn and take up leadership. A decent percentage of new players who never played the first game will probably gravitate towards leadership for the same reasons that some of these diehard PS1 leaders did.

In the end, we may be shorter on volunteer squad leaders than in the first game, but is that really a bad thing? I bet you that the number of squads with ACTUAL leaders will go up significantly. What's the use of having a squad leader who doesn't lead? Just go solo, especially in PS2 where you will be able to take on missions.

I'm sure some people will still group together without a real leader if there are still experience perks to being in a squad, but how will that be much different than PS1? The only difference is that someone will have to start that squad without any reward of CEP to motivate them. If someone wants the XP perk of being in a squad badly enough, I'm sure they will start a squad. Just make it so that you can have an open squad that anyone can join freely without permission. That way a slacker squad leader doesn't have to spam to get new squad members. Less spam, better leaders, everybody wins.

[Zulthus]

^^^I'm with Xyntech. If I HAD to lead, I could manage it. I have in the past. I just don't like the pressure invovled with keeping your team safe and watching for all of the factors going against you. I feel much more at home receiving orders because I can concentrate on one objective. It's less stressful.

[FoxBait]

CuddlyChud, I might be misunderstanding your point here, but I'll go for it anyways.

It sounds like you're worried that, without an incentive, you won't see squads popping up randomly amongst the zerg (?). Now, I'm not really sure why this worries you for certain, whether its that there won't be enough squads for people that are actually looking be lead or that there won't be enough herding of the zerg forces.... but I'd like to think that the missions posted by people with a really high amount of command certs (missions that are seen by all the zerg) will manage to herd them much better than in PS1.

Really, it comes down to the question of what's the point of being in a squad in PS1? Besides the exp, which any random group of lone wolves can benefit from, squads in PS1 were the most deadly tool on the battle field when they were being led by someone who cared to doing any leading. Those are the kind of people who don't lead for the CEP, they do it because it's one of the things they enjoy about PlanetSide. No amount of incentive it going to change how many real squad leaders we see in PS2.

[Graywolves]

I have found in PS that the reward for being an effective leader is being kicked out of outfits. Being tactically, strategically, and just plain IQ smarter than the boss is the fastest way to get fired from ANYTHING involving Americans, in my experience.

The Persian Empire would've conquered the west had Phemistocles or w.e his name is hadn't convinced the Athens senators that someone else had posed a threat and that they should totally build ships to fight them.

The moral of the story is somewhere in there.

[DviddLeff]

I lead the Vindicators, and have done since 2003.

Why did I start in the first place? I saw a lack of general all round outfits as we waited for the game to start, and we filled that role.

Why do I still do it? Now its the pride and satisfaction of seeing my guys work together as friends to achieve things that they could not on their own.

In PS in particular its the times when your squad takes a tower with no casualties, hot drops from a Gal and crushes enemy tanks with a column of Mags.

The BF series has never had a good squad lead system; I like leading and in BF3 I have no idea how the squad system works when it comes to orders, as far as I know its just point at a capture point and press Q to give an attack/defend order.

What I want to see in PS2 is a similar context sensitive orders key that goes much beyond the BF series to something like the systems found in Star Wars: Republic Commando and Brothers in Arms. That would be a damned useful system.

[Coreldan]

I'm not much of a leader in anything myself, I operate the best in a semi-high position. As in, higher than the zerg, but lower than the true leaders. Just about every clan/guild/community I've been in I've ended up as sort of the officer who is asked opinion about everything, but doesnt really lead or give that much orders. Overall speaking I much rather and I'm much better at taking and executing orders than giving them.

With WASP expanding to PS2 though, I most likely have to do some squad/platoon leading at least at the start till we find someone more suitable for the job. Who knows, maybe I'll like it and keep doing it myself, but I sort of doubt it.

On another note, I often play quite short sessions, which isn't really too good of a thing considering that I'd be leading a squad :D

[ringring]

Wow, I am a little bit staggered by some of the replies above.

In my experience the vast majority of people do not want to lead and even then those that can are a fraction of that.

To address the point. Yes, there should be some incentive to lead. If some mechanism can be found to boost proper leadership then all to the good.

[Hamma]

There should be incentives to lead just because it shouldn't be a totally worthless thing to do.. but the incentives shouldn't make someone say "omg I have to lead or I won't get X"

As mentioned numerous times in this thread leaders aren't created by game systems.. they just lead.

[DviddLeff]

The Orbital Strike ability was a big mistake in PS1; everyone would want it including those that had no desire to actually lead.

[Extro]

In my opinion, the reason to lead is to have simple clear instructions. With 10 people running round all telling each other to go in different directions, nothing gets done quickly or efficiently.
With one person making the calls, even if the calls aren't always the best, it gives the team focus and allows people to understand the current objectives.

Just to point out I don't want to lead in PS2, I much prefer not having to call decisions but trying to complete objectives, no matter what they are. I'm lucky enough to have a few friends who love leading though :D

[Justaman]

Summation of thread:

I dont want any in game direct reward for leading.

I lead, because i can, because im good at it, and because i am capable of leading the Vanu to victory.
Thats all the reason i need.

I used to lead because I wanted to lead.

I could care less about being rewarded for it. Feeling somewhat responsible for victory makes me jizz my pants.

Natural leaders do not need in-game benefits to lead.

The key part of that statement is "natural".






commander certs are already confirmed, but we know almost nothing about them.

if the OS gets into the new game again, i hope they renew it, so you can only use it while you are actually leading a squad, and the timer starts for the whole squad instead of the individual soldier. if not, we will have the infamous OS rain again in one or two years.

so if there are real advantages to commander certs, grey them out until the commander really leads a squad.
OS has been confirmed, but its deep in the leadership certs, and as the dev's have said, you won't have as many points to put into actual combat certs if you use leadership certs for your load-out (because the certs are one and the same, leadership is just another "branch" in the certs tree)

Say you want to have OS, then you make a load-out with enough points in leadership to get it (probably pretty deep), now only what you have left can be put into actual combat certs for that load-out. Now you have OS and a bunch of leadership skills that are more logistical and only a few certs left to put into the direct combat "here's your gun" certs.

There won't be a way to do everything + have OS from the looks of it.

Smell that? Smells like balance....

[ThGlump]

So my question was, how do you give the average joe the incentive to lead a squad.

That incentive must come from him. If he want to lead squad then he will lead. Leading as a only reason to get cool stuff is usually bad leading. If you lead only by marking next base to conquer and then dont care, dont cooperate and squad is 10 lone wolfs with same target (ps1 zerg and bf3 style), then there is no reason you to lead.
And game should not encourage that lazy leading by giving big incentives to leaders.

[Crator]

In my opinion, the reason to lead is to have simple clear instructions. With 10 people running round all telling each other to go in different directions, nothing gets done quickly or efficiently.
With one person making the calls, even if the calls aren't always the best, it gives the team focus and allows people to understand the current objectives.

Just to point out I don't want to lead in PS2, I much prefer not having to call decisions but trying to complete objectives, no matter what they are. I'm lucky enough to have a few friends who love leading though :D

It's really hard to fathom right now since we don't have much info on the subject yet... I would really like to see a better command structure for PS2 though. I'm hoping for a tiered command structure between global and individual continent, or perhaps even continent Region, command leaders.

SOE hasn't said yet but my line of thought one this is what if squad leaders aren't tied/restricted to the command certifications. Or perhaps there's only a few command certs that more dedicated SLs will want to pick up but won't take that long or too many cert points away from them.

In the end, I'm hoping those that go far into the command cert tree will get tools to help them lead everyone on a global level while still having regular squad leaders that integrate with those higher command rank tools. Some sort of mechanic to control who is in charge on a global command level might also need to be implemented so mass confusion doesn't ensue due to too many chiefs trying to run the show...

[Vancha]

Planetside used the OS and the backpack/kneepads/armpads as incentives. But since the CR system is out, that's inconsequential.

Why did no one jump on this?

There's a difference between forming a squad and actually leading a squad. It was quite possible to get CR5 just by inviting randoms/zerg and going with the flow. None of those rewards were incentives to lead, they were incentives to form squads.

Personally I didn't really like leading squads. I lead an outfit for a time which I wasn't particularly great at, but I certainly enjoyed being an empire commander. Discussing what to do in command chat, predicting what would happen in the big picture and trying to persuade the zerg to do the right thing or head to the right target was great.

The OS and backpack weren't an incentive for that. I wanted access to command chat, but only so I could to some extent influence what was going on.

I don't think BF3 is a great example to use for comparison. The rounds are timed and the teams are fluid. People in Planetside build a loyalty to their team and rivalry with the enemy. They invest much more of themselves into their character, their empire and form relationships with allies and enemies alike. They can't just disconnect and join another server unless they're willing to start a new character.

Granted, the number of people who both enjoy and are good at leading are few, but I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. In Planetside, there were egos that got in each other's way as it was and if Planetside 2 is at all successful, there'll be far more egos vying for power than there were in it's predecessor.

[Lonehunter]

Giving players an incentive to lead squads just leads to bad squad leaders.

I think this point is the main thing the devs should keep in mind while developing a Commander Cert tree, or any abilities rewarded for leading. Everyone wanted to be CR5 in PS just for the OS, and then they'd quit. The things rewarded for squad leading should only be beneficial to a squad leader(in a way that helps him help the empire), if done right regular grunts won't want to get these perks.

[ARosaria]

I would lead a squad, a whole army if need be, I only do not lead on pubs. To be able to lead (and have fun) you need people that want to be led, and often in public games most don't want to be led.

[Xyntech]

Incentives to lead would be a good thing, but only if they reward actual leadership. Make people want to lead, not just pretend to lead in order to unlock combat bonuses.

It won't be for everyone and it shouldn't be for everyone, but there should absolutely be some kind of rewards for leading.

Just think of it like any other part of the game. There are rewards for flying an aircraft. Are those rewards the main reason people fly aircraft? No, they fly because they like to (or because they are killwhoring, hopefully it's a bit more balanced in PS2). Leadership should be the same way. You should get rewards for leading, but you should primarily be doing it because it's something you enjoy.

I'll say it again. What's the point of having a million squad leaders who don't actually lead? It's not like your missing out on anything because you don't have a bunch of absentee leaders running a ton of squads. You're better off knowing that the squad leaders who you do find are probably actually interested in leading.

[Crator]

I think the issue with that, Xyntech, is it is hard to quantify leadership via game mechanics. How do you measure the leadership in-game to provide the appropriate award? And then, once you have those stats, what do you actually reward for the leadership?

[DviddLeff]

I think the issue with that, Xyntech, is it is hard to quantify leadership via game mechanics. How do you measure the leadership in-game to provide the appropriate award? And then, once you have those stats, what do you actually reward for the leadership?

How to to track and reward is to provide bonuses for:

healing squad members
equipping squad members
transporting squad members
avenging squad members
killing near (varying distance based on weapon or vehicle used) your squad leader
killing squad spotted targets
performing leader directed actions in a combat zone
completing missions from your leader
having your squad mates spawn on you


If you make it significantly more experience for working with your squad you are going to encourage teamwork.

Now that all applies to your average squad grunt; what's in it for the leader? Giving them a proportion of all the squads XP is unfair; they will progress much quicker than the grunts if that is the case.

In my eyes leaders must have a separate advancement system for it but the rewards should only be tools to allow them to better command, not get free kills every 3 hours.

[ThGlump]

I think the issue with that, Xyntech, is it is hard to quantify leadership via game mechanics. How do you measure the leadership in-game to provide the appropriate award? And then, once you have those stats, what do you actually reward for the leadership?

How to reward leadership? How about giving them more, and easier tools for leading. PS1 did it well until cr3 (drawing battleplans was great benefit for better leading), but screwed it all by giving OS to cr4+. That made everyone want it even those who dont lead.

Reward for leading should be always stuff that affect leading.

[Furret]

The reward for leading should be getting shit done. (And a pretty global message giving credit where it's due ;D)

Someone posted about convincing the average joe that he wants to lead.

We don't want to do that. The people who are capable of leadership, and are interested in working towards organizing their troops will volunteer their cert/hours to leadership, they don't need a pretty OS at the end of the tunnel to motivate them. Its the same with grunts, you don't need to motivate them to kill, they just kill because its fun.

I wouldn't worry about the balance between leaders/grunts, it'll reach an equilibrium. Too many leaders, the people who don't care as much will realize they're not really being heard, and reassign their points. Too few leaders, the people who only care a bit will step up to the plate to get things done.

[CuddlyChud]

I kinda feel like a lot of people are saying that its better to have no squad leader than a poor squad leader, which seems ridiculous to me. Ideally, if there are 10 person squads, exactly 10% of the population will want to lead, which isn't something I think would naturally happen.

[ThGlump]

Well you said it yourself
its true that PS1 never really needed squadwork, you just had to follow the zerg.

Those "leaders" that only get bunch of ppl, and then dont care about leading and dont work as a squad, those we can live without. They didnt not care about leading, it was all for personal benefit to get that overpowered OS. Thats why most here is against some personal combat benefit for leading.

And whats difference between 10 ppl that dont cooperate, and 10 ppl that dont cooperate but have been invited by pseudoleader that want only cep? Without benefits those who actually want lead will do it. Rest would only invite ppl and the do nothing, and those leaders wont be missed.

[SgtMAD]

you ppl keep telling yourself that PS1 never needed teamwork,you will still be the ones that get raped every time you run up against any outfit that uses teamwork as a basic principle,then you can ran back to the forums and cry about squads needing a nerf because they are too OP.

whats funny is all we ever saw was TRx cheats, DT sucks, Ht uses cheap tactics,PcP never "played" for the TR empire,FC was a bunch of reaver campers,Vindicators,Mercs all sucked the one thing these outfits all had in common was the strong teamplay associated with each group.

so I am all for all you not squadding up,go ahead and run around solo,it makes generating a farm so much more easier so I can keep my killwhores happy and playing PS2 longer instead of getting bored and moving on to the next game

[CuddlyChud]

so I am all for all you not squadding up,go ahead and run around solo,it makes generating a farm so much more easier so I can keep my killwhores happy and playing PS2 longer instead of getting bored and moving on to the next game

I don't think anyone in this thread wants people not to squad up. The entire point was how to encourage people to create squads. Even if they're not particularly good leaders or don't particularly like to lead. Squads were an important feature of the game. Even if you're squad wasn't particularly organized (which most weren't, unless I was playing a completely different game from all you for all those years), you could share xp, see each other on the map, and people were generally more willing to help out squad members than they were randoms.

I'm not saying bring back the OS. I'm not saying squad-work is useless so no one should be able to squad up. I just wanted to point out that CEP and CR were a large factor in the number of squads that ran around in PS1, and I think without some form of incentive, more people will lonewolf, due to lack of space in squads. This is simply something i've seen in games like BF2, BF2142 and BF3

[ThGlump]

you could share xp, see each other on the map, and people were generally more willing to help out squad members than they were randoms.

If thats all you want from squad, you dont need leader. You can just group with someone into squad. No reason there should be some benefit/incentive for leader, if nobody lead and you only play as a group. If that is all they expect from squad then that will be enough incentive to form a squad.

[Xyntech]

If thats all you want from squad, you dont need leader. You can just group with someone into squad. No reason there should be some benefit/incentive for leader, if nobody lead and you only play as a group. If that is all they expect from squad then that will be enough incentive to form a squad.

Especially with the option to have your squad open for anyone to join freely.

Want the XP bonus? Join an open squad. No open squads? Form one and wait for like minded individuals to join. It won't take long in a high population environment.

No rewards needed at all.

Again, I have no problem with there being rewards for leading, but they should be rewards for ACTUALLY leading, not just being the figurehead of a squad. I don't receive any reward for carrying a medigun around, I only get rewarded for using it.

[NCLynx]

For simple 10 man squads? I've never seen a "leader" be 100% necessary. Even without a leader in said squad 10 people who work together will get more done than a single loner. Just because there's a group deciding where to go as a team instead of one person giving orders doesn't make it any less effective.

I can even see that working in 40 man platoons (they have been bumped up to 40 IIRC) albeit probably a little more hectic, so yes I can see a leader being more useful in that situation.

I guess what I'm getting at is we don't need to worry about there being a "lack of leaders", there will always be enough people willing to lead. What we SHOULD be worried about are the amount of people willing to lead that can lead *well*.

[GuvNuh]

For me the sight of 50 people bumbling around in a killzone for 45 minutes getting mauled is enough incentive to take a leadership role. It Sickens me. There is ALWAYS a better way than simply slamming 50 idiots who don't communicate into a defense and hoping for the best. If you've played planetside in the past 2 years, your opinion of leadership is accurate and understandable, but trust me on this-Active leadership does make a difference. It's the difference between a galaxy taking 5 minutes to load versus 30 seconds to load and take off. It's the difference between a dozen tanks fighting individually, and getting picked off for it, and working as a unit, covering yer injured, and either stomp the enemy or making it out alive.

As i said, played planetside anytime in the last 2 years a sour attitude on leadership is understandable, but good leadership does make a difference. If nothing else it's a guy yelling "STOP" tossing out a jammer grenade, and saving you from that boomer hidden in the door you didn't even suspect was there.